Ancient Alien theory

[psyche101]

You might do If I contribute,

As soon as I have time I'll post some findings here so that no one misses out with there being dual threads.

I do not think two threads with 600 pages of the same stupid question is considered an actual contribution. Don't feel pressured to help with the post count or anything. I am sure the boys can do fine with real information, you have your thread for fantasy Aliens.

accusing people of deliberately breaking the rules in order to troll? That's scraping the barrel of desperation, isn't it?

Whilst that it is, it is not unexpected.

[psyche101]

The stonework will always be the killer though.

The most solid tangible evidence and it will never be destroyed.

It is indeed solid tangible evidence that you are not an engineer, and have not an inkling about building principals. Everyone else in the forum has learned more about stone masonry then they every expected or wanted to. Only one person remained in the dark, you. And we can see that it is deliberate.

[psyche101]

Saying of Zoser:

Two AA threads are better than one.

I'll just wait for the right moment to strike. Once the philosophy is spent, Zoser will enter the room like a heat seeking missile.

See you soon.

Don't be angry please.

There is still much more to be revealed.

Repeating the same inane question over and again is not "revealing" anything more than deliberate ignorance.

[psyche101]

Watch the first few minutes of this. Hutchinson demonstrates powering a small motor from a lump of rock.

[media=]

[/media]

Embarrassing. A few electromagnets can fool you hey.

LINK

Edited March 22, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

take a read of this, it does offer a glimmer of hope

http://www.extremete...s-are-plausible

Not to burst anyones bubble but from that link:

This is certainly exciting news, but it’s important to remember that the true breakthrough — proof that Alcubierre’s designs actually work — do not exist.

[badeskov]

Embarrassing. A few electromagnets can fool you hey.

LINK

That actually explains a lot...sadly.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

That actually explains a lot...sadly.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I just had to express that

Good to se you around mate.

[S2F]

I just had to express that

Good to se you around mate.

Finally, there is a website devoted solely to 9/11 "anomalies" at the World Trade Center [WTC] that are being attributed to the Hutchison effect. It's quite inventive. Many readers will be surprised to find out that "free energy technology, related to Hutchison Effect technology, was used to destroy the majority of the WTC complex [on 9/11].

Edited March 22, 2013 by Slave2Fate

[Hazzard]

Good to se you around mate.

All work and no play, am I right, Badeskov? If for nothing else, take some time off,... I miss reading your posts.

Also,... Its been a while since someone stuck his face in the toilet as far down as poor zoser did with the Hutchison Effect.

People really need to check their sources.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Hazzard

[IamsSon]

But Ive not completely made my argument yet. As said there will be a few sections! Each building on the previous...

But are you willing to grant that your first argument is not really very strong?

[IamsSon]

That's ridiculous. Convergeant evolution is proof life will adapt to fil a niche despite it's origin, all you are looking for is a creationist argument, are you sick of the S&S forum? What does the initial spark of life have to do with the debate about Megalithic Structures's and proof that man constructed them, not the fanciful claims the resident zealot troll has made in the forum with as well as simply lying all along the way? The methods here show the claims on the AA show, which are echoed through their trolling mouthpiece here have indeed been in every way refuted soundly and examples given that do live up the their claims, unlike the clams made by the credulous zealot running around with the tin foil hat on his head. I do not think a thread about the AA show is an appropriate place for a p***ing contest about God. A forum exists for that purpose already.

The argument is certainly valid, it might pay to pont out any grievances you have with it instead of pushing the creationist argument in a subtle manner. Are the ET whacko's a last resort for creationist recruits or something? Simon Conway Morris seems to have a decent grasp on the subject you are approaching, but here there is no doubt that the claims made to date by the aforementioned sources are indeed outright lies that have been created to embellish a tall tale, obviously to make a few dollars from a poorly evidence entertainment show, and have been soundly refuted with verifiable means and evidences. If you have a problem with poorly evidenced claims for the intital spark of life, then you really ought to be more than disgusted in the claims made the the resident troll, and the outlandishly poor quality of the so called "History Channel" series. It is after all, and extreme and deliberate example of that which you protest.

I understand your naturalist religious views might have taken a hit there and you, like any good religious zealot, feel you have to strike back, and your reading comprehension may have also frizted out in that moment of religious self doubt, but if you notice, the actual point I was making was that the argument that all the necessary coincidences required for extra-terrestrial intelligent beings to visit Earth make it so unlikely an event as to of themselves prove this never happened is weak since the theory--or theories really--of natural descent from a common ancestor require such fantastic coincidences and so many of them as to make the coincidences required for alien visitation seem trivial in comparison and yet those theories are supposedly good science.

What about the refutation of the silly claims made by AA proponents in the above example would you call a "weak argument"?

My argument was not directed at these examples simply at the argument based on coincidences. Edited March 22, 2013 by IamsSon

[TheSearcher]

I prefer this one, because damned but it's needed

[scowl]

Watch the first few minutes of this. Hutchinson demonstrates powering a small motor from a lump of rock.

Now tell us Zoser... why it is generating the power?

[Esoteric Toad]

I understand your naturalist religious views might have taken a hit there and you, like any good religious zealot, feel you have to strike back, and your reading comprehension may have also frizted out in that moment of religious self doubt, but if you notice, the actual point I was making was that the argument that all the necessary coincidences required for extra-terrestrial intelligent beings to visit Earth make it so unlikely an event as to of themselves prove this never happened is weak since the theory--or theories really--of natural descent from a common ancestor require such fantastic coincidences and so many of them as to make the coincidences required for alien visitation seem trivial in comparison and yet those theories are supposedly good science.

My argument was not directed at these examples simply at the argument based on coincidences.

The idea that aliens are easier to grasp coming here versus life evolving from a single ancestor is ridiculous What you are saying, I gather, is that life could evolve on another planet to the point of extreme intelligence, come here, muck about and then leave. We may have evolved from a single life form, but it branched out into millions (guessing there). It is not like there is a single line straight to the first bacteria. It also likely took many millions of years for anything to happen at all. I'll freely admit, I cannot imagine things on that scale but I am able to grasp the idea that A LOT of things can happen of that period of time.

So if it is more likely that aliens came here versus or evolution, where did the aliens come from?

[Quaentum]

I prefer this one, because damned but it's needed

I like this one. I saved it and the link but now my list of links is gone so I can't credit the actual person who made it. i Think it's based on Picard

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . _________

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}

. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\

. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

[Space Commander Travis]

So is this just going to be a festival of facepalms, then?

[IamsSon]

The idea that aliens are easier to grasp coming here versus life evolving from a single ancestor is ridiculous What you are saying, I gather, is that life could evolve on another planet to the point of extreme intelligence, come here, muck about and then leave. We may have evolved from a single life form, but it branched out into millions (guessing there). It is not like there is a single line straight to the first bacteria. It also likely took many millions of years for anything to happen at all. I'll freely admit, I cannot imagine things on that scale but I am able to grasp the idea that A LOT of things can happen of that period of time.

"Millions of years did it" is the "God did it" of the naturalist religion and not an actual scientific explanation of anything. It is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking and here's why. Let's imagine a much much simpler process than having a living molecule result in every living organism, current or extinct, on the planet.

Suppose you have a 1,000 piece puzzle of a lion devouring a baby zebra. Suppose you also have a box made in the length and width proportions of the completed puzzle. If you dump the puzzle into the box, how many billions of years of completely random jostling and shaking will it take to have the puzzle assembled?

So if it is more likely that aliens came here versus or evolution, where did the aliens come from?

From the same process that we and all life on our planet came from.

[seeder]

"Millions of years did it" is the "God did it" of the naturalist religion and not an actual scientific explanation of anything. It is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking and here's why. Let's imagine a much much simpler process than having a living molecule result in every living organism, current or extinct, on the planet.

Suppose you have a 1,000 piece puzzle of a lion devouring a baby zebra. Suppose you also have a box made in the length and width proportions of the completed puzzle. If you dump the puzzle into the box, how many billions of years of completely random jostling and shaking will it take to have the puzzle assembled?

From the same process that we and all life on our planet came from.

Tell you what. Why dont you just come out of the closet and say what it is YOU actually believe was the cause of man. And your beliefs on ancient visitation, (less any religious angles pls) Then we know where you're coming from dont we, so, if you will?

[Harte]

It's obvious from his name, if you know who I Am is.

I have no problem at all with faith. My problem is with unscientific critiques of science.

One's faith should not rest on some scientific belief. It doesn't work that way.

A believer should be humble enough to note that, though his faith doesn't explain the how, the who is without question. Trying to claim how wrong science is displays a certain weakness in faith similar to the many Medeival "proofs" of the existence of God.

Harte

[IamsSon]

Tell you what. Why dont you just come out of the closet and say what it is YOU actually believe was the cause of man. And your beliefs on ancient visitation, (less any religious angles pls) Then we know where you're coming from dont we, so, if you will?

I pointed out that the rationale you used in the first part of your refutation of the AA theory is weak since there are other theories which many consider valid despite the amazing number of coincidences required.

My personal view is that God created man and that He interacted with man on a very close and personal basis early on, and that because of that interaction, Adam and Eve knew more about biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, than we may ever learn since they got their information directly from the being that developed all of those systems; and that, therefore, they may have been technologically much more advanced than we give them credit. Additionally, I believe there have always been extra-terrestrial and extra-dimensional (and possibly extra-temporal) beings interacting and interfering with humanity throughout history.

Unfortunately for you, what I believe or don't believe has no bearing on the strength of your argument so far... unless you also do not subscribe to any of the descent from a common ancestor "theories" because you think they require too many coincidences to be viable as scientific theories.

It's obvious from his name, if you know who I Am is.

I have no problem at all with faith. My problem is with unscientific critiques of science.

One's faith should not rest on some scientific belief. It doesn't work that way.

A believer should be humble enough to note that, though his faith doesn't explain the how, the who is without question. Trying to claim how wrong science is displays a certain weakness in faith similar to the many Medeival "proofs" of the existence of God.

Harte

The thing is, not agreeing with one particular theory, or even whether a particular idea or belief is a theory or not is not in any way the same as attacking all of science or even disagreeing with science. Quite a few of the scientific truths we know today owe at least part of their existence to someone disagreeing with what was considered the truth. Requiring or even expecting someone to agree with an idea they see as having rational, logical, and even scientific inconsistencies, is what is unscientific. Edited March 22, 2013 by IamsSon

[Space Commander Travis]

I've heard it said, just to play devil's, as it were, advocaat, that Science explains "how", but doesn't perhaps explain "Why", and that's where the question of God, however you might want to think of him/it, might come in. But iI'm not intending to go down the God vs, Science road, that's almost as interminable an argument as Incredible Precision.

[Esoteric Toad]

"Millions of years did it" is the "God did it" of the naturalist religion and not an actual scientific explanation of anything. It is pure, unadulterated wishful thinking and here's why. Let's imagine a much much simpler process than having a living molecule result in every living organism, current or extinct, on the planet.

Suppose you have a 1,000 piece puzzle of a lion devouring a baby zebra. Suppose you also have a box made in the length and width proportions of the completed puzzle. If you dump the puzzle into the box, how many billions of years of completely random jostling and shaking will it take to have the puzzle assembled?

From the same process that we and all life on our planet came from.

By chance it could happen in an hour.

It is no less possible than a omnipotent being doing it. Also who says the puzzle has to be complete to work? There in is a problem with creationist thinking. All or nothing. I would rather put my faith in science because it will admit when it does not know and will continue to search for answers whereas if we ascribe everything to God there is no need to know.

This is off topic really so I will leave it at that.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Esoteric Toad

[mcrom901]

Adam and Eve knew more about biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, than we may ever learn since they got their information directly from the being that developed all of those systems; and that, therefore, they may have been technologically much more advanced than we give them credit.

Edited March 22, 2013 by mcrom901

[IamsSon]

By chance it could happen in an hour.

It is no less possible than a omnipotent being doing it. Also who says the puzzle has to be complete to work? There in is a problem with creationist thinking. All or nothing. I would rather put my faith in science because it will admit when it does not know and will continue to search for answers whereas if we ascribe everything to God there is no need to know.

This is off topic really so I will leave it at that.

Frankly, I must say I am impressed with the incredible level of faith you have. Edited March 22, 2013 by IamsSon

[Harte]

The thing is, not agreeing with one particular theory, or even whether a particular idea or belief is a theory or not is not in any way the same as attacking all of science or even disagreeing with science. Quite a few of the scientific truths we know today owe at least part of their existence to someone disagreeing with what was considered the truth. Requiring or even expecting someone to agree with an idea they see as having rational, logical, and even scientific inconsistencies, is what is unscientific.

Maybe you've recognized over these years Iamson that I hesitate to criticize you with gusto in the way that I so rashly do to others. This is in deference to your faith. I am in awe of faith.

However, allow me to point out that the part of science you are criticizing is not just something someone dreamed up one day. It is predicated on hundreds of actual scientific facts, none of which are in question.

The fact of evolution is observable. The only question is, how do we describe it in a way that makes predictions that can be tested.

There is no question about the evolution part, though. Also, there is simply no question that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, and was not made in 7 seven days, and that humans have been here for hundreds of thousands of years, with their precursors being here for millions.

On the other hand, you have a 3,000 year old myth.

Can we not agree that it is possible that God created the universe in such a way as to make the rise of Man inevitable? Do we really need to believe we were shaped from clay? Do we actually have to believe that women came from a man's rib?

How is it that God is so powerful, yet he cannot possibly have created a physical system in which life would self-generate and then progress over time to more complex forms?

It's a small thing. It's not sinful to believe it.

Harte

Edited March 22, 2013 by Harte