Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Do you believe in extra- terrestrials?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 335 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 09:55:51 BDT
Erm Genes being Unique to a species is not actually unique at all.

Read some more fact and less sci fi mr scientologist

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 09:58:37 BDT
""The archeologist who showed us round said that modern day stone masons had tried to replicate the high level of craftsmanship with the tools available over 2000 years ago...
They struggled and had to resort eventually to more modern means of working to complete the same tasks."
Not surprising. I'm quite proficient at my job, I use computers and can achieve very complex designs quite easily. I can't operate with the equipment and tools used by graphic designers a few decades ago to achieve more simplistic results. It's how things work, we're comfortable with what we are used too, and we're not used to outdated methods of the ancients that are frustratingly slow and less accurate than what we know we can do."

Also the pyramids, at least the Egyptian ones, started construction at the time the Pharoah took the throne to be ready just before he died, they spent 20+ years building each one, did this modern day team have 20 years to try and replicate it?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 09:58:52 BDT
The hollow earth is a theory still going for some reason from the odl days even after we have conclusively proved that the earth is not hollow if it were we'd all be dead.

The geology of our earth which scientists have studied for hundreds of years all would not work as it does unless we have a molten core etc etc, sorry its just bunkum.

Not saying all ET sightings are as how would I know for sure, but hollow earth is a concpet you can dismiss quite accurately

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:01:26 BDT
So all the reports of people hwo have converesed with God and seen signs and witnssed misracles all must be true also.

And yet they are not, surely all psychics and paranaormal activity must be true also, but they are not.

As Gregory House so well put it.

People Lie

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:05:10 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"You are quite right about the biggest block still being situated in the quarry but the other three known 1,000+ tonners are now part of a wall. Ground X-Ray surveys have revealed there are many more similarly shaped/dressed blocks beneath the modern ground surface. Apparently quarrying work at the stopped suddenly, these other shaped/dressed blocks were slowly buried by the passing of time."
I don't know what exactly you are trying to say with these things, do you think it re-establishes your original conspiracy theories? I see you haven't addressed the fact that the quarries that relate to Baalbek are above the build site which means gravity can greatly reduce the amount of work required to move the stones.

"Have you noticed that you are disregarding the official 'Temple' description? This so-called temple is actually a relatively crude, obviously man made construction which does incorporate some of the building stone available. Unfortunately it's imposible at present to accurately date when stone was worked so the traditionalists blythly state that the megalithic blocks were 'votive offerings constructed to 'appease' the Gods. Well, with the best will in the world, I do not find that explanation convincing."
Here I see a conclusion given but little reasoning leading to it. I don't disregarding the description that it is a 'Temple', it very much looks like a Roman temple to me. Being unable to satisfy your tastes restricted by requirements for a date to fit with your conspiracies is not the same as being unable to date the stone work.

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why call it a tiger?"
I'm not the one calling ducks tigers. It's you dressing things up with mischaracterisations, omissions and willful ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:07:29 BDT
Must have been aliens using an anti gravity device, ohnly explanatiuon case closed.

CW, Im am convinced and a ssuch I ahve decided to worship these otherwrdly beings as Gods, so how do I get into scientology classes.

Im ready to commit my beleiefs.

Thanks for all your advice.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:10:05 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Sam I've noticed on our few discourses on this forum and the politics forum you are always ready to jump in and try and trip me up on anything I have written,
Usually on the back of another poster who I have had a difference of opinion with,
Maybe you are religous and I have said written something that has upset you - I dont know and to be honest I dont really care as I dont get any enjoyment out of reading your comments as usually they are put downs of other peoples posts.
I not worried about winning a popularity contest on here Sam so I will continue to write what I think where I want rather than pander to the popular vote like some posters on this forum.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:20:15 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Einstein's theory of relativity is being challenged now though,
So perhaps what has been accepted as gospel by scientists may change in the near future,
Thirty years ago would any of us posting on this forum have envisaged the internet?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:24:11 BDT
G. Heron says:
Dav45

"So perhaps what has been accepted as gospel by scientists may change in the near future"

Scientists don't accept anything as gospel, Einsteins theories of relativity have both been tested over and over again and as new technology allows new tests to be made they are.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:26:06 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Thirty years ago would any of us posting on this forum have envisaged the internet?"
If I was posting on this *internet* forum thirty years ago I'd probably have no more problem envisaging the internet than I do now.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:30:31 BDT
Maybe I'm religious? You really don't read much around here, do you...

And if you think that pointing out where you're wrong is putting you down then you have a lot to learn.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:46:10 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
"Maybe I'm religious? You really don't read much around here, do you..."

No I dont as I dont really have much interest in finding out what your views are Sam or many other posters on here simply because you seem to be more interested in scoring points over trivial issues rather than being interested in the discussion itself,
I dont recollect saying I had been put down rather I am puzzled at your hostility towards me,
Furthermore I have plenty to learn Sam but not from you or many other posters on this forum

Posted on 18 Jul 2012 10:46:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2012 12:07:53 BDT
Reply to Mr Clark.

First your point about 'unique genes' having been found in other species (not just humanity) is interesting and I should like to develop it. Could you post a few relevant Wikipedia/You Tube links? I was a professional soldier not a scientist when younger, so my 'scientific' knowledge is admittedly patchy.

Second. My point about the Temple was not meant to belittle Roman building achievements. It was intended to illustrate that their splendid efforts were still clearly within human capabilities. According to Wikipedia the site is now home to an Islamic terrorist training camp. Imagine that in two/three thousand years from now, an archeologist rediscovered the place, recognised pock-marks on the stones as bullet damage and suggested the entire thing had been the work of 20th Century bandits? That would obviously be absurd, but it's similar to what's being said/done today. The temple may well be Roman. There may well have been an earlier Carthaginian equivalent. That does not mean however that a vastly older quarry (with strong indications of advanced technology usage?) did not predate both structures however. It would also explain why the site was originally considered 'sacred/holy' wouldn't it?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 10:55:55 BDT
Lol, no, its easy to see you aint religious Sam.
But as a believer in evolution, you accept evolved originally from single cell type things to what we are now?
Whats to say that single cell lifeforms didn't evolve elsewhere, millions of years before we did, and are now millions of years ahead technology wise?
Inter stella travel seems impossible to us, but to an advanced race in another galaxy, it could well be an everyday event. We just don't know and cant say for sure. Probability alone suggests there will probably be a race more advanced than our own, given that other solar systems are older than ours. Its good to have an open mind and religiously speaking, I tend to agree with most of what you say.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:02:01 BDT
So either you have read my posts our you haven't... Make up your mind which it is. I think on evidence that you haven't, in which case I won't put much stock in what you think of me.

Perhaps you should take the time to read what people post instead of just assuming that disagreement with you requests to hostility.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:16:15 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"According to Wikipedia the site is now home to an Islamic terrorist training camp."
There is no mention of a terrorist training camp located in or around Baalbek on the Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek

Posted on 18 Jul 2012 11:26:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2012 11:32:49 BDT
Good point PP. Although we have indisputable proof that evolution does/has occured on this planet over most of it's existence, it's impossible to say evolution alone created the human intellect, while recent genetic discoveries seem to be showing it did not.

As to the merit/defects of religion; I can easily accept that highly advanced extra-terrestial 'visitors' would be regarded as Gods by sub-human Neanderthal types. I can also understand how from such beginnings, the Great Religions of the World could develop over time. Personally, I do have difficulty accepting the mystical, all seeing 'Spirit in the Sky' aspects of religion so many find attractive BUT I would not disparage those beliefs as there are immense amounts of knowledge currently way beyond humanities comprehension, let alone understanding. Your point about interstellar travel illustrates this nicely.

P.S. Keep looking Mr Jones, you'll find it eventually, unless of course the US Military have moved them on?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:29:11 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
I read any comments that you have addressed to me,
Anything else written by yourself I tend to skip over as usually as I have said they are more concerned with scoring points over other people than actually being interested in the issue under discussion,
I dont agree with a lot of what C W posts but I do read all his posts thoroughly as he seems to put a lot of thought and effort into them as well as seeming to have a genuine interest in the subject under discussion,
Rather than the petty point scoring and sarcastic one liners which seem to be the preserve of many on here.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:36:09 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Anything else written by yourself I tend to skip over as usually as I have said they are more concerned with scoring points over other people than actually being interested in the issue under discussion,"
Point scoring I assume means showing someone else to be somehow wrong or inaccurate, how does that show no interest in the issue under discussion? To my mind the opposite, not caring for accuracy, the validity of content or having any counterpoints made would be a sign that someone is not interested in the issue.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:55:23 BDT
As you are going on such a small selected sample, your evaluation will necessarily be limited and inaccurate.

It doesn't matter how well thought out a post is or the interest it shows, if the content is wrong, partially or completely, then it's wrong. If the person then gets annoyed when this is pointed out to them, it says more about that person than others.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 11:58:16 BDT
I have contributed to this Forum little as I find compared to other Forums a certain sect who will wade in to back each other up regardless of what has been written.
The point in this discussion over the type of machanical aids used thousands of years ago is beside the point under analysis.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have grasped that there are rollers winches and rudimentary cranes available during that time and consequently the discussion should have moved on instead of someone questioning why a user had not included these in his comparison.
There is much point scoring on here and vanity underlined by the remark below:

'And if you think that pointing out where you're wrong is putting you down then you have a lot to learn.'

I doubt if anybody knows each other personally on here,so to arrogantly assume that another user has a lot to learn makes me smile.

I'm 79 and the user who has written the comment above about another poster on here could be a 15 year old schoolboy which judging from his petulant remarks could very well be.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 12:01:53 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2012 12:03:23 BDT
The content may seem wrong to you my friend.
To arrogantly assume that everyone else who writes a comment that you disagree with should bow to you and agree with you that what they have written is wrong is a higher level of arrogance that is painful to witness.

Posted on 18 Jul 2012 12:04:52 BDT
I agree entirely about the importance of "accuracy" "validity of content" and "interest in the issue under discussion" rather that trivial/petty distraction Mr Jones. I should therefore like to draw your attention to the amazingly accurately 'machined' stone debris at Pumapunku. There are examples of 'corner' blocks so accurately machined that you can cut your finger on the 90% edges; slabs cut, smoothed and polished to exquisite tolerences our best stone masons would find difficult to reproduce today. Take a look at the perfectly 'sawn' channels, the 'fixing' holes precisely drilled within those channels. Then give us your considered opinion as to how these tremendous feats of stone working could have been preformed by quasi-savages during what history remembers today as the Stone Age. I await your answer with interest.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 12:06:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2012 12:16:20 BDT
That would be arrogant of me... if that was what I did. Fortunately, it isn't. I don't tell anyone that they should agree with me.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 12:10:12 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
"Thirty years ago would any of us posting on this forum have envisaged the internet?"

Yes. I was using the internet thirty years ago. This forum would have been a usenet forum or a private message board. I did not envisage the world wide web, though.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  335
Initial post:  17 Jul 2012
Latest post:  10 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions