Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 1:53 AM
152 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 148 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,468 Year: 3,505/19,786 Month: 500/1,087 Week: 90/212 Day: 6/14 Hour: 6/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 136 of 167 (579841)
09-06-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Archangel
09-06-2010 9:45 AM


Archangel writes:

How do you explain the detailed and highly intricate design and weight of these interlocking stone pieces which made up the wall around the site?


Uhm.... People made them?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 9:45 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 137 of 167 (579845)
09-06-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-06-2010 7:31 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
The point of my argument was to say that a complete pre-flood civilization existed which produced massive cities on the scale of what exists today.

There was no Biblical Flood, hence no such thing as pre-flood civilizations.

No one disputes that there were early civilizations but so far none found produced anything that cannot be reproduced today.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 7:31 AM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:30 AM jar has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 845 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 138 of 167 (579847)
09-06-2010 10:17 AM


quote:
It wasn't dated that early it was dated to A.D. 536–600. Link.

Really? According to your link it existed in the Pre-Columbian Era, that era extended from 15,000 BC to 600 AD. So different experts apply different times to their existence and you know that very well. You just selectively choose the opinion which fits with your preferred world view. And what's more, even with your preferred world view you can't answer my question as to how they lifted these massive multi ton stone works, or how they carved them or even who had the power to disassemble them once they were constructed.

But nice job ignoring and avoiding the meat of the debate and selectively choosing a few centuries within the pre-columbian era in order to dishonestly limit this civilizations existence.

Interpreting the meaning of ritual spaces: The temple complex of Pumapunku, Tiwanaku, Bolivia

Alexei N Vranich, University of Pennsylvania

Abstract
The built environment embodies symbolic messages and helps transform human activity into meaningful experience. Anthropological archaeologists often study buildings from a materialist perspective, examining their functions, the labor investment they required, or their role in the political economy; they generally ignore important symbolic and phenomenological aspects of the built environment. This investigation addresses this lacuna through an examination of the Temple Complex of Pumapunku, one of the largest and most important ritual precincts in the pre-Columbian city of Tiwanaku. Architectural analysis of data from detailed mapping and selective excavation shows that the Pumapunku. Complex is an extensive integrated compound consisting of platforms, buildings, plazas, courtyards, and stairways, measuring half a kilometer in length. Although this complex was modified several times, its formal plan remained unchanged. Two interpretive approaches are used to understand the experience and meaning of the temple complex. The first is a phenomenological approach. The architectural spaces are interpreted from the point of view of a pilgrim walking through the complex, examining the physical and emotional reactions he or she might have experienced. The Pumapunku Complex was designed to funnel groups of people across specially constructed architectural spaces, and to display a series of symbolically important and ritually charged images and activities. The pilgrim was thus exposed to the cosmological meanings imbedded in the architecture of the compound and indoctrinated into important aspects of Tiwanaku religion. The second interpretive approach is structuralist. A model of the axis mundi is developed based on historical and archaeological evidence of a specific architectural form used by the Inka. The material correlates of this model are compared to the Pumapunku Complex, and analysis suggests that the temple complex is an architectural representation of the center of the Andean world. Together the two complementary approaches provide a better understanding of the purpose and meaning of this complex to the people who built it and participated in rituals within it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 10:29 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 11:48 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 139 of 167 (579849)
09-06-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:17 AM


Archangel writes:

Really? According to your link it existed in the Pre-Columbian Era, that era extended from 15,000 BC to 600 AD.


Yes, perfectly within the date arrived at for that site.

So different experts apply different times to their existence and you know that very well.

This does not follow from the article. Also, do you have evidence that it is dated as early as 15,000 years ago?

ou just selectively choose the opinion which fits with your preferred world view.

No I don;t. I haven't seen a diferent opinion yet, so it's kinda hard for me to choose.

And what's more, even with your preferred world view you can't answer my question as to how they lifted these massive multi ton stone works,

I imagine with ropes and levers.

or how they carved them

I imagine with tools.

or even who had the power to disassemble them once they were constructed.

They were disassembled? Evidence please. And even if they were, I think the same way they were put together.

But nice job ignoring and avoiding the meat of the debate and selectively choosing a few centuries within the pre-columbian era in order to dishonestly limit this civilizations existence.

I didn;t choose anything. That's waht the evidence shows. Unless you have ecidence that it is older, you really have nothing to whine about.

Nothing in your quoted texts says anything about it being earlier than my date. So I don;t know why you quoted it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:17 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 845 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 140 of 167 (579850)
09-06-2010 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
09-06-2010 10:02 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
quote:
There was no Biblical Flood, hence no such thing as pre-flood civilizations.

No one disputes that there were early civilizations but so far none found produced anything that cannot be reproduced today.


Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery? How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight? How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools? And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?

So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations? But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask. Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-06-2010 10:02 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 10:41 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 142 by jar, posted 09-06-2010 10:49 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Taz, posted 09-06-2010 11:55 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 141 of 167 (579853)
09-06-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Archangel writes:

Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery?


Your example was not from the stone age.

How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight?

Rope and levers.

How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools?

Hey, did they go from stone age to bronze age now? And those stones aren't as dense (actually, this should be "hard", since stones are measured in "hardness") as you claim they are.

And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?

A normal human power?

So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations?

And back to stone age again. Man, these people sure have a weird way of going through history.

But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask.

You have been given answers. The site is dated 536 - 600 AD, That's not the stone age.

Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.

That's more what you are doing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 142 of 167 (579858)
09-06-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Actually, you did not reply to anything I said in my post, just tried to change direction and create a very attractive rabbit hole.

How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight?

Slowly and with lots of trial and failure.

How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools?

With other dense stones and lots of time and effort.

And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?

The same people that built them and time, lots and lots of time.

Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery?

And guess what, there is lots of evidence that they did have knowledge. Just look at what they built. Are you familiar with the Moscow, Rhind or Berlin Papyri?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 143 of 167 (579860)
09-06-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archangel
09-06-2010 8:42 AM


See the links in my post #126, do you think those cities and monolithic structures were built by stone age cave dwellers as you evolutionists assert ...

No we don't.

Please find me one "evolutionist" who asserts that people who built cities nonetheless lived in caves.

No?

Then stop making stuff up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 8:42 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 144 of 167 (579864)
09-06-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archangel
09-06-2010 8:42 AM


Aliens and Crazy Links
Hi Archangel,

What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS.

Yes, your links do contain material about aliens. From the "World Mysteries" site - the one that you cited;

quote:
The high desert of Peru holds one of the most mystifying monuments of the known world—the massive-scale geoglyphs known as the Nasca Lines. Ranging from geometric patterns to “drawings” of different animals and stylized human-like forms. The ancient lines can only be truly taken in, their forms discerned, from high in the air, leaving generations mystified as to how these precise works could’ve been completed long before the documented invention of human flight. Are the lines signs left by an alien race? Landing strips for UFOs? Relics of a ancient people far more advanced—capable of human flight—then previously imagined? Link

Patently absurd.

But it's from the site that you cited. No-one made you cite a nutcase website, you chose to do that. If mention of aliens is enough to discredit a source (something I would agree with), then your own source is discredited.

Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.

There is no reference to secular humanism in any of the pages you have cited. This is a link you chose, no-one forced you to link to garbage. Either your link is credible or it is not.

I'm gonna go with "not".

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 8:42 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Archangel
Member (Idle past 845 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 145 of 167 (579874)
09-06-2010 11:37 AM


quote:
Yes, your links do contain material about aliens. From the "World Mysteries" site - the one that you cited;

quote:
The high desert of Peru holds one of the most mystifying monuments of the known world—the massive-scale geoglyphs known as the Nasca Lines. Ranging from geometric patterns to “drawings” of different animals and stylized human-like forms. The ancient lines can only be truly taken in, their forms discerned, from high in the air, leaving generations mystified as to how these precise works could’ve been completed long before the documented invention of human flight. Are the lines signs left by an alien race? Landing strips for UFOs? Relics of a ancient people far more advanced—capable of human flight—then previously imagined? Link
Patently absurd.

But it's from the site that you cited. No-one made you cite a nutcase website, you chose to do that. If mention of aliens is enough to discredit a source (something I would agree with), then your own source is discredited.


How typical Granny, you assume because a site that very accurately depicts unexplainable information which nobody denies actually exists, but quotes sources which attempt to explain the massive pictures carved into the earth that can only be appreciated from high altitude as having been placed their by or for aliens to be absurd simply because aliens were mentioned. You fail to appreciate the deeper question that these images were carved into the Earth many hundreds of years before flight was possible on Earth yet they still survive to this day. How is that?

Why haven't they been covered up when an inch of sediment is expected to be laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, so why do these shallow carvings in the earth still exist from great altitudes today?

But more interesting to me is why are such allegedly intelligent intellectuals as you and your ilk claim to be, completely incapable of getting past the shallow observations you do make and observing the meatier questions which are so obvious to me? That these sources attempt to attribute these landmarks to aliens is much less important than why earthbound people would carve them in the first place when nobody on earth allegedly existed at that time who could appreciate them from the available vantage point which existed.

You may consider the mere mention of alien interaction with humans as enough to to completely discredit the site, but until you can come up with a better explanation for the existence of these pictures, then you just prove how condescending and arrogant you are in your dismissal of that which you can't yourself explain.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Huntard, posted 09-06-2010 1:31 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 09-06-2010 3:13 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1042 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 146 of 167 (579875)
09-06-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Archangel
09-06-2010 7:31 AM



Archangel writes:

Why is it that you people are completely incapable of actually dealing with and responding to the evidence and issues I raise rather than just scoffing at and insulting them?

Omni's Umpteenth Law of Internet Debate: The first side to say "you people" is losing.

There was no flood. All your claims depend on a worldwide flood, date certain, for which there is no evidence.

We people don't buy the flood; why should we buy the cartoonish fantasies you've based on it?

It is you who diminishes the achievements of antiquity by claiming only fantastical, deity-bestowed (and later removed) brain powers can explain them. We acknowledge their intellectual prowess and persistence.

Tell me: How were the great cathedrals built in Europe beginning a thousand years ago without modern engines and drills?

NB: Religion probably did play a role is the massive constructions of antiquity--but by providing the necessary labor specializations within a cohesive hierarchical society, not magic fairy dust.


Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 7:31 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 147 of 167 (579876)
09-06-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:17 AM


Really? According to your link it existed in the Pre-Columbian Era, that era extended from 15,000 BC to 600 AD.

Not sure where you get your information, but the pre-Columbian era is up to and beyond 1492 CE. It is disingenuous for you to say that since the site is referred to as Pre-Columbian, that anyone thinks it could date back to 15,000 BCE. The author of the dissertation of which this is an abstract of himself dates it to ca 500-600 CE. So for you to claim that the author of the paper thinks it would be 15,000 BCE is a bald face lie.

quote:
While technically referring to the era before Christopher Columbus' voyages of 1492 to 1504, in practice the term usually includes the history of American indigenous cultures until they were conquered or significantly influenced by Europeans, even if this happened decades or even centuries after Columbus' initial landing.

Source

quote:
, Binghamton University Anthropology professor W. H. Isbell,[1] a radiocarbon date obtained by Vranich[2] from mound fill forming the Pumapunku deposited during the oldest of three construction epochs dates the earliest construction epoch of the Pumapunku at 1510 ±25 B.P. (A.D. 440; calibrated, A.D. 536–600).

Source

Follow the sources
Foot note 1

quote:
Three major building epochs, in addition to small repairs and remodelings, are documented. A radiocarbon date from the earliest construction epoch places it at 1510 ±25 B.P. (A.D. 440; calibrated, A.D. 536–600).


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:17 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1366 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 148 of 167 (579877)
09-06-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Archangel
09-06-2010 10:30 AM


Re: Your acceptance of evidence is determined by it agreeing with your biasses.
Archangel writes:

Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery? How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight? How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools? And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?

So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations? But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask. Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.

quote:
There was no Biblical Flood, hence no such thing as pre-flood civilizations.
No one disputes that there were early civilizations but so far none found produced anything that cannot be reproduced today.

Really? Are you forgetting that we are discussing allegedly stone age level societies who had no heavy duty mechanical knowledge or machinery? How did they lift dense rocks up to 70 TONS in weight? How did allegedly pre bronze age societies carve stones so dense they defy/challenge todays diamond edge cutting tools? And most basically, who had the power or technology to destroy these monolithic structures except a super human power?

So you see, the question isn't whether or not we can reproduce what they accomplished, (which in many cases we can't) the question is, how did they accomplish these feats with their alleged stone age limitations? But as usual I get no real answers or evidence for anything I say or ask. Just more excuses and lame explanations which say nothing substantive at all.


Have you been watching the history channel's ancient alien astronauts?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 10:30 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 149 of 167 (579886)
09-06-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-06-2010 11:37 AM


Archangel writes:

You fail to appreciate the deeper question that these images were carved into the Earth many hundreds of years before flight was possible on Earth yet they still survive to this day. How is that?


There's not much erosion going on there, simple really.

Why haven't they been covered up when an inch of sediment is expected to be laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, so why do these shallow carvings in the earth still exist from great altitudes today?

Again, not much erosion is going on there.

But more interesting to me is why are such allegedly intelligent intellectuals as you and your ilk claim to be, completely incapable of getting past the shallow observations you do make and observing the meatier questions which are so obvious to me?

Because we are intelligent intellectuals.

That these sources attempt to attribute these landmarks to aliens is much less important than why earthbound people would carve them in the first place when nobody on earth allegedly existed at that time who could appreciate them from the available vantage point which existed.

They could be appreciated by walking on them. Like a spiritual procession.

You may consider the mere mention of alien interaction with humans as enough to to completely discredit the site, but until you can come up with a better explanation for the existence of these pictures, then you just prove how condescending and arrogant you are in your dismissal of that which you can't yourself explain.

Wait... In Message 133 you said this:

Archangel writes:

What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS. Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.


Are you now saying it isn't such a stupid thing to suggest after all? Would you make up your mind? Does this mean you are now a secular humanist?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 11:37 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 150 of 167 (579910)
09-06-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Archangel
09-06-2010 11:37 AM


Crazy links and Aliens
Hi Archangel,

First, you should know that this board allows you to respond directly to an individual message. It makes the flow of conversation much easier to follow. All you need do is, instead of hitting the "General Reply" button at the bottom of the page, you can click on the "Reply" button in the bottom right corner of each message. That's this one;

It will just help you get your point across. Okay, on to your post.

How typical Granny, you assume because a site that very accurately depicts unexplainable information which nobody denies actually exists,

Actually, I deny some of it and I'm sure that I am far from the only one who denies that the Nazca Lines are linked to aliens. Further, I would describe most of the claims on that site as "unverifiable" rather than "unexplainable".

but quotes sources which attempt to explain the massive pictures carved into the earth that can only be appreciated from high altitude as having been placed their by or for aliens to be absurd simply because aliens were mentioned.

*Ahem*

Archangel writes:

What I marvel at is that some of these links reveal their denial of pre-flood knowledge to build these civilizations by going so far as to attribute the knowledge to build these cities as coming from ALIENS. Remember, this is your so called intellectual and secular humanist side claiming this, not mine.

That was you, in Message 133, mocking others for invoking aliens. Even though it was your own source that did so. Now you think that aliens are perfectly reasonable. You can't have it both ways Archangel. Either invoking aliens is reasonable and you were talking bollocks in message 133, or invoking aliens is unreasonable and you are talking bollocks now.

So which is it?

You fail to appreciate the deeper question that these images were carved into the Earth many hundreds of years before flight was possible on Earth yet they still survive to this day. How is that?

Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean that I have never considered it. It was not relevant to the point I was trying to make, nor the topic at hand.

You appear to be making the assumption that the pictures were intended to be seen by some real entity. I find that unwarranted. In my opinion, the line pictures were intended to be seen by gods, spirits or some other supernatural entities. These entities would most certainly be fictions, but the line-makers would have believed in them.

Remember, they don't have to make sense to us, they only have to had made sense to those who made them.

Why haven't they been covered up when an inch of sediment is expected to be laid down each year in most non-alluvial areas, so why do these shallow carvings in the earth still exist from great altitudes today?

Because the ground in the area is very hard and dry and there is almost no wind and no rain. There is no reason to suppose that it would be covered with sediment.

But more interesting to me is why are such allegedly intelligent intellectuals as you and your ilk claim to be,

Now I know I didn't say any such thing and you know I didn't say any such thing, so I can only wonder at why you would say something so peculiar.

completely incapable of getting past the shallow observations you do make and observing the meatier questions which are so obvious to me?

You seem puzzled as to why people disagree with your approach. I can't speak for others, but personally, I think you are making an unfounded logical jump.

You say these things are mysterious, unexplained. Okay, suppose that we grant this, for the sake of argument. Why should we then, lacking any more familiar explanation, resort to invoking alien beings? We have never observed any aliens. Just because we don't have an explanation to hand for something, does not mean that it is legitimate to say "aliens did it". The "answer" raises far more questions than it solves and is based upon an unevidenced supposition. It's monstrously unparsimonious.

The same applies to "Goddidit" explanations. Just because we do not have a ready explanation for something does not mean that we should simply reach for a divine or supernatural explanation, especially since such ideas don't really possess any explanatory power anyway.

You may consider the mere mention of alien interaction with humans as enough to to completely discredit the site, but until you can come up with a better explanation for the existence of these pictures, then you just prove how condescending and arrogant you are in your dismissal of that which you can't yourself explain.

Quite the opposite I fancy. It means that I am humble enough and accepting enough of my own shortcomings that I don't expect to be able to answer every question. Thus, when I do encounter something I can't explain, I don't throw up my hands and say "Well if even I can't explain this it must be down to aliens/gods/pixies!". I am quite accustomed to the idea of not knowing everything. I have no need to reach desperately for unsupported nonsense as a substitute for real answers. I am content to wait and see if a real explanation is forthcoming; i.e. one supported by evidence, not one plucked out of my ass.

But that's just me.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Archangel, posted 09-06-2010 11:37 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019