Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
ID is a theory was put forth long before the theory of evolution was established, that post alone proves your ignorant of ID's origins.Id originates from greek philosophy, The Philosophical arguments such as the Logos which is the described by the likes of Heraclitus in the 5th century B.C. Plato later on described another theory which revolved around the natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle also developed the idea of a natural creator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover", in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum, or "On the Nature of the Gods" (45 BC), Cicero stated that "the divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature.
I also know for a fact that the theory of intelligent influences from the classical periods is vastly different in intent and belief then the theory of ID today which very much owes a great deal to certain theorists reacting against the theory of evolution. Do not try and make out the works of Plato and Aristotle somehow support modern day ID theorists (I hold Plato and Aristotle in far higher regards then I do most of todays ID theorists)
Absurd pipe dreams, they said the samething to just about any scientist that made an "Absurd" claim, such as alexander Graham Bell and his telephone. Tesla's research is still being applied today yet you for some magically reason believe science has advance to far without him. the man had florescent lightbulbs 50 years before they were introduced ion the market, H.A.A.R.P. is completely founded on his work,Tesla built a giant coil that produced 10 million volts of artificial lightning ( and is the world record holder for the largest man made lightning bolt ever 130 feet). Yeah we sure advance passed him 🙄
What on earth is in your head? You are the one claiming he was unknown and his ideas had been unfairly quashed. I from my first post told you that he was far better known then you gave him credit for. And of course his work is still used today as well (I am fairly sure I also said something to the effect of "it forms the basis of many modern thoughts"😉 - or maybe I should specify- his works that actually have some basis. No weather machines, but plenty other ideas. And that is your gripe - that science isn't spending billions on Tesla and his weather machine and earthquake maker.
Science has just replace religion as a dictator, Which claims they know the knowable and whatever does not concide with their thoeries doesn't exsist.
What absurdity. What they don't understand is stated as such. Things that people come up with but have no proof for, they are stated as not existing. Until there is some reason for scientists to believe there is an intelligent designer or similar, they aren't going to claim it exists, especially, when, despite your bias, they have a perfectly functional theory called evolution.
Research stoped LOL, the report from iron moutain revieled that the CIA was still working on mind control, hell the cia even admitted to the public in the new york times in 1980.
Look at my post. Notice I said that many government agencies and researchers looked into it. Notice I said most of them had been stopped by the late 80s. So how does what you just posted refute the fact science found the field less then, shall we say, strongly evidenced?
b[And this brings us back to my point, the ancients lived in a conditions much hard in comparison to ours. of course they would worship something that, helps them predict when to crop, provides them light, and is responsible for lfe itself. hence why the sun god is the most important diety in many ancient religion. worship and symbolism does not change there achievements. which is the point your trying to make.[/b]
I never implied there achievements were less because of it. In fact I am sure once at least I commented on it being admirable. Your stance slides so much. It hasn't so far given any reason for me to change my mind of the claim that a good portion of ancient religion was an attempt to understand the natural world. All you are saying is they realised the sun as important and worshipped it. They still thought there was something divine in its workings, and it wasn't. Doesn't make the ancient cultures more or less great.
Statistacally speaking it's absurd for life to orignate from lifeless matter but, flukist logic dictates as long as there exsist a small chance it could have happened, how cute.
Now, now, bitterness just because I refused to let you change the subject is not an admirable feature. I would remind you, again, that you were talking about the evolutionary step from primates to homo sapian, not about the beginning of life in general. And lets face it - a very low probability does not equal NO probability, and statistically speaking a low probability of it happening is still more proof for it then God getting some dust and doing it.
They don't match any reputable "epigrapher or archaeologist.", when you refute someone you give an evidence of their work and why it's wrong, not someone disagreeing with them.
Where as to support your claim you give us the man in questions who is dubious? I stand by what I said - not a single reputable epigrapher (some one who studies writings and engravings) or archaeologist has ever looked at those hieroglyphs and said "Yes, Daniken is right." But I bet you would like me to post the titles of books and journal articles wouldn't you? Then you could say "LOL So you are just accepting someone else's word"
I never asked for your credentials, I asked for your research notes on the subject at hand 😆 and you just stated the opinon of the historical community, I wonder why you didn't recite your own opinion on the matter? is it because you don't know his research and rely on someone else's opinion on it,if you wish to debate the "Ancient astronaut theory I'll gladly do it.
No, you asked me what research I had done. I told you - ancient history courses these days run more to historiography to simple regurgitation of facts. My preferred courses are Roman and Chinese history, but I have done Egyptian. Danikan, was, on more then one occasion, used in a lecture as an example of a questionable historian - that is operating on faulty premises, making interpretations of hieroglyphs that do not stand up to any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist, his own potentially racist opinions of history and in some cases the actual falsification of historical artifacts - if you had any understanding of the historical process (as you appear to have none on the scientific one) you would know that those kinds of flaws in a historians work make the validity of it drop down. This was delivered in university lectures - perhaps you want me to give you a plane ticket so you can come down here and accuse the professors of bias and following the crowed? After all, what is their life time of work in history to your faith?
And my opinion matches the stance of the historical community - you see I am able to combine my opinion with fact. But if it wasn't clear enough? I think Daniken is a crackpot fraud who has made a fortune selling books knocking the ancient easter cultures as unable to construct their own monuments. I don't know whether he believes it or not, but I think none of his claims are worth the paper they are written on. This is my opinion after reading "Chariot of the Gods", this is my opinion after reading other books on Egyptian history. This remains my opinion after university lectures, and this remains my opinion here - so far it is you that has failed to give any reason to feel differently about him. Most books don't deal with him at all but present a history vastly different to his (with actual evidence.) Some do, and they are quite dismissive. See - I got my opinion AFTER reading his book. It was always the same - my opinion of him. However I have found, to my distinct pleasure, that my opinion appears to be one shared by the historical community.
I don't rely on people's opinions for work and a second opinion means one that disagree's with your point of view; I've done that before.
If you disagree with mr.Dankien, give me an explanation on why his work is flawed as opposed to saying "The historical society said so". what's the point of you citing your credentials if you can't even debate for yourself.
Hypocrite. The opinion of the historical community is based upon the work of the historical community. You imply it seems to to believe a group is right automatically makes an argument less valid - despite the fact the stance being made by a field of experts. They are in line with what I think, of course I will agree with the relevant opinions. And sometimes, in order to learn, we must look at people who actually know what they are talking about.
It would, I believe, be impossible to win a debate with you. I comment on attitudes in certain communities and you accuse me of just going with the flow. I state my opinion, you want hard facts. You would twist and obfuscate hard facts as products of biased groups - such as you anti evolution stance. But anyway, I said above my problems based with Daniken, and I said why historians don't agree with him (let alone his lack of evidence supporting any of his claims, except the stuff he falsified.)