Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 15, 2011 at 6:35 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: fourth i would like to point you to this documentary series which superbly underlines the whole theory of ancient astronauts. after you have watched this i would like to hear your response. http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm
I have a gripe with you now Nap. First of all, your link doesn't go to an actual video. It goes to a goddamn website where we have to search for whatever the hell you're talking about. NO ONE wants to do that. We're not researching YOUR POINT, that's your job! If you're going to reference a video and than KEEP referencing it throughout the next few pages of your thread, maybe the link should actually go to what you're referring to. Which leads me to my next point. The mountain cut in half .... the video that references the Nasca lines in the shitty link you provided doesn't even MENTION the "mountain cut in half" as you did SEVERAL times. Get your shit together before you present an argument and than whine about people not knowing what the HELL it is you're even talking about because we can't see something you once saw on TV show once upon a time!
seriously - if you can't handle hangin with the adults - leave.
man i really dont understand the kind of grief i seem to be getting on here. for fuck sake i try and make a post (my first btw so forgive me for not doing everything exactly fucking right to everyones exact fucking specifications) which is just giving food for thought. im not claiming anything, im not saying any of this is fact, im just trying to put across a point of view which is interesting. if you dont like what this thread is about or how im doing it then dont post! simple as!
yes your right the video doesnt come up as intended i will post again my bad, but man give me some slack this is my first time doing this i'm not exactly going to be good straight away.
(April 15, 2011 at 5:15 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: yes your right the video doesnt come up as intended i will post again my bad, but man give me some slack this is my first time doing this i'm not exactly going to be good straight away.
here is the god damn video: <-----
yes, it DOES refer to a mountain cut in half, i dont know what video you were lead to that's my fault i admit for not making it clear.
WELCOME to the Forum Mother Fucker!! Good to have you!
What can I say ... if we all got along it wouldn't be fun. People will post no matter what ... right or wrong ... they'll post.
April 15, 2011 at 6:08 pm (This post was last modified: April 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(April 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote:
(April 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: That being said, sug, it's a ridiculous supposition. I've watched several documentaries on it as well, and read books, and I find it demeaning to the human race to think we needed outside help.
The human brain is an astonishingly clever and creative thing. Aliens aren't needed.
so humans can carve a mountain in half? and leave no trace of rubble or carving yet mountains around it are all perfectly normal? please something other than humans did that.
Amongst many plausible geological agents - Deposition followed by tectonic uplift and erosion. Mature Mountain range erode, the debris fill in low lying areas until they buries the mountains up to their shoulders. The whole area takes on appearence of a flat plain with isolated peaks poking out. Then entire area experience another pulse of uplift, tilting the plains and accelerating local erosion, causing streams to incise into the flat plains, cutting them into isolated flat topped buttes and exhuming the buried lower parts of the original mountains. The result is an area with real sharp rigged and peaked mountains, interspersed with flat top buttes that look like mountains with their top chopped off.
This sort of formation is quite common, especially in the US. You might drive along the front of the Rockie mountains to the west of Denver and see a dozen of these seemly truncated mountains standing in sharp contrast to the appearently prestine peaks of the Rockies near by. This wasn't made into its current form in 5000 or 500,000 years. The whole process that got them to their current shape took at least 4-5 million years.
BTW, You won't find big piles of rubble looking about the flat topped buttes near Boulder, CO, either. The rubble from these appearent cutting of the mountains along the front of the Rockies in half are mostly on bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Moved there by the Mississippi. Some of it now makes up the land that New Orlean sits on. Some of it is on the floor of the Atlantic, having been blown there as wind blown debris. I certain doubt those whose instinct is to attribute everything they can't explain to god or ET could possibly have the wherewithall to eventually discover on their own how normal processes can produce results that seems defy normal expectation.
(April 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: That being said, sug, it's a ridiculous supposition. I've watched several documentaries on it as well, and read books, and I find it demeaning to the human race to think we needed outside help.
The human brain is an astonishingly clever and creative thing. Aliens aren't needed.
so humans can carve a mountain in half? and leave no trace of rubble or carving yet mountains around it are all perfectly normal? please something other than humans did that.
Amongst many plausible geological agents - Deposition followed by tectonic uplift and erosion. Mature Mountain range erode, the debris fill in low lying areas until they buries the mountains up to their shoulders. The whole area takes on appearence of a flat plain with isolated peaks poking out. Then entire area experience another pulse of uplift, tilting the plains and accelerating local erosion, causing streams to incise into the flat plains, cutting them into isolated flat topped buttes and exhuming the buried lower parts of the original mountains. The result is an area with real sharp rigged and peaked mountains, interspersed with flat top buttes that look like mountains with their top chopped off.
This sort of formation is quite common, especially in the US. You might drive along the front of the Rockie mountains to the west of Denver and see a dozen of these seemly truncated mountains standing in sharp contrast to the appearently prestine peaks of the Rockies near by. This wasn't made into its current form in 5000 or 500,000 years. The whole process that got them to their current shape took at least 4-5 million years.
BTW, You won't find big piles of rubble looking about the flat topped buttes near Boulder, CO, either. The rubble from these appearent cutting of the mountains along the front of the Rockies in half are mostly on bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Moved there by the Mississippi. Some of it now makes up the land that New Orlean sits on. Some of it is on the floor of the Atlantic, having been blown there as wind blown debris. I certain doubt those whose instinct is to attribute everything they can't explain to god or ET could possibly have the wherewithall to eventually discover on their own how normal processes can produce results that seems defy normal expectation.
this is all well and good, and i accept that there are a number of geological instances which form tabletop mountains. but i want an answer regarding to THIS specific one. you can quite clearly see how perfectly cut off that mountain top is. i have seen plenty of flat top mountains yet none i have seen are as perfectly 'cut' or flat or whatever as this one. the fact it has a massive fucking strip on top which looks like a runway just says to me that this was not a natural occurance.
either way i have done some more research and it seems to me the only way of getting a sense of what the nazca lines are all about is to visit them. i will do this some point in my life thats for sure.
as for now i thank you guys for the feedback, maybe i have been gullible, those stories especially the ones spun by von daniken are incredibly interesting but ultimately flawed without propper evidence. HOWEVER i do not think it should be ruled as COMPLETELY impossible and i will always think that it IS possible until someone comes up with real evidence to suggest otherwise.
(April 16, 2011 at 5:53 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: this is all well and good, and i accept that there are a number of geological instances which form tabletop mountains. but i want an answer regarding to THIS specific one.
Too bad. There are plausible geological mechanisms, but if you want to know with absolute certainty how this happened, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The scientist does not deal in certainties, that's the realm of the theologian.
(April 16, 2011 at 5:53 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: HOWEVER i do not think it should be ruled as COMPLETELY impossible and i will always think that it IS possible until someone comes up with real evidence to suggest otherwise.
Can't prove a negative.
No-one is ruling anything out as completely impossible. We're saying that the evidence does not warrant a belief in the ancient astronaut "theory".
But the possibility of something says nothing about its likelihood.
It's possible for me to win the lottery tonight, but pretty damn unlikely.
As for the alien astronaut explanation, is it possible? Sure.
Is it plausible? No, not in the slightest.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am (This post was last modified: April 16, 2011 at 9:21 am by Napoléon.)
(April 16, 2011 at 8:33 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(April 16, 2011 at 5:53 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: this is all well and good, and i accept that there are a number of geological instances which form tabletop mountains. but i want an answer regarding to THIS specific one.
Too bad. There are plausible geological mechanisms, but if you want to know with absolute certainty how this happened, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed. The scientist does not deal in certainties, that's the realm of the theologian.
then this is the whole point of my thread, i was asking from the beginning COULD. if people cannot give me a specific answer for this question of 'how did that mountain form' then i am entitled just like anybody else to give an explanation, or find an idea which would fit the bill. i am NOT saying it's true by any means, i'm just putting it out there for discussions sake
btw what plausible geological mechanisms are you referring to? can you give me one which would apply to THIS mountain? i doubt it. but your welcome to give it a try. dont say to me to go off and find 'evidence' when i'm making a point, yet not do so when you yourself are making a point
(April 16, 2011 at 8:33 am)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(April 16, 2011 at 5:53 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: HOWEVER i do not think it should be ruled as COMPLETELY impossible and i will always think that it IS possible until someone comes up with real evidence to suggest otherwise.
Can't prove a negative.
No-one is ruling anything out as completely impossible. We're saying that the evidence does not warrant a belief in the ancient astronaut "theory".
But the possibility of something says nothing about its likelihood.
It's possible for me to win the lottery tonight, but pretty damn unlikely.
As for the alien astronaut explanation, is it possible? Sure.
Is it plausible? No, not in the slightest.
you see this is where i would disagree to some extent.
i understand fully the point you are making, hell i use it myself to justify my disbelief in a god.
but the problem is god is not tangible because you either believe it or you dont. that's where faith comes in.
however the theory about ancient aliens is tangible and there are in my opinion plenty of things which you could legitimately argue that aliens built/designed/helped with etc.
again im not saying any of it is true! it was merely a topic of discussion regarding just how plausible it actually is. you happen to believe it is not plausible in the slightest. i believe it is quite plausible.
napoleon Wrote:however the theory about ancient aliens is tangible and there are in my opinion plenty of things which you could legitimately argue that aliens built/designed/helped with etc.
No there isn't. That isn't just my opinion.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: then this is the whole point of my thread, i was asking from the beginning COULD. if people cannot give me a specific answer for this question of 'how did that mountain form' then i am entitled just like anybody else to give an explanation
Do you realise how exactly like an intelligent design proponent you sound with that argument from ignorance?
"if people cannot give me a specific answer for this question of 'how did life form from unliving organic molecules' then i am entitled just like anybody else to give an explanation..."
Not all explanations are equally valid, and the ancient astronaut is particularly bad:
it raises more questions than it purports to solve, makes completely unjustified assumptions, and is not supported by any evidence.
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: however the theory about ancient aliens is tangible and there are in my opinion
Sorry, but the scientific method doesn't care about your opinion. To quote one Vince Masuka:
That's not opinion, that's science. And science is one cold hearted bitch with a 14 inch strap on!
(April 16, 2011 at 9:01 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: i believe it is quite plausible.
thanks for the input
So what?
My aunt believes that an invisble guy in the sky impregnated a virgin with himself 2000 years ago so that he could sacrifice himself to himself, to atone for wrongs that were his fault in the first place.
My grandmother believes that a vial of water that once contained an irrelevant active ingredient is a valid medical treatment for all possible ailments (homeopathy).
That doesn't make it so.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
What can I say ... if we all got along it wouldn't be fun. People will post no matter what ... right or wrong ... they'll post. 
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
