Belief ....not a reality .

china
#1
Belief is not reality. You may believe in God, but your belief has no more reality than that of the man who does not believe in God. Your belief is the result of your background, of your religion, of your fears, and the nonbelief of the communist and others is equally the result of their conditioning. To find out what is true, the mind must be free from belief and nonbelief.But believing is so much more convenient, so much more respectable and safe. If you did not believe, you might lose your job, you might suddenly find that you are nobody and..that would be cool .Your thoughts ......as usual.
 
Kreskin
#2
Do you really believe that? *just kidding*
 
MHz
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Belief is not reality. You may believe in God, but your belief has no more reality than that of the man who does not believe in God. Your belief is the result of your background, of your religion, of your fears, and the nonbelief of the communist and others is equally the result of their conditioning. To find out what is true, the mind must be free from belief and nonbelief.But believing is so much more convenient, so much more respectable and safe. If you did not believe, you might lose your job, you might suddenly find that you are nobody and..that would be cool .Your thoughts ......as usual.

Belief today is based on reality. Whatever you believe was the path of ancient history we are basing it what we can read about. That only means somebody in the past wrote those words. They either saw those things or they are recording what has been said to them. Or the idea originated with them.

What we can read in stone in Egypt was about life in their times and also stories about their legends.

The pictographs that show a 'pharaoh' as being much bigger than the worker, that might have just been the real size difference. When it shows a 'team of men' pulling 1 stone that might have been a representation of how strong those 'bigger people' were.
By the time the ice-age was over most traces of these people had vanished.
I already have a view and would involve a past civilization that was a lot smarter than we are today. Scripture would put that as being before there was the tower of Babel incident. Men could 'build things better than today'. (after the flood)
If using the texts other than the Bible there is a story-line of the past.
There is also a time before that they were even more capable. (before the flood) If the Egyptians had gods then those gods did things on earth before they 'went away' to the spirit world.

I have read that the ice-age ended about 11,000 years ago. Does anybody know how low the water was when the ice was at it's greatest size. I assume the south pole ice-cap as about the same size as the one in the north.

Here is another question somebody might have some sort of answer too. When the caps were melting, what percentage of that melt came down as rain or snow after being carried south as vapor.
If weather patterns worked the same back then as they do today, when cold air moves south most of the moisture that falls is already down south. Could (some of) that moisture be far enough to the north that it could still fall as rain but also fall on the ice which would promote a faster overall melt. Twisters and cyclones would have been almost constant if there were winds that came from the north constantly at -20 deg. The much smaller oceans would have been above the 82deg mark needed for cyclones.


That might be the times that all the other legends cover. They would have left the oddities of some things that have been found in some rather strange places, the crystal skull being one example.
This article covers some general points.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/arcoverups.html

There might be a few more articles that might be worth reading. Ancient alien type articles.

Their capabilities should have been greater, what we see as the pyramids of today would be a remnant of what they were before the flood. The giants of old would have been even better 'builders' that giants that were left after the flood up to babel when we became as inefficient as we are today.
I wish Google earth had a tide plug-in. (ie be able to drop the water in the Med. Sea so it is just a river) The places most men should have lived is 'near the beach'. With rain coming down on the ice would create lakes which would let loose all at one time. Floods that could carve grand canyon like landscapes in a week. Similar to the events done from southern Alberta to the Pacific . That doesn't mean that was the biggest ever. Some ice that was over an ocean might break off in huge chunks that would send out some huge waves which would destroy anything along most coasts would suffer those kinds of events. I believe it has been proposed that the Black Sea was formed , if there was a blockage at the mouth of the Med. the water level in that Sea might have been lower than what it normally should be. A flood coming through the Med. as a flash flood would have totally destroyed any evidence of anybody being their.

Another question. Could most of the sand in that desert been what is left of the sandstone buildings (cities gods like Horus would have built when they were on earth). Being that there was probably lots of vegetation, and not sand, there when the ice-caps were very large.
Last edited by MHz; Mar 2nd, 2008 at 08:55 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I have read that the ice-age ended about 11,000 years ago. Does anybody know how low the water was when the ice was at it's greatest size.

According to what I've read, sea level was about 120 meters lower than it is today at the peak of the last glaciation.
Quote:

Here is another question somebody might have some sort of answer too. When the caps were melting, what percentage of that melt came down as rain or snow after being carried south as vapor.

Never seen any work on that idea. Interesting question though. I would guess a qualitative answer would be, "very little." The volumes of water that can move as liquid on the surface are vastly greater than the amount of vapour the atmosphere can carry.

And a hint to help your thinking; don't trust Nexus magazine as a reliable source for anything, it's mostly woo woo stuff and nonsense. The crystal skull you refer to, for instance, assuming it's the one called the "skull of doom" allegedly discovered in Belize by Anna Mitchell-Hedges some time in the 1920s, is a hoax.
 
MHz
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

According to what I've read, sea level was about 120 meters lower than it is today at the peak of the last glaciation.

Just looking at the Med. Sea area that kind of drop would seem to open up quite a bit of land that isn't there today. Any trace would be totally washed away.
I sure wish I could get those GIS progs understood. I have them opening and access to lots of GIS data (Canada only just to inform any spooks out there) but I can't pull up a picture that has a view that is represented by a different color for the changes in elevation, let alone be able to drop any water level. Nav charts would be nice to have to show how much more land there would be.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Never seen any work on that idea. Interesting question though. I would guess a qualitative answer would be, "very little." The volumes of water that can move as liquid on the surface are vastly greater than the amount of vapor the atmosphere can carry.

That's kind of what I thought the moisture content (in weight) isn't very high. A accelerated defrost would me more likely if rain fell on some of that ice rather than it being snow. Some mechanism had to be in place that resulted in a change of which direction the leading edge of the ice was going. I'm trying to see if some parameters were changed slightly would have an effect on how fast that defrost took to occur.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

And a hint to help your thinking; don't trust Nexus magazine as a reliable source for anything, it's mostly woo woo stuff and nonsense. The crystal skull you refer to, for instance, assuming it's the one called the "skull of doom" allegedly discovered in Belize by Anna Mitchell-Hedges some time in the 1920s, is a hoax.

I don't have any links to much of that kind of material. But that article has some thoughts that appear in other similar pages.
I don't have anything on what details there are about other gods and what they did. I know the names of the Roman and Greeks ones but scant on info on the day-to-day details.

The skull was an example and, in my defense, I haven't read any updates. Other 'oddites' are around, I think one was a metal ball (no rust damage) that was found in rock that was way older than what we would call 'the age of metal'. The article I read that mentioned that had other things 'that got put in a vault' and just aren't discussed because they 'don't fit in with current teaching'.
I know that would be the first time in history anything like that has ever happened. LOL
Doesn't NASA have some shots of the Sahara that shows stream-beds below all that sand. Water would only leave channels if it was surface run-off.

They have also found green glass over there. Something that there are opinions about but not a 'for sure' thing.

The ancient battery is also something that is a bit 'odd'.

That fellow West that was mentioned in that article has some videos on the net that covers some 'thought provoking' things. The age of ancient civilizations being one of the longer ones. But it only covers monuments being built in honor of 'somebody', usually what they considered to capable of greater works than what they were doing.
Then there is the classic 'Chariots of the Gods'. It seems to be worldwide, pictures and stories of things that just weren't being done anymore when they were carved in the stones.
Any deity would not suffer 20 men pulling a rock veerryy sslloowwllyy when he could move it much faster. He would send them for lots of food (that might include those 20 men)and lots of wine. Both feats leaving the 'little ones' in awe. He could build in a day (just by himself) what pesky man would take 100 years to do. A few deity like friends chip in and the buildings could go up rather quickly. Then it's just party hardy.
 
Dexter Sinister
#6
There's a lot of bad archeology around, MHz. Chariots of the Gods is entirely a piece of crap, Erich von Daniken hasn't a clue how to think clearly and he's been caught several times in outright lies. There's an entry on him at that site I pointed you to for the crystal skull hoax, under V. You've probably come across Graham Hancock too, if you read Nexus. He's equally full of crap.

Imagine this though: continental drift widening the rift between Africa and Europe, until the Strait of Gibraltar opens up and the Atlantic Ocean starts pouring in to what is now the Mediterranean basin. There'd have been a spectacular waterfall there, until the basin filled up. There are two similar situations at the other end of that area, at the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Bab el Mandeb, which are both quite shallow. They'd have been dry land at the height of the last glaciation, until things warmed up and sea level started to rise, then there'd have two more spectacular waterfalls filling up what are now the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. There's another one at the southwest corner of the Black Sea as well, at Istanbul. All would have been the sites of huge waterfalls and massive flooding. Looking for an origin for the Biblical flood story? Those last three are pretty good candidates, but the first is too old to qualify. There's no evidence of a truly global flood, but for people living in those areas, without our modern transportation and communication infrastructure, it certainly would have seemed that the whole world was flooding.

There'll be another such flood some day soon too, in geological terms. Africa's Great Rift Valley is slowly widening, and some day the north end of it will open to the Red Sea and a huge flood will pour south through Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, all the way to Mozambique, splitting Africa in two. That's a new ocean forming.

And it's all reality, not belief.
 
china
#7
Thanks for very interesting posts Dexter & MHz.
 
MHz
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Imagine this though: continental drift widening the rift between Africa and Europe, until the Strait of Gibraltar opens up and the Atlantic Ocean starts pouring in to what is now the Mediterranean basin. There'd have been a spectacular waterfall there, until the basin filled up. There are two similar situations at the other end of that area, at the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Bab el Mandeb, which are both quite shallow. They'd have been dry land at the height of the last glaciation, until things warmed up and sea level started to rise, then there'd have two more spectacular waterfalls filling up what are now the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. There's another one at the southwest corner of the Black Sea as well, at Istanbul. All would have been the sites of huge waterfalls and massive flooding. Looking for an origin for the Biblical flood story? Those last three are pretty good candidates, but the first is too old to qualify. There's no evidence of a truly global flood, but for people living in those areas, without our modern transportation and communication infrastructure, it certainly would have seemed that the whole world was flooding.

Wouldn't the drift have been pretty small during just the last one? I could go for the currents being much faster in the narrower oceans. With the increase in more land available that should offset how many people the land could (in some degree)support that would have been lost to the ice. Wouldn't all the floods come from the north? Water coming in from the basins getting full might be a lot more gradual, people could move with the rise. Not many can outrun flashing water. The rivers would also seem be be able to flow in a southerly direction. You get little ridges of sand when a glacier recedes, on a larger scale maybe that is how all that sand got there. No ice but very large volumes of quick moving water.
That wouldn't rule out some awesome sized tidal waves coming straight from the south but some water would recede, the Med filling up would be a one time thing, days instead of thousands of years.
Not the flood in particular, the societies before and after that for a bit. Could they have done things we just cannot due because of lack of knowledge or lack of proper equipment and tools.
The Atlantic and Pacific should have been trading large tidal waves back and forth from the waves caused by calving. That could also speed up the defrosting process.
Noah's flood only deals with 12 ft of rain in 40 days, not much if 120 m is an accurate figure. That is only a few inches a day, easy to out-walk. Now if it was 21 ft of rain and a dam breaking you could end up with some serious sized washes.


Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

There'll be another such flood some day soon too, in geological terms. Africa's Great Rift Valley is slowly widening, and some day the north end of it will open to the Red Sea and a huge flood will pour south through Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, all the way to Mozambique, splitting Africa in two. That's a new ocean forming.

And it's all reality, not belief.

I'm watching a web-cam of it, keep you updated on any big changes.
What's it's current negative elevation?
If India is still moving north, will it raise enough land to send the current shoreline further south?
 
china
#9
We turn to belief as a means of action. Belief gives us that peculiar strength which comes from exclusion; and as most of us are concerned with doing, belief becomes a necessity. We feel we cannot act without belief, because it is belief that gives us something to live for, to work for. To most of us, life has no meaning but that which belief gives it; belief has greater significance than life, We think that life must be lived in the pattern of belief; for without a pattern of some kind, how can there be action? So our action is based on idea, or is the outcome of an idea; and action, then, is not as important as idea. The activity of belief is confusing and destructive; it may at first seem orderly and constructive, but in its wake there is conflict and misery. Every kind of belief, religious or political, prevents the understanding of relationship, and there can be no action without this understanding.
 
hariharan
#10
Belief is strength. Strength leads to success.

Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

We turn to belief as a means of action. Belief gives us that peculiar strength which comes from exclusion; and as most of us are concerned with doing, belief becomes a necessity. We feel we cannot act without belief, because it is belief that gives us something to live for, to work for. To most of us, life has no meaning but that which belief gives it; belief has greater significance than life, We think that life must be lived in the pattern of belief; for without a pattern of some kind, how can there be action? So our action is based on idea, or is the outcome of an idea; and action, then, is not as important as idea. The activity of belief is confusing and destructive; it may at first seem orderly and constructive, but in its wake there is conflict and misery. Every kind of belief, religious or political, prevents the understanding of relationship, and there can be no action without this understanding.

 
Praxius
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Belief is not reality. You may believe in God, but your belief has no more reality than that of the man who does not believe in God. Your belief is the result of your background, of your religion, of your fears, and the nonbelief of the communist and others is equally the result of their conditioning. To find out what is true, the mind must be free from belief and nonbelief.But believing is so much more convenient, so much more respectable and safe. If you did not believe, you might lose your job, you might suddenly find that you are nobody and..that would be cool .Your thoughts ......as usual.

You post is contradicting. Every single thing in our lives which we use for comparisons, decision making, morals, thoughts.... it's all boiled down to what we personally believe in.... AKA: what makes sense to us.

Regardless if you look at a situation scientifically, philisophically, or just by listening to others, your final conclusions are usually based on what you yourself believe based on supplied / given information.

The same thing goes for the jury in a trial. They determine your guilt based on supplied evidence and witnesses. Do you believe the evidence and witnesses as fact or flawed.... or even rellivent?

Do you believe man landed on the moon or did it occur in a studio hanger in the middle of the desert?

Do you believe the earth is flat or round?

Why?

What we believe in is what makes sense to us individually. It's our final conclusion embedded in our minds for future situations.
 
Praxius
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

We turn to belief as a means of action. Belief gives us that peculiar strength which comes from exclusion; and as most of us are concerned with doing, belief becomes a necessity. We feel we cannot act without belief, because it is belief that gives us something to live for, to work for. To most of us, life has no meaning but that which belief gives it; belief has greater significance than life, We think that life must be lived in the pattern of belief; for without a pattern of some kind, how can there be action? So our action is based on idea, or is the outcome of an idea; and action, then, is not as important as idea. The activity of belief is confusing and destructive; it may at first seem orderly and constructive, but in its wake there is conflict and misery. Every kind of belief, religious or political, prevents the understanding of relationship, and there can be no action without this understanding.

There can not be wise action in life without the foundations of belief in what we are doing. If we did not believe in what we were doing at this very moment, then why do it? In fact.... if we began to take action regardless if we believed in that action or not, I am pretty sure our lives would be a lot shorter then they normally would be.

Belief goes hand in hand with action and our lives.

I do not jump off of the top of buildings because I believe I would die or at the very least, be profoundly crippled for the rest of my life.

I do not wish to move the the US and join up with the Army to fight in Iraq, because I do not believe in the reasons and end goals for that war.

Belief is reason for action and without it, we'd be pretty influential and there'd be very little protecting our individual lives from what others would want us to do. We might as well be ants or a swarm of bees wating for the attack and to inject our stingers into our enemies regardless of the fact we will die once our stingers are ripped from our bodies.

Belief can be flawed, but belief is still better then nothing at all. Belief gives purpose.

Added:

Belief is also directly conected with our Consciousness... something else science can not exactly explain yet, but we believe in various reasons for why we have Consciousness.
Last edited by Praxius; Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:56 AM..
 
MHz
#13
I found a site that allows changing the water level. Still playing with it, but -140m hardly added any land at all to the Med.
http://atlas.geo.cornell.edu/education/quest/

Other parts of the world are changed a lot. These smaller oceans should have been more salty. Would that have made 'boats' more efficient than today?
 
s_lone
#14
Whatever belief is, it's not knowledge.
 
Dexter Sinister
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I found a site that allows changing the water level. Still playing with it, but -140m hardly added any land at all to the Med.

Re-read what I posted. I quite explicitly said the waterfall at Gibraltar was *not* due to rising water levels after the last ice age. it long pre-dates that.
 
mrgrumpy
#16
A thought for those who are itching to say "prove God does not exist";

It is unnecessary to disprove that which has not been proven.
 
china
#17
Praxius

Quote:

Your post is contradicting.

That's your believe .
Last edited by china; Mar 3rd, 2008 at 07:15 PM..
 
s_lone
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mrgrumpy View Post

A thought for those who are itching to say "prove God does not exist";

It is unnecessary to disprove that which has not been proven.

So does that make it necessary to disprove something that has been proven?
 
MHz
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

the waterfall at Gibraltar was *not* due to rising water levels after the last ice age. it long pre-dates that.

Was there a time in the past that the waterfall was going out to the Atlantic?
Was there ever a time before the gate opened (as we see it today) the flow of water flow was fresh water flowing to the west. Since it seems pretty deep it could have been a fresh water lake. The melting Atlantic would have added enough water for the salt to come in.
The Med might be so deep, compared to a river delta, because floods of fresh water coming down from the north would have been large in volume, and high in speed. A flood that comes at a right-angle to a river valley will have some material from the banks in it's water when it exits the valley at a still high rate of speed. Sand moves quite easily and there is a lot of sand straight south of the Med.
If the Arabian Sea had more land area and a delta type coastline that always seems to attract people also. Structures there might have been visible after the the water rose as far as it was going to.
If it involved a lot of rain it would have wore down just about everything because of the quality of the stone, if they used, mud brick would almost melt away.
Isn't that area considered as being the 'cradle of life'? (from the time after the water stopped rising)

The ones under water might have been the larger group. If the ice-age lasted about 50,000 yrs. it might have grew and receded in about 10,000 yrs., at each end. 30,000 years of things being 'rather stable' (normal tides, nothing more) If they happened to be 'bigger' (due to an over-abundance of food) and many (not solitary hunter-gathers but having fields and cities).

The geology might have gone something like that, but how do you determine anything about who lived there? A lot of people, a few people, bigger, smaller? If the end of the ice-age came as a Yellowstone type event. North America would be less well off, if it was really bad it would be civilization starting almost from scratch,.
 
Scott Free
#20
An interesting book about ancient civilizations that existed before water levels climbed is: Underworld by Graham Hancock, published by Anchor Canada (Random House), ISBN 0-385-65935-0.

The author spent years traveling and exploring underwater ruins from around the world.
 
Praxius
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Praxius

That's your believe .

Indeed.... just like it is your belief that belief is not a reality.... which is the contradiction. You stated your opinion, which is of course valid as any other opinion on anything, but what gives you the foundation of your opinion is a Belief, AKA: A Conclusion, be that final or still work in progress.
 
L Gilbert
#22
Belief is simply a driver. It's a driver among many drivers. Curiosity is a driver, love of money is a driver, love of a person or people is a driver, It really isn't that big of a deal. What the result of acting on belief is, that's important. I would venture to say that curiosity is a bigger driver. What makes us tick? What makes our world tick? What makes the universe tick? Perhaps belief is only a centerline which we follow that guides our curiosity and other drivers along the road. Perhaps it isn't even a driver.
Someone mentioned we do things because we are conditioned. Nuts! Does a newborn reach for a thumb he or she can just barely focus on because of conditioning? I don't think so. I think it has more to do with curiosity.
Perhaps you believe that you are conditioned into believing that you are conditioned into believing things? Perhaps you should break free of these conditionings and beliefs and just do what you want to do.
I sleep when I am tired, not when we are conditioned to sleep: the go to sleep at night and wake up 8 hours later in the morning thing. I usually sleep about 6 hours with a 15 or 20 minute nap somewhere in between the 6 hour stretches.
I eat when I am hungry, not at the 3 times a day thing.
If I see something new to me I go check it out. If I see an ant for the first time scuttling across the ground. It seems from a distance that it has many legs. Curiosity makes me get closer and look. Upon closer inspection it does indeed have many legs. When it stops I can quantify my observation by counting the legs. If people paid more attention to curiosity as a motive for things and less to what they think exists and what they think happens, I believe we'd all be a lot better off.
 
L Gilbert
#23
Sorry, I guess I was dangerously close to being as tediously verbose as Mhz. I usually try to be fairly lucid and succinct. My apologies.
 
MHz
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Sorry, I guess I was dangerously close to being as tediously verbose as Mhz. I usually try to be fairly lucid and succinct. My apologies.

Were you driven to try and surpass me in verboseness? ROFLMAO
You eye for fine detail is somewhat lacking, Mhz is not the same as MHz. No big deal, just an observation that indicates a tiny bit of laziness in your general character.
When you say 'driven' is that a healthy sort of drive or the unhealthy one. Addiction would be an example of an unhealthy drive.

" I usually sleep about 6 hours with a 15 or 20 minute nap somewhere in between the 6 hour stretches. " Would that be similar to being 'asleep at the wheel'?

Is their some specific reason you left your usual sig off this post? You seem to be a fan of "Catch-22" type phrases. You do need to come up with your own though or your drive is simply to copy somebody else, a trend that usually ends up being rather inferior when compared to the original.
 
MHz
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

An interesting book about ancient civilizations that existed before water levels climbed is: Underworld by Graham Hancock, published by Anchor Canada (Random House), ISBN 0-385-65935-0.

The author spent years traveling and exploring underwater ruins from around the world.

Does that book indicate there were great groups that could work in harmony to get things done?
Some of his videos on google or utube cover the building of some of the 7 wonders but it doesn't seem to explore further back than that. Like the sphinx showing water damage, if the rains stopped 10,000 years ago then the damage was done by that time. It must have been there for a long time for the weathering to happen, say another 5-10,000 years.
I watched a show some time ago that was an exploration to if there was ever a time that their might have been "giants in those days". One guy was was saying something like 'in conclusion these are myths and not realities'. If you noticed his body language when he was saying that, it would have been quite obvious he was saying things that he didn't actually believe were true statements. The kind of things that are apparent when a person who is not a seasoned liar tells a lie. (but at least he still had a job to go to)

Since that type of logic is more or less rejected, would anything be 'reburied' that pointed to odds and ends that pop up as oddities.
Suppression has been used against some in our fairly recent past (like the world being round) that did end up being just the opposite of what the norm was thought to be.
Last edited by MHz; Mar 4th, 2008 at 12:42 PM..
 
Scott Free
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Does that book indicate there were great groups that could work in harmony to get things done?

He does, however, there isn't a lot of record left once a city has been underwater for a few thousand years. The book includes a map of what land would have existed and now exists. It is fair to speculate that civilizations may have existed on those now submerged masses. Cities today for example are typically built on sites that will, if current trends continue, probably be submerged in the near future. As an example he explores Indian folklore about a city that people say did once exist and after a dive he finds evidence to support the stories.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Some of his videos on google or utube cover the building of some of the 7 wonders but it doesn't seem to explore further back than that. Like the sphinx showing water damage, if the rains stopped 10,000 years ago then the damage was done by that time. It must have been there for a long time for the weathering to happen, say another 5-10,000 years.
I watched a show some time ago that was an exploration to if there was ever a time that their might have been "giants in those days". One guy was was saying something like 'in conclusion these are myths and not realities'. If you noticed his body language when he was saying that, it would have been quite obvious he was saying things that he didn't actually believe were true statements.

There is evidence of giants but it has mostly been destroyed because it didn't fit current scientific thinking. The Smithsonian for example has destroyed hundreds of skeletal remains of people 12 feet and taller because they concluded they must have been a hoax. That was the modern thinking too until new skeletal remains were recently found in Arizona of a group over 12 feet tall.

In England too, two skeletal remains of people over 30 feet tall were reported but destroyed. I have no idea if they were real or not, there is no evidence left. All we can hope is that if they were real that new evidence will emerge and, this time, go unmolested.

It is unfortunate when people try and make the world conform to their notions instead of conforming to the evidence.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The kind of things that are apparent when a person who is not a seasoned liar tells a lie. (but at least he still had a job to go to)

It can be easy to spot a lier but it can be difficult too. I don't think a person can be properly base-lined from a TV show.

Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Since that type of logic is more or less rejected, would anything be 'reburied' that pointed to odds and ends that pop up as oddities.

I don't see why not. There is an out of print book called America BC. I think you would find it fascinating. It's full of oddities.

Another good book (maybe even a great book) is Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, 2005, ISBN 0-89213-294-9

It chronicles odd evidence that the science of archeology refuses to look at. For example modern human foot prints along dinosaur foot prints. A modern human arm bone found in a coal seam some 200 million years old. You know, all the things that should rightly make a modern scientist cringe.

Once a theory has become widely accepted any evidence to the contrary can be quickly suppressed. A scientist that took such anomalies too seriously would probably find himself quickly without credibility and subsequently, a job. I can see how this is a good idea and a bad one. The majority of evidence will be the best indicator of truth, however, anomalies could indicate falsehoods or be themselves frauds. It's hard to know but if suppressed it becomes impossible to know.

Science has a culture of following the man with the longest beard (the antithesis of modern culture where youth is worshiped). It is difficult in that atmosphere to convince people of new ideas. It is proper that it should be difficult or science would lose its validity and end up being a speculative art, however, there is a point where standing on the backs of giants is one thing but deifying them is something altogether different, and a proper distinction of motive becomes a little more than hazy IMO.
 
Dexter Sinister
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

An interesting book about ancient civilizations that existed before water levels climbed is: Underworld by Graham Hancock, published by Anchor Canada (Random House), ISBN 0-385-65935-0.

The author spent years traveling and exploring underwater ruins from around the world.

You might find these instructive:
http://csicop.org/si/2002-07/fingerprints.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...ornagain.shtml

I've read one of Hancock's books, Fingerprints of the Gods. I think he's a fraud. Not deliberately, he just doesn't understand what he's doing and he's not qualified to do it.
 
Scott Free
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

You might find these instructive:
http://csicop.org/si/2002-07/fingerprints.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...ornagain.shtml

I've read one of Hancock's books, Fingerprints of the Gods. I think he's a fraud. Not deliberately, he just doesn't understand what he's doing and he's not qualified to do it.

I never thought of him as an expert but more as an enthusiast. There really isn't a lot of evidence for his claims in his book Underworld but it is interesting.

I should mention also that a rebuttal to Forbidden Archeology was published in which peers refuted the authors claims. I think to Cremo and Thompson's credit they published the rebuttals also and left them unmolested (though I just thumbed through the book).


Thanks for the heads up Dexter. I like entertaining alternative thinking only in that it's an opportunity to explore "all possible worlds" (Lewis) as I find that entertaining. I quite agree though, that it is best to consult experts on things of importance but I would hate to see that stymie the flow of ideas by qualified people or not.
Last edited by Scott Free; Mar 4th, 2008 at 08:52 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

I like entertaining alternative thinking...

So do I, but it has to make sense in terms of what we already know. Unfortunately, it's often hard to tell. I don't know enough about archeology to spot Hancock's errors in that context, but I do know enough about physics and geology to recognize that his hypothesized pole shifts are utter foolishness, and that's enough for me to reject his whole thesis. If such a critical part of his argument is flatulent nonsense, odds are the rest of it is too.

You might find this site edifying as well.
 
Dexter Sinister
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free View Post

Science has a culture of following the man with the longest beard...

Look at my avatar. You realize, of course, this means you have to believe everything I tell you...
 

Similar Threads

201
The steps to belief (or disbelief)
by eanassir | Mar 18th, 2009
20
A belief in God .
by china | Dec 23rd, 2008
77
Belief, Truth, Assumption, and Reason
by quandary121 | Jul 5th, 2008
15
Belief without reason
by progressive | Aug 8th, 2006