Originally posted by Lord SharkSting! You have given me quite an overkill there Lordy!If I am so wrong why the need such a srtong,over-the-top,homourless post ?
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]My reseach has lead me to the conclusion that the pyramids could not have been built with the methods available to those people in that time period.
By 'research' do you mean that you are an expert in the field, with in-depth knowledge of the methods that could plausibly have been available at the time, an ...[text shortened]... , based on ignorance and a liking for books and websites about how aliens built the pyramids?[/b]
By 'research' I in no way claim to be an expert. Why would you say such things? My research would include reading various authors on the matter and cross-referencing information. When the same thing comes up from UNRELATED scouces,for example, I will note it as having more credibility,if a claim is backed by sciectific conclusions I'll give it more crdibility,etc.
Yes I said ther was no "probable evidence" as to how they were built. No 'conclusive' proof. Did I hear you offer up an alternative as to how they were built? I'm all ears
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczel
Sting! You have given me quite an overkill there Lordy!If I am so wrong why the need such a srtong,over-the-top,homourless post ?
I think it was proportionate, and humour isn't always appropriate.
By 'research' I in no way claim to be an expert. Why would you say such things?
I merely asked, just in case you knew what you were talking about.
My research would include reading various authors on the matter and cross-referencing information. When the same thing comes up from UNRELATED scouces,for example, I will note it as having more credibility,if a claim is backed by sciectific conclusions I'll give it more crdibility,etc.
I don't think that methodology is adequate.
Yes I said ther was no "probable evidence" as to how they were built.
But now you have admitted that you are not qualified to assess this probability, since you are no expert.
No 'conclusive' proof.
'Conclusive proof' is setting the bar too high for historical matters. Plausible ideas would do.
Did I hear you offer up an alternative as to how they were built? I'm all ears
I've got a better idea, why don't you consult some experts?
Originally posted by Lord Shark(cant help but detect a bit of cynicism)
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]Sting! You have given me quite an overkill there Lordy!If I am so wrong why the need such a srtong,over-the-top,homourless post ?
I think it was proportionate, and humour isn't always appropriate.
By 'research' I in no way claim to be an expert. Why would you say such things?
I merely asked, ju ...[text shortened]... ilt? I'm all ears[/b]
I've got a better idea, why don't you consult some experts?[/b]
1. It may have been proportionate in your view, granted. Humour isn't always appropriate, although the e.t.'s would think it important.
2. How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about? I don't claim to know the whole picture but the parts I have experienced I know.
3.I didn't say that that methodology was adequate. I think different subjects require different methodologies. It was just an example of some factors.
4.Whats this hang up on experts? How do you know the material I've read was not written by experts?
5.One of the most conclusive proofs of panspermia is us! The human being as we know it has evolved in such an unexpected manner ,not in accord with the rest of evolution, that it becomes almost impossible to explain why our species has become so intelligent so quickly.
6.And I suppose your idea of 'experts' on egyptology are those morons that guard the Great pyramid and keep telling you they were burial chambers!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczelCynicism? Maybe.
(cant help but detect a bit of cynicism)
1. It may have been proportionate in your view, granted. Humour isn't always appropriate, although the e.t.'s would think it important.
2. How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about? I don't claim to know the whole picture but the parts I have experienced I know.
3.I didn't say that that methodology w ...[text shortened]... ose morons that guard the Great pyramid and keep telling you they were burial chambers!
1. I doubt that.
2. This is a judgement call on my part. This is based on the evidence available to me. So I could be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you to show it.
3. Then the burden of proof remains.
4. I don't have a hang up on experts. But people who do things for a living that involve an area of expertise have usually paid their dues. As for whether what you have read was written by experts, it is back to the burden of proof isn't it? Show me.
5. This is yet another unevidenced extraordinary claim.
6. Have you paid your dues?
Originally posted by Lord SharkAh,you are now back to your scything best!
Cynicism? Maybe.
1. I doubt that.
2. This is a judgement call on my part. This is based on the evidence available to me. So I could be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you to show it.
3. Then the burden of proof remains.
4. I don't have a hang up on experts. But people who do things for a living that involve an area of expertise have usual me.
5. This is yet another unevidenced extraordinary claim.
6. Have you paid your dues?
No nore overkill I see. Just a measured 'level-headed' approach that repeatedly calls for proof. Oh not just proof its all about the 'burden of proof' now.
There are so many proofs, if you actually put up some arguement, say like explaining how those huge 80-200ton blocks got moved into position for the building of the pyramids, then maybe I could dig up some proofs on that particular subject.
So if you are serious about a debate about this topic,get more specific with the questions. And keep an open mind.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczel
Oh not just proof its all about the 'burden of proof' now.
Yes, the idea of 'burden of proof is important to this discussion. I used that phrase because it is the usual one and is understood, but perhaps a better term would be 'burden of evidence'.
There are so many proofs, if you actually put up some arguement, say like explaining how those huge 80-200ton blocks got moved into position for the building of the pyramids, then maybe I could dig up some proofs on that particular subject.
You have made an extraordinary claim, but have not backed up that claim at all. I have no obligation whatsoever to put up any argument.
I am understandably sceptical that you can dig up any proofs whatsoever, I reckon the very best you could hope for is a set of objections to the standard explanations that seem superficially plausible.
So if you are serious about a debate about this topic,get more specific with the questions. And keep an open mind.
I am much more serious about it than somebody who would take the approach you suggest here. I assume we both feel that our own minds are just at the correct level of openness.
What is common to this kind of discussion in my experience, whether it be about the moon landings, the twin towers or the pyramids, is that those who hold to the various conspiracy theories or outlandish explanations are in fact the least open minded participants. In general they are selective about how they treat evidence both for and against their pet theories.
Further, they lack detailed expertise in the disciplines involved in the evidence on which they rely. So people who have only a passing knowledge of photography or structural engineering will nonetheless declaim at length about how the moon landing photos are fake or how the twin towers wouldn't have collapsed that way. I'm afraid they haven't paid their dues. They have simply absorbed conspiracy theories from books or the internet.
You would have thought that after von Däniken was exposed as a fake that those who think aliens built the pyramids would have paused for thought. But not a bit of it, and actually on reflection this is entirely predictable because people with a rational open minded scepticism don't tend to get sucked into the conspiracy mindset in the first place, whereas those who have, are necessarily either immune from contrary evidence or deeply flawed in the way they assess evidence.
But finally, let's think for a moment about what you could possibly show with your 'proofs', assuming they were any good at all. You could show that modern attempts to figure out how these things were done have been unsuccessful so far. You haven't even shown that of course, but if you did, would alien intervention be a plausible explanation? If you think so then I suggest that you don't really understand the principle of Occam's Razor.
Originally posted by Lord SharkWell telling me I may as well not bother with any proofs because they are probably defective and out of context is certainly not an open mind. Even if you are serious about finding an explanation to some mysteries out there you dont seem to take me seriously. That saddens me.
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]Oh not just proof its all about the 'burden of proof' now.
Yes, the idea of 'burden of proof is important to this discussion. I used that phrase because it is the usual one and is understood, but perhaps a better term would be 'burden of evidence'.
There are so many proofs, if you actually put up o then I suggest that you don't really understand the principle of Occam's Razor.
Why are you under no obligation to put up an arguement? Because you dont take me seriously . Even if it was just my delusion you have seemed so sure it was my delusion which makes me feel pre-judged. I dont want to talk any more about this to you because you are pre-judging so there is no fair debate. (i'm not evading anything either ,if thats what your thinking.)(and no specific questions-your good!)
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczelOriginally posted by karoly aczel
Well telling me I may as well not bother with any proofs because they are probably defective and out of context is certainly not an open mind. Even if you are serious about finding an explanation to some mysteries out there you dont seem to take me seriously. That saddens me.
Why are you under no obligation to put up an arguement? Because you dont tak ...[text shortened]... ot evading anything either ,if thats what your thinking.)(and no specific questions-your good!)
Well telling me I may as well not bother with any proofs because they are probably defective and out of context is certainly not an open mind.
But that isn't what I said. My point was that I can rule out ahead of time that you can prove your claim in the way you describe, because it is not amenable to proof. You might have a stack of valid criticisms that show that the pyramids could not have been built in the way archeologists and historians have supposed.
But even if you did (and you have provided none) there are two things you should concede:
1. They would not be proofs in the technical sense
2. they would not demonstrate alien intervention.
Even if you are serious about finding an explanation to some mysteries out there you dont seem to take me seriously. That saddens me.
I think I am more open minded than you are and that I have taken you as seriously as anyone who makes unfounded and extraordinary claims deserves to be. Moreso if anything.
Why are you under no obligation to put up an arguement? Because you dont take me seriously .
Why bother asking if you are going to answer yourself? Wrongly as it turns out.
I dont want to talk any more about this to you because you are pre-judging so there is no fair debate.
No, I'm post judging on the evidence available. Of course if you come up with the goods that judgement would change. But instead it seems you want to run away whilst trying to blame me for an unfair debate. I think that is dishonourable on your part and that you should come back, apologise for that, then stand your ground, concede or agree to differ. But i'm open to persuasion on that. 🙂
I apologise for any typos, as I have no time to proof read this one.
Originally posted by Lord Shark1.No that isn't what you said its what I read into it
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]Well telling me I may as well not bother with any proofs because they are probably defective and out of context is certainly not an open mind.
But that isn't what I said. My point was that I can rule out ahead of time that you can prove your claim in the way you describe, because it is not amenable ersuasion on that. 🙂
I apologise for any typos, as I have no time to proof read this one.[/b]
2.Why would my proofs not be proofs in the technical sense?
3.Perhaps you have taken me seriously, you sure have a different tone in this post. Or perhaps you're playing good cop/bad cop with yourself.
4. I have come up with no goods because you have not mentioned anything specific.
You seem to be hell bent on saving face in this public forum .
I still dont think I want to talk about this with you, however if you ask something specific I may answer🙂
p.s.I am tempted to write that apology. An apology for such a bad thread!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczel
1.No that isn't what you said its what I read into it
Well that means I'm not responsible when you get it wrong, as you did in this case.
2.Why would my proofs not be proofs in the technical sense?
Because your claim is framed in such a way as not to be amenable to proof in the technical sense.
3.Perhaps you have taken me seriously, you sure have a different tone in this post. Or perhaps you're playing good cop/bad cop with yourself.
You made an extraordinary claim and have still to back it up. I suspect you are using this idea about my tone as a smokescreen to obscure the fact that you haven't paid your dues, and so cannot come up with the goods.
4. I have come up with no goods because you have not mentioned anything specific.
Then you still don't understand the consequences of the burden of evidence being on you to back up your extraordinary claim.
You seem to be hell bent on saving face in this public forum .
Because I challenge you to back up your extraordinary claims? That's a bit harsh don't you think?
I still dont think I want to talk about this with you, however if you ask something specific I may answer🙂
Ok, could you show me some credible evidence that supports the notion that aliens built the pyramids? Is that specific enough for you?
p.s.I am tempted to write that apology. An apology for such a bad thread!
Yeah, what was that you were saying about 'saving face'? 🙂
Originally posted by karoly aczelI highly, highly recommend this book:
This issue has been bubbling in me for a while, I knew it was just a matter of time before I bought it up.
Firstly I realised both terms are short-sighted but you know the general gist of where I am coming from ,right?
In my experience this subject has played an integral part of my spiritual understanding (of reality)
However when talking to other pe ...[text shortened]... re if you dont believe me or think I'm crazy(however.as always'all comments are most welcome)
The God Hypothesis: Extra Terrestrial Life and its Implications on Science and Religion
Don't just blow that off... the book is cheap, not exhaustive, an easy read, is in layman's terms, and can set your paradigm on its ear.
It changed my life. I've bought 2 copies and gave them both away. I guess it's time for me to buy another couple.
Goodness GRACIOUS!!! I said the book was cheap... well I guess there aren't many copies left. You can buy it used for about 8 bucks, but new copies cost $80 at Amazon... don't go there... New it's $24.00 at Barnes & Noble.
I'm buying 2 more copies as we speak... and I'm not just a new, passing fan of the book... I read it many years ago and have referenced it countless times since.
I'm really glad you made this thread and reminded me to get the book again.
One thing about those crop circles is that something or someone intelligent created them. (even if it's drunk frats or farmers or whatever) They are artistic and intricate. Hey karoly? I bet you heard of Art bell huh? I always enjoyed his shows. Gets some real whack jobs on his show but it's good night time radio. The one thing I think is that this universe is very vast. Religious folk should not totally rule out that God created other beings out there in the vastness of space. Maybe we are like C.S. Lewis's silent planet. These beings are curious about us if they exist. Maybe if you like these are angels or demons if you do believe the bible than you would believe that these beings exist. Where do they dwell? In space maybe or other dimensions? Maybe they are not bound by our physical laws and can travel anywhere. Be seen or not.
Manny
Originally posted by sumydidThnx I'll look that one up!
I highly, highly recommend this book:
The God Hypothesis: Extra Terrestrial Life and its Implications on Science and Religion
Don't just blow that off... the book is cheap, not exhaustive, an easy read, is in layman's terms, and can set your paradigm on its ear.
It changed my life. I've bought 2 copies and gave them both away. I guess it's time for me to buy another couple.
Originally posted by menace71I've heard of Art Bell's radio show.
One thing about those crop circles is that something or someone intelligent created them. (even if it's drunk frats or farmers or whatever) They are artistic and intricate. Hey karoly? I bet you heard of Art bell huh? I always enjoyed his shows. Gets some real whack jobs on his show but it's good night time radio. The one thing I think is that this universe ...[text shortened]... e they are not bound by our physical laws and can travel anywhere. Be seen or not.
Manny
Sometimes these debates come down to semantics other times,as in Lord Sharks case , they dont.
I suspect that if they have the power to be seen or not then they also have the power to clean up the evidence after themselves.
I still dont know how the pyramids were made although I have been told I am stupid for asking.