• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation vs. Evolution

inca

Active Member
Mr. you need to READ your own postings! Haven't you read the new photos were taken by Mars Global Surveyor and not only by Viking. Even the ones that you show me indicate different perspective of the face. There were at least 11 photos available. I already posted this, if you wanna ignore the scientific evidence you're in your right as anybody else. But I will still trust in the evidence of science that the eroded mountain is artificial "face" and the other stuff that I posted.
 

inca

Active Member
As you can see, people from different science fields do have examine Mars surface, even the time when shadows appear, they have analyzed the image in 3D in every possible angle of shadow and light as it happens with the "erosion" of some places on Earth in a sort of "statue" conception to hide the things for the most people and to make evident some things in the proper time like equinoxes, solstices, eclipses and so on. That place mentioned in the site, Marcahuasi, I know myself and I went with the son of the archeologist and anthropologist man mentioned there, Daniel Ruzo. That has been studied by cryptoarcheologist and they are aware the "face" rock gets old during the day when the Sun "changes" position until sunset, etc. So, it's up to everyone to disregard the idea but even prior to that, you have to examine all the details, many of which people just never read before. Therefore I encourage you to do so, specially if you have Cherokee heritage cos probably the indians in your country did something similar. In Peru, for example, there are shadows of the cougar being ONE with the Inka in specific time of the year in certain mountain and all the legends wrote about that. And in fact the legends mention some creatures were coming or entering the caves or rocks or were converted into rocks. We're messing around with something opposite than Carl Sagan's thought. He expected alien outside, but the hyperdimensional beings are next to us but invisible. Not humanoids into our own image and yet pretty much like religions told us. This is something new. It's not like Däniken or J.J.Benitez thought. I even wrote to Zecharia Sitchin (he responded me 3 letters by his own hand cos he doesn't use computers nor e-mail) in spite of some of his ideas are right, others are wrong regarding this very aspect of humanoids or hyperdimensional entities.
 

inca

Active Member
The ancient people used the same technique. Before I mentioned a site talking about egyptologist Anthony West giving the idea the sphinx represents a mixture of Australopithecus and Neanderthal. Not only geologist Schoch believes the sphinx was built prior to what egyptologists think but other geologists agreed with him but this is still controversial. I sent e-mails and personal letters to Anthony West about the place Marcahuasi in Peru and he said to me he was aware of that place too. I sent him color xerox images of my visit there in that plateau 4000 meters upon sea level. It's not erosion as I said, everything was done purposely and it has been investigated. I even sent him other details about Machu Picchu that people don't usually know. I've been there a couple of times as I was in Egypt too. The whole Cuzco city had the shape of the cougar and represented it, this is something already known by orthodox science. What people usually don't know is Huayna Picchu mountain as seen from Machu Picchu mountain represents too the cougar, the crocodile and the condor (all of them "gods") with spread wings next to the cougar.
www.infoperu.com/peru/eng/cusco/machu4.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/eng/cusco/machu5.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/fr/cusco/machu4.html
www.infoperu.com/peru/fr/cusco/machu5.html
www.aamefe.org.ar/puma/puma.htm
 

inca

Active Member
Do you remember the film Space Odysee 2001. Arthur Clark was someone who was in contact with Carl Sagan and he knew many things the public probably ignores. It seems the story of our human existence in this planet is not like in the film Mission Mars but more like an hybrid between Space Odysee 2001 and Planet of the Apes plus Mission Mars if you put the pieces together. In the Popul Vuh of the Mayas it also said some men were converted into apes and vice versa. The same is truth about the interpretation we can give to Sumerian account.No evolution no direct creation from God. Genetic engineering done by some entities into some apes. That was the process to "make" or "form" them into the image of the gods. Before that the Adamus were not "humanoids" or intelligent like the gods. They had the same animal degree of intelligence, nothing more. It was needed the intelligence or cogniscitive aspect more astonishing as Carl Sagan described in his "The Dragons of Eden". He didn't have the knowledge his friend Hoagland and other people have now about Mars and planet Earth. O rmaybe he had it and that explained his dubious attitude, one way in public but as an individual always sponsoring and pushing the investigation of alien life on Mars and other parts of our neighborhood.
 

(Q)

Active Member
inca

I didn't just quote Hoagland site but other scientists

Hoagland is a serious nutcase, crank, kook and is the furthest thing from being a scientist.

Dr. Tom Van Flandern believes the same

Oh yes, we mustn’t forget this idiot. He and Hoagland have done more to damage the reputation of science than anyone. These two have been refuted time and again yet they continue to be a scourge of the scientific community.

If you actually believe these guys, then you are as nutty as they.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
sorry, I dont base my world-view on movies...
as for Clark... he's a big force in debunking the paranormal... "Arthur C Clarks mysterious world" and "world of strange powers" were a great shows... He was especally amused by the 'UFO culture' ...

As for the Mayas... they belived that theire were four previous races... monkies, Iguanas, and two that were totaly wiped out. They also think that we are due to be wiped out soon...

of cource they also belived that if you didn't offer up human blood to the gods that the sun wouldn't rise...

wa:-do
 

inca

Active Member
Q: accusations have to be proved. If I say Hawkins made an idiotic commentary (which is not the same as saying he's an idiot), I backed up what I said using the same math probabilities and his opposition regarding Thorne's hypothesis to stablish his own particular taste. So, it doesn't surprise me that you say you hate the scientists or specialists and consider everything they write is 100 inaccurate. If I say the same regarding any scientists I would be an idiot. ...like you are.
Painted Wolf:I don't base my views on films, if you can't understand the difference between an EXAMPLE of what I'm trying to post...you're mistake. Yet, you got a good point in saying Mayas gods demanded blood. I tell you the reason:
Mayas never knew what they knew cos of their amazing private knowledge about math or astronomy without having telescopes. They were giving certain knowledge but the gods were not good-doers coming with good will. The reason for giving them specific knowledge was to tease them and deceive them regarding the pleasure the hyperdimensional entities have -until now- in the use of blood, specially teenagers and virgins.
 

inca

Active Member
In relation to Clarke's point of view:
www.testermanscifi.org/ClarkeQuotesPart4.html
I know very old Mr. (os is it an "it"?) Q probably thinks he is another idiot. For the readers:
www.testermanscifi.org/ClarkQuotesPart7.html

You'll see he doesn't deny possibilities but he prefers to believe the aliens should be "benevolents". In that sense he is wrong. One thing is having the technology or the power and other thing is morality. His assumption in that sense is as good or bad as anyone else. He's right many UFO sightings are indeed hoaxes. But then again when someone ignores some of these sightings were made by astronauts or experienced pilots and several details known by many people, Clarke chooses to believe UFOs don't need to "park" here. This is because as many science fiction writers he focuses OUTSIDE and in humanoid entities or monsters dwelling in planets. When I talk about "gods" I'm refering to hyperdimensional trapped creatures but I already explained that.
 

inca

Active Member
He added a wish: <<proof of life elsewhere - preferably intelligent, though I'd settle for anything that can put a couple of cells together. There are indications that the first may be in sight - and I've been expecting number two 'real soon now' for the past five years. As for the third - well, your guess is as good as mine." (from the 1998 "Egogram") >>
Well, he probably isn't aware of Sumerian tablets or uses his right to disagree.
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
These designs were not invented by modern authors as the symbol of Ptah (Egyptian god).

But it's interesting the fact he joined Stanley Kubrick to make his film 2001 Space O. and the idea of the black monolith "helping" the evolution. He said "any technology advanced enough is not distinguished from magic" (Profiles of the Future, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984). The alien object imagined by Paul Davies is described in his book "Are we alone" (Basic Books, 1995, page 42). When the Bible Code was shown to Kubrick he reckoned "it's like 2001 monolith".
 

inca

Active Member
Mr.Maize or whoever: I would apreciate whenever you decide to get rid of my messages you could also get rid of other "ofense" as well. I say and repeat I won't back my statements to Q. I'm not chatting with him. WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP HIM SINCE HE'S NOT ADDING ANYTHING TO THE THEME IN SEVERAL PAGES BUT ADRESSES TO ME? This ain't happening with the rest of participants. All of us can be passionated but try to remain in the issue in spite of differences...except him.
Getting back on theme again, more science and not what Mr. who (?) considers "pseudo-science":
http://members.surfeu.at/dchakalov/intro.html
And I keep on wondering myself why would I have to answer a spoil person acting like a child demanding an answer whenever he wants. I keep on asking myself who would he consider a good example of knowing random probabilities, perhaps F.H.?
 

inca

Active Member
This guy wrote this:
If, however, there is some immaterial, out-of-this-world ghost operating in our brain, which can change its "knowledge" instantaneously (Unruh, 1993; 1993a), being totally independent from the brain, then everything said here may be wrong, and we may not need to wary about how to interpret quantum mechanics (Fuchs and Peres, 2000).
 

inca

Active Member
And he added: The only critical assumption is that there are no ghosts nor any other immaterial agents operating in our brain. Only matter can act on matter.
So I just wrote him asking how come he knows if a "cherub" is not made by matter as well and is trapped in Planck dimension? How come he knows if the medium used is something in Hertz frequence or perhaps with the influence of chemical structures as psylocibine in mushrooms or Ayahuasca similar to serotonine or other hallucinogenic stuff acting like a key-lock in the brain? How come he explains that people who are not squizophrenic have witnessed odd experiences in ancient megalithic temples or why anthropologists and Dr. Dan Burisch, Ph.D in Molecular Biology and Biological System would expose themselves and their reputation to ridiculous with things like these:
www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
http://solder.ath.cx/Burisch/billh/ganesh.htm
www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/marcahuasi/marcahuasi.html
www.jornalinfinito.com.br/series.asp?cod=80
www.jornalinfinito.com.br/series.asp?cod=81
www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/hallucin.html
His humble response was "I can't answer". But even before that I had to explain the physics we read in books look like metaphysic, Descartes or Imanuel Kant philosophy. We don't know if gravity is a real force with real gravitons or if it's an illusion due to the deformation of the universe; we read the beginning was a "soup" of leptons, etc; a metaphoric expansion of the balloon in the Big Bang, we don't know if we're gonna end in a Big Rip or Big Crunch which is pretty much like Big Day and Big Night of Brahma swelling himself and then getting his own Big Crunch, we don't know what is the almost 80 % "nothingness" and "vacuum" of the universe and have a bunch of contradictory theories but they call it "science"...and then others say (in Scientific American) everything is an illusion like Matrix hollogram created by binary or other codes saying the "visible" Universe has at least 10 followed by 100 zeros bits of entropy. So, he was humble enough to admit. That happens with real scientists and not amateurs who think they can discuss about science. And you know what? I don't have to write all the details to satisfy the curiosity of someone allowed to nag. I don't have to say my information is based upon professor from Poland, professor from Theoretial Physics at Hebrew Univ of Jerusalem, recipient of Rothschild Prize, Jacob D. Bekenstein and also info from John Wheeler. I don't have to provide every single site or name or page of the book to satisfy the skepticism that went to cynical field long ago. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THE NAMES AND DATA EVERYTIME COS SOMEONE WANTS THE INFORMATION WHENEVER HE PLEASES "I want it now, I want it fast". Now what? Do I have to write the scientists personal e-mail to satisfy somebody's "interest in science" or the stupid messages the moderator allowed him?
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
Inca, if he is upseting you that much, that you must make 3 posts in a row just to fuss about it, perhaps you need to walk away from the thread and find something else to talk about. Or, here's a novel idea, IGNORE HIM.

Personal insults will not be tolerated and I will delete them if you cross the line again. Now, back on topic, please.
 

inca

Active Member
I will. Yet the prior message was not for him. It was for you because you shall be fair and eliminate some of his messages as well. So please, apply the rules NOT ONLY FOR ME. Don't tolerate his "ramble on" too as you don't tolerate mine. My last post I was not fussing about him only. If you read carefully you'll notice additional information REGARDING THE THEME.
And perhaps you allow me to say the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, the physicist Paul Davies and Hubert Yockey, the chemist Michael Polanyi, the particle physicist Roger Penrose and also Hawkins and Roger Penrose have discussed important issue about randomic possibilities:
www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17077/article_detail.asp
The previous post of the scientist I mentioned before, I hope you read it. And if somebody wants to have a chat with him can write him to agree or disagree to:
[email protected]
Thanks for your kind and subtle invitation to withdraw. I hope you can extend the invitation to U-know-who.
 

(Q)

Active Member
Inca

*WHOOOOSH - hand moving over head*

Nope, didn't understand a word of your post.

He's right many UFO sightings are indeed hoaxes.

Others are explained by natural phenomenae. None were visiting aliens.

Stanley Kubrick to make his film 2001 Space O. and the idea of the black monolith "helping" the evolution.

He shows the duality of man when man discovers and masters the use of the tool and who eventually becomes a slave to it.
 
Top