it looks like this post imo
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=124

See, I asked the earlier question because I just don't get how you can be comfortable making statements such as this one when you really have no idea what you're talking about.

You "don't think so."
"many many scientists moving away.....we just had one poster..."

I do not mean that as an insult, although I understand it might come off that way. You've admitted you've done relatively little study of the vast amounts of information out there on the subject.

Could you link to the post you refer to?



Regardless, I don't see why Concerto is so against the idea of macro evolution to the point where he refers to it as "mumbo jumbo"...If I were a Christian, it would in no way threaten my belief in God.

The events clearly did not unfold in a literal sense as described in Genesis, so what's so wrong with the idea that we did evolve from apes? I don't see why we couldn't still be just as special as the Bible tells us we are just because we evolved to this point. What does it matter? Why are we less special if we didn't "poof" into existence in our current form?

LirvA:

Oh okay.

Butcho22:

I have made my objections to the "evolution" sham clear ITT. Not once have I referenced it threatening any of my beliefs. Please don't misrepresent my arguments, if for no other reason than it's probably a fallacy I don't feel like looking up right now.

Well I apologize then. But it's not like you've shown the information out there supporting what you're calling a "sham" to be false. It would take one hell of a long post.

And maybe it's a non sequitur? LOL.

If you found out all life on earth is just a natural byproduct of stardust and evolution it wouldn't affect your belief in God at all? And not that i mean evolution being true would make God less likely as he/she/it still could of been the cause of it. I mean your belief in the biblical God.

There is something amusing to seeing a believer in an invisible all-powerful creator of the universe, father of a virgin child, afterlife creator, omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving deity who is everpresent and created humans stand up to an ETist who claims "life could exist elsewhere, they have crafts they can cross space in and they have visited us" and call them outlandish.

oh he believes in god but doesn't, for lack of better term, believe in aliens?


surely he must acknowledge the lack of evidence for the former and the significance of evidence for the latter?

Zing?

The stardust hypothesis which you describe is indeed inconsistent with my understanding of the Biblical description of God's creation. However, this is not the basis of my argument against it. That aspect of the topic is mostly in the background as far as I'm concerned.

Until someone tries to ad homimen the subject matter (usually for lack of a substantive argument), that is.

Who here is claiming space aliens are "outlandish"? I haven't seen anyone do that. It's conceivable there could be some. The evidence I have seen comes nowhere near making that case though.

But don't let me interfere with your amusement.

I think space aliens are per definition outlandish.

Puns aside, there a subtle difference between "space aliens are outlandish" and "space aliens exist, have crafts that can cross space and have visited us" - which is the claim I commented upon, and which I am reasonably certain most believers in God would agree was an outlandish claim.


Concerto, you will never interfere with my amusement.

Rather than outlandish, completely unfounded would be closer.

Though I still don't get why you think of this as a believer issue. Some consider "little green men" to be a type of angel. For non-Biblical reasons imo, but there they are.

I didn't say it was inconsistent with your beliefs in the biblical God (i do think it is). I was just asking you if you thought it was.

I don't think of this as a believer issue. Maybe you need to read my post once more.

I find it amusing when someone who holds the bible to be (more or less) true finds stories regarding technologically advanced aliens visiting us to be outlandish/unfounded/false. This is because irony amuses me.

militarys certainly don't appear to consider unidentified flying objects a type of angel or a miraculous gift of some sort.

There have been many documented cases where the military has scrambled interceptor jets in response to unauthorized air space violations (documented on radar, of course), and even cases where the interceptors have been called upon to fire at the object, and weapon systems failing.

So clearly, whatever those objects are, the military feels they are a threat. So you must examine the possibles.

well ... in many of these cases, the maneuvers the object performs generate so much force that a human being psychically could not operate or control it.

so if a human can't possible be a passenger, then the only human possibility is that it is being controlled remotely by a human. In many cases, the maneuvers performed by the objects are completely outside the known technological capabilities of human. Military conflicts with UFOs are a perfect measure, for we know what kind of technological capabilities our military and even enemies military had at the current time, as we and they deployed it in warfare.

so what kind of conclusion do you come to then, when the bogey isn't your aircraft, and isn't your enemies aircraft (because remember, no way in hell could a human go through those g forces and live, AND no way in hell we could ever build something to do wtf that thing just did) ... then what and where did it come from?

something that should be clear to anyone who actually does some research on this and looks at some of the facts is that they are not of earthly origin.


and if something isn't of earthly origin, AND the military is scrambling ****ing jet fighters to intercept it, then that's an extremely serious issue, and one that needs to be acknowledged and discussed openly by all governments.


in fact, many countries have started releasing their UFO files. Their official government documents. The UK, Mexico, Canada, ... the US certainly has not and I feel that it's time to.


The United States is supposed to present itself as a model nation for the rest of the world to look up to, but all these other countries are releasing their documents and the US is not?

That is unacceptable imo.

yahh yahh!

another huge difference between UFOlogy and god


how far have people come in their fight to prove god? how much progress have they made? how much? when they go to say "well we can't prove god without a doubt just YET ... but look at all this progress we've made. all this progress we've fought for.? how far have they come with god?


and how far have UFOlogists come? how much progress have they made?

a good. god. damn. ****ing. lot.

countries releasing their governmental documents on their investigations of UFO reports, and very very interesting and completely unexplainable reports.


implants being found in people. scientifically analyzed and shown to be very likely to have been a non terrestrial, manufactured, functioning device.

you know what's funny?


no one has said "well how do you know those aren't the work of god?"


yes! yessssssssss! indeed!

the things in the sky that the military chases, that we see, that we have radar data on, the things pulled out of people that appear to have been manufactured but not on earth and appear to have a function, how do we know this isn't the work of god?


absolutely! we do not know that it is not! it certainly is a possibility, isn't it?


if it were indeed god, then. then that would mean god, or a facet of god, is something that interacts with humans, both citizens and military, and is possibly a big threat to us, as the military perceives it as a threat.


if we cannot defend against whatever they are, if our jets cannot shoot them down as they try and fail to do, then we are at mercy.

In warfare, air superiority is essential.

I'm sensing that "documented" has the same effect in UFOlogy as "spiritual" in revealed religion. Something similar can be said for "sources" which seem very close to "personal revelation" in how it is argued.

Falsifiability need not apply?

wat are you like questioning the validity and significance of like radar data and government reports and analysis results of wtf all this **** is?

No, I'm commenting on the usage of buzzwords.

Documented IMO

buzzwords?


standard nomenclature

Implants?! Data which suggests a UFO is intelligently controlled?

I'd be interested in seeing this data.

Edit: Dr. Roger Leir sounds like a great source. I totally believe him when he says he removed implants, describes their properties, and concludes they are of extra-terrestrial origin. In fact, I'd go as far as saying I have as much faith in Dr. Leir as I do the Bible.

In addition, there are very few sources for the Tehran incident page on Wikipedia. There's mountains of text that don't seem to have a source at all. A lot of the sources are from people who write books on Alienz. They could be reliable sources, but I doubt it somehow.

Is this for real?

The conclusion is that the aircraft, which is flown by computer guidance, is based on unknown technology from an unknown human source.

"Last edited by LirvA; Today at 05:03 AM. Reason: and yes, there is very interesting and unexplainable information in those documents "

Interesting and unexplainable obviously means extra-terrestrial.

Look, we don't know precisely what happened in Tehran or whatever, but it's a bit premature to jump to the "extra-terrestrial" conclusion. Especially when we have pretty much no evidence that advanced extra-terrestrials exist, or that they're visiting us. Then you also have to consider the difficulties in such space travel.

Human error or unknown/unexplained natural phenomena is probably the frontrunner as the explanation.