Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[King of the Americas]

Wow.

Nothing has changed in KoA's life.

Not one iota of new insight, not one hint of a single lesson learned.

This entire thread could be a time capsule from 1999, a static monument to limitless ignorance and grandiose ego. It's truly breathtaking in its intransigence, and applied to a matter of actual substance, might even be described as noble. But as it is, one can call it nothing more than a dog chasing its tail. Discussing logic with such a person is akin to discussing economics with a mollusk, except the mollusk has the good manners to keep its trap shut.

I'll check back in another five years, but I already know what I'll find. Thanks for the chuckles, Albert.

Mocko Jocko...my favorite follower...do 'you' still believe community volunteers are "worthless people"...?

 

[LissaLysikan]

And what do you think releases the 'skeptic' from these same evidentiary bounds?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This means that to claim the bright light in the sky is a craft from a unicorn preparing to engage a mermaid in a battle of magical powers, you have to show that mermaids and unicorns actually exist FIRST, before anyone has any reason to even consider what kind of magic they may use,
while at the same time the person that says it was probably a meteor doesn't have to prove anything since we already KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT METEORS EXIST.

 

[King of the Americas]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This means that to claim the bright light in the sky is a craft from a unicorn preparing to engage a mermaid in a battle of magical powers, you have to show that mermaids and unicorns actually exist FIRST, before anyone has any reason to even consider what kind of magic they may use,
while at the same time the person that says it was probably a meteor doesn't have to prove anything since we already KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT METEORS EXIST.

Why don't ALL claims require evidentiary support?

 

[LissaLysikan]

Why don't ALL claims require evidentiary support?

Reread what I said, you apparently missed a sentence or 5.

 

[King of the Americas]

Reread what I said, you apparently missed a sentence or 5.

I only see 2 sentences...

---

If you claim that 200 BC Inca built Puma Punku, then you NEED evidence to support that claim.

If you think the Rogue River sighting is a 'blimp', the you NEED to provide evidence to support that claim.

 

[LissaLysikan]

I only see 2 sentences...

---

If you claim that 200 BC Inca built Puma Punku, then you NEED evidence to support that claim.

If you think the Rogue River sighting is a 'blimp', the you NEED to provide evidence to support that claim.

Okay, let me try this again. I deal with a girl that will be a five year old for the rest of her life, I can handle a boy that will be a six year old for the rest of his.

Your claim is that there is something that has no basis in reality built these things. That makes your claim "extraordinary".
Everyone else is claiming that something that is known to have existed could have built these things. That makes their claim "ordinary".
Your claim is that they used some technology unknown to us to create these things. That makes your claim "extraordinary".
Everyone else has shown that they could have been made with technology existing at the time. That makes their claim "ordinary".

There is "ordinary" evidence that these things were built. The stones exist, they have cut marks, they have abrasion marks, there are imperfections in the fitting.
There is "ordinary" evidence that these were built by things that exist.
They have substance, there are trails of passage indicating that the stones were moved over the land rather than some magical means of placement.
There is "ordinary" evidence that the known "ordinary" things were capable of this building. Nearby cities of similar construction methods and artistic design.

So the "ordinary" construction evidence is sufficient to satisfy the "possible" cause.

Now it is up to anyone claiming that there is an "extraordinary" cause to provide similar evidence.
Evidence of "extraordinary" creators -
Evidence of "extraordinary" methods of construction -

You need to AT LEAST match the "possible" before you can even be considered for "probable".

If you wish, I think I can simplify it to a three year old's understanding.

 

[King of the Americas]

So the "ordinary" construction evidence is sufficient to satisfy the "possible" cause.

Your use of the term "ordinary", and your depiction of the "imperfect" building flaws do NOT fit the Puma Punku site...

There is NO EVIDENCE, as to who actually built the site.

Research the site a bit more, and get back to me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well, if you are "virtually certain"...THEN DO IT, and present your 'actual' findings.

Reading comprehension problem? I said that I'm virturally certain that I can't do it, not that I could.

Now, please answer the question. The fact that I can't carve stone like that, does that mean that it is impossible for humans to accomplish?

 

[LissaLysikan]

Your use of the term "ordinary", and your depiction of the "imperfect" building flaws do NOT fit the Puma Punku site...

There is NO EVIDENCE, as to who actually built the site.

Research the site a bit more, and get back to me.

What I was expecting you to say.
I have researched it.

The use of the term ordinary was clear from my post. The other term you objected to - imperfect.

The stones are fitted perfectly? So the seams do not allow passage of air or water and are not visible to the naked eye?

They fit as well as but no better than similar examples of other stonework of undisputed history in the region.

You haven't made any effort to provide any extraordinary evidence, you simply try to discredit the ordinary to make your key piece look better. It's special to an archeologist. It's not special in the sense of evidence of something we don't already know of.

ETA: No, we don't know if it was John, Paul, or Ringo (George was busy that week, so it couldn't have been him) - but we have REASONABLE CAUSE to believe it was a human agency. To suppose it wasn't requires FIRST that you prove such an alternative even exists.

 

[Nonpareil]

Cuddles should say what 'she' actually meant by her statement.

She (he?) did. You just deliberately misinterpreted what was a perfectly straightforward statement.

I don't know who built that site, I merely believe it 'could' have been built by someone who had ability beyond that of early Iron Age meso-americans, and that it 'could' be from a different Age altogether.

Okay, time to explain what an Ivory Tower argument is.
"Ivory Tower argument" is my pet term for an argument that cannot be proven nor disproven, because it has no impact on reality either way.
The evidence points toward this temple site being constructed by the Inca people. You claim, instead, that it was built by a race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings - no wait, "non-human sentient terrestrials", and that these NHSTs were able to fake evidence so thoroughly that there is absolutely no evidence left behind that they were there. In fact, they were able to fake evidence SO thoroughly that, not only were they able to cover up their own tracks, they were able to plant evidence that shows that the Incas did it.
This is an Ivory Tower, because no matter whether it is true or false, the evidence still shows that the Incas built Puma Punku.

And what do you think releases the 'skeptic' from these same evidentiary bounds?

THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Which you STILL don't understand.

If you claim that 200 BC Inca built Puma Punku, then you NEED evidence to support that claim.

Given.

Actually, King of the Americas, in this case, proximity is evidence. The Incans lived in the area, so they could have built that site without a five-hundred mile trek. They were building other temples at the time, so there's nothing strange about them building this one. The architectural design in Puma Punku is Incan, so they haven't made any weird designs. The stone is fashioned in ways that other ancient stone structures - several by the Incans, by the way - have exhibited and can be demonstrated to be possible using primitive stone tools.

That is the evidence for Incan construction of Puma Punku, all in one handy little text block for you. Perhaps now you'll stop lying out of your *** and saying that there isn't any.

My hopes were unfounded, it seems.

If you think the Rogue River sighting is a 'blimp', the you NEED to provide evidence to support that claim.

Also given, but I'm not going to dig through a separate thread to find it for you just because you have the memory retention powers of a goldfish.

 

[King of the Americas]

Alrighty...

...are you ready?

This is me, self-proclaimed- "King of the Americas", being completely and totally unvarnished in my retort... (usually I consider the potential repercussions of 'immortalizing'/putting it on-line, any and everything) ...I 'think':

That 'we' are not the first intelligent species to 'arise' from planet Earth. *I do NOT have 'proof' of this, so don't bother asking, this statement need no further response, as I am "King" and my word is beyond reproach.

I WILL go so far as to say that 'I', anecdotally I KNOW, have seen evidence of these "more advance/evolved" species...

If 'you' will look (I am sick & tired of doing other people's research) you will find evidence of modern/technologically advanced 'works', that we have no 'notation' of...

...notation meaning "direct line of ACTUAL confirmed written record of...

...ALL of the "truly technologically great works" on Earth...

...and what I mean by that, is that there is physical ability of 'several' monuments present that REQUIRE a written language, and thus 'physical evidence of record keeping'. We HAVE records of the 'great works' that Modern Man hath assembled. If not actual records, we certainly have accounts/myths...

...but NOT for 'everything'.

So my conclusion, after seeing most of (a good 65%) of the evidence that modern technology/the Internet has to offer, is that someone was here before 'us'...

You are not required to believe me.

You are not required to respond to this finding.

I am telling 'you', the reader here and now, that this is THE truth. There's evidence of it...'I' have seen it. And you will too, if you if you look for it... Meaning, to take an active role in the research and STOP looking for evidence of only 'your' assertions, and take a good long look at the evidence of 'this' conclusion.

"Life" is capable of evolving faster that other forms thereof. AND 'they' will leave the others behind. As will we.

Be well.

-"King of the Americas"

---

E.T.A.

PLEASE don't respond further... I want this thread to die. I want to go on to other things, research other topics, maybe read "Playing for Pizza"... I don't want to think about this/worry about responding to each and every comment made under my name...ANYMORE...

Thank you for your time & consideration, both WERE greatly appreciated.

...but it's over for me. 'I' am done.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Alrighty...

...are you ready?

This is me, self-proclaimed- "King of the Americas", being completely and totally unvarnished in my retort... (usually I consider the potential repercussions of 'immortalizing'/putting it on-line, any and everything) ...I 'think':

That 'we' are not the first intelligent species to 'arise' from planet Earth. *I do NOT have 'proof' of this, so don't bother asking, this statement need no further response, as I am "King" and my word is beyond reproach.

I WILL go so far as to say that 'I', anecdotally I KNOW, have seen evidence of these "more advance/evolved" species...

If 'you' will look (I am sick & tired of doing other people's research) you will find evidence of modern/technologically advanced 'works', that we have no 'notation' of...

...notation meaning "direct line of ACTUAL confirmed written record of...

...ALL of the "truly technologically great works" on Earth...

...and what I mean by that, is that there is physical ability of 'several' monuments present that REQUIRE a written language, and thus 'physical evidence of record keeping'. We HAVE records of the 'great works' that Modern Man hath assembled. If not actual records, we certainly have accounts/myths...

...but NOT for 'everything'.

So my conclusion, after seeing most of (a good 65%) of the evidence that modern technology/the Internet has to offer, is that someone was here before 'us'...

You are not required to believe me.

You are not required to respond to this finding.

I am telling 'you', the reader here and now, that this is THE truth. There's evidence of it...'I' have seen it. And you will too, if you if you look for it... Meaning, to take an active role in the research and STOP looking for evidence of only 'your' assertions, and take a good long look at the evidence of 'this' conclusion.

"Life" is capable of evolving faster that other forms thereof. AND 'they' will leave the others behind. As will we.

Be well.

-"King of the Americas"

---

E.T.A.

PLEASE don't respond further... I want this thread to die. I want to go on to other things, research other topics, maybe read "Playing for Pizza"... I don't want to think about this/worry about responding to each and every comment made under my name...ANYMORE...

Thank you for your time & consideration, both WERE greatly appreciated.

...but it's over for me. 'I' am done.

Good post. I appreciate your honesty.

 

[Nonpareil]

So my conclusion, after seeing most of (a good 65%) of the evidence that modern technology/the Internet has to offer, is that someone was here before 'us'...

BTW: Sitting next to Kurse (playing Halo ODST) and he says that he doesn't want to respond because you're too much of an (enter insult/name that would likely get him suspended here).

 

[Marduk]

Alrighty...

...are you ready?

This is me, self-proclaimed- "King of the Americas", being completely and totally unvarnished in my retort... (usually I consider the potential repercussions of 'immortalizing'/putting it on-line, any and everything) ...I 'think':

That 'we' are not the first intelligent species to 'arise' from planet Earth. *I do NOT have 'proof' of this, so don't bother asking, this statement need no further response, as I am "King" and my word is beyond reproach.

I WILL go so far as to say that 'I', anecdotally I KNOW, have seen evidence of these "more advance/evolved" species...

If 'you' will look (I am sick & tired of doing other people's research) you will find evidence of modern/technologically advanced 'works', that we have no 'notation' of...

...notation meaning "direct line of ACTUAL confirmed written record of...

...ALL of the "truly technologically great works" on Earth...

...and what I mean by that, is that there is physical ability of 'several' monuments present that REQUIRE a written language, and thus 'physical evidence of record keeping'. We HAVE records of the 'great works' that Modern Man hath assembled. If not actual records, we certainly have accounts/myths...

...but NOT for 'everything'.

So my conclusion, after seeing most of (a good 65%) of the evidence that modern technology/the Internet has to offer, is that someone was here before 'us'...

You are not required to believe me.

You are not required to respond to this finding.

I am telling 'you', the reader here and now, that this is THE truth. There's evidence of it...'I' have seen it. And you will too, if you if you look for it... Meaning, to take an active role in the research and STOP looking for evidence of only 'your' assertions, and take a good long look at the evidence of 'this' conclusion.

"Life" is capable of evolving faster that other forms thereof. AND 'they' will leave the others behind. As will we.

Be well.

-"King of the Americas"

---

E.T.A.

PLEASE don't respond further... I want this thread to die. I want to go on to other things, research other topics, maybe read "Playing for Pizza"... I don't want to think about this/worry about responding to each and every comment made under my name...ANYMORE...

Thank you for your time & consideration, both WERE greatly appreciated.

...but it's over for me. 'I' am done.

then get yourself off to your doctors office, he will be able to help you with your issues. Your recent attempts at self aggrandisement combined with your use of CAPS in the middle of a sentence along with your observed inability to deal with proven facts are signs of a dissasociative disorder and an impending breakdown.
please prove me wrong, go see a medical professional

 

[Correa Neto]

*cough*STRAWMAN!*cough*

Here's the original text:

Believers avoid the great tragedy of Science - they never allow the slaying of a beautiful fantasy by an ugly fact. T. H. Huxley (*), please accept my humble apologies.

I do not expect KotA to accept the evidence. Not even if a "built by Manco Cápac" tag is shown to him (but I would like to be shown wrong) - he'll claim its much younger than the ruins.

Fellows, die-hard hidden or secret archeology people will not accept evidence against their beliefs. For example, its litteraly written in stone who built the pyramids and their purposes. Despite this fact, they keep babbling about pyramids having been built by aliens or some mysterious ancient race or species.

Note that even after being handled some explanations of the reasons why his "indigenous aliens" are highly unlikley, bordering the impossible, KotA keeps talking about them without even caring to attempt building a better case to back his claim. Of course we know it is impossible (OK, highly unlikely).

(*) Here's the original quote: The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

You claimed the bold part of it is a strawman.

Now, please answer me- who do you think the builders of the pyramids were? What was the purpose of the pyramids?

If the answer is not something like "Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids to serve as tombs to their rulers" then you just proved my point. Note that there are "built by Khufu" tags ate the pyramids. Despite this fact, "Hidden Archeology" enthusiasts keep babbling about the pyramids having been built by some mysterious ancient race or aliens. I say this is bullcrap.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Correa Neto]

Alrighty...

...are you ready?

This is me, self-proclaimed- "King of the Americas", being completely and totally unvarnished in my retort...
...snip...
I WILL go so far as to say that 'I', anecdotally I KNOW, have seen evidence of these "more advance/evolved" species...

If 'you' will look (I am sick & tired of doing other people's research) you will find evidence of modern/technologically advanced 'works', that we have no 'notation' of...

...snip...
I am telling 'you', the reader here and now, that this is THE truth. There's evidence of it...'I' have seen it. And you will too, if you if you look for it... Meaning, to take an active role in the research and STOP looking for evidence of only 'your' assertions, and take a good long look at the evidence of 'this' conclusion.
...snip....

You really should take care with the words you write and the claims you make. Can you prove I never cared to look at the evidence? No. Judging from your posts, I've done more research on these topics than you have, and initially from a creduloid angle- just like yours. I've been exactly where you are- but back in the early 80's. And I haven't stopped checking the "evidence" presented since then. Neither have I restricted my search to woo sources or let my personal prefferences and wishes taint the evidence and the reasonings.

I bet many a skeptic here has a similar story.

The "evidence" you claim to have seen is -even if your "sighting" was of real craft built by some non-human species- not evidence of some mysterious hidden ancient civilization. It would not be even if there were actually any reliable bits of evidence for such a civilization - something which is not true. Show me the link.

Want an example of how weak is your coffee? Your beloved ancient UFO art. Wow... Not a change in their craft in hundreds and even thousands of years? Oh, maybe its some technological plateau and ... Wait, but look there's this an alleged spiked UFO from some Medieval painting. Oh, sure and its not that different from the one described at the Villas-Boas abduction case back in '62. Yes, the guy who was abducted to have sex with a platinum blonde alien (with red pubic and armpit hairs). Amazing...

You try to dismiss what I and other posters here wrote by claiming we are not checking the evidence. Sorry, its a delusion, its nothing but self-deception.

You have the right to say something like "that's my belief", but you have absolutely no right to claim those who do not agree with your beliefs do not agree because they have done a sloppy research job. On the contrary- I do not agree with your ideas because I know it better- because I have researched it better and with a mindset much more open than yours.

 

[Marcus]

I KNOW that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement. It is up to Kota to prove me wrong, the burden of proof is upon him.

You are not required to believe me.

You are not required to respond to this finding.

 

[Kurse]

Anything He Just Said

Wow.
Pwn lol

 

[Kurse]

I KNOW that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my basement. It is up to Kota to prove me wrong, the burden of proof is upon him.

You are not required to believe me.

You are not required to respond to this finding.

I believe in the invisible unicorn, but an invisible PINK unicorn? Now that is just ridiculous.
How does something have color but is also invisible? xD
Must show evidence?!!!?!

 

[Marcus]

I believe in the invisible unicorn, but an invisible PINK unicorn? Now that is just ridiculous.
How does something have color but is also invisible? xD
Must show evidence?!!!?!

I am telling 'you', the reader here and now,that this is THE truth...There's evidence of it...'I' have seen it. And you will too, if you look for it.

I have seen the evidence of pinkness, but I'm sick & tired of doing other people's research, so you are required to go and find evidence of my conclusion.