Ancient Indigenous Tribe Narrates Identity Of All Tribes In The World Originated From Cibolan In Davao

[rocket art]

Are you going to show us the pictures of the President talking to a space alien next?

 

I'm gonna show you instead footages that made your Bush & Co. pee on their pants and Faux News that just can't report in your boob tube as much as it did with WMD hoax.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F6-lGWzAnM&feature=related

 

 

now back to evidence 3: archeological.

[rocket art]

 

now, wonders what they saw inside the shuttle :blink:

 

 

There's already the Disclosure Project:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk

[rocket art]

Exhibit for evidence 3: archeological

 

Moais of Easter Island

 

 

 

 

Easter Island - Rapa Nui

[pamela]

Rocket, again you have not provided proof to back up your theory and now what you have provided has taken on the usual conspiracy tone. This is unacceptable, unless you can provide sufficient data, then this thread will be closed. This forum is designed to promote science not conspiracy theories.

[rocket art]

Rocket, again you have not provided proof to back up your theory and now what you have provided has taken on the usual conspiracy tone. This is unacceptable, unless you can provide sufficient data, then this thread will be closed. This forum is designed to promote science not conspiracy theories.

 

could you site the specific posts concerned so I could rectify it?

 

 

However, I believe I have made sound positions regarding geological evidence (it was a milestone of sorts trying to gather evidence for such awesome herculean task, but did it ), I guess it must be some stuff on archeological evidence instead, must be mootanman's ludicrous question that earned him an equally ludicrous reply :huh:

 

But I will be willing to expound further if such were the case.

[sigurdV]

Rocket, what you have provided has taken on the usual conspiracy tone.

 

Why dont you take hints?

 

You c a n write entertaining,

but present hypotheses as

what they are, and dont put

across a picture of yourself

as a warrior against ignorance.

The audience will leave...

 

(I will miss the maps and myths...

The videos i tend to skip.)

[pamela]

Why dont you take hints?

 

You c a n write entertaining,

but present hypotheses as

what they are, and dont put

across a picture of yourself

as a warrior against ignorance.

The audience will leave...

 

(I will miss the maps and myths...

The videos i tend to skip.)

erm, are you addressing me or rocket?

[sigurdV]

erm, are you addressing me or rocket?

 

I would like to adress you pam ,but i dare not, and I did not!

(If it got y o u r attention it was not really intentional.)

I think rocket needs to shape up,to polish his act, to stop

pretending he is some champion in a contest. That said...

 

Hi Pamela!

 

1 I still do not understand your view on interpretation: I deny that

theological text,or any other text, CAN be interpretated without their

truth entering into the picture!(As I remember you were claiming?)

 

My argument is:

 

To interpret a text is

to understand what the case is

if the text is true!

 

I like you, so my mind is open to the possibility that i misunderstood,

but...I look at my argument and see no easy way of disproving it.

 

I would go as far as claiming it proves itself to be true!

(Thereby saving myself lots of work.)

 

2 In my view religion is a "disease", and , I include atheists among the infected.

I got the impression that you are one, do I err?

Being the only pantheist I ever met id like to "broaden" my view on...

well actually just about anything :)

[Moontanman]

I would like to adress you pam ,but i dare not, and I did not!

(If it got y o u r attention it was not really intentional.)

I think rocket needs to shape up,to polish his act, to stop

pretending he is some champion in a contest. That said...

 

Hi Pamela!

 

1 I still do not understand your view on interpretation: I deny that

theological text,or any other text, CAN be interpretated without their

truth entering into the picture!(As I remember you were claiming?)

 

My argument is:

 

To interpret a text is

to understand what the case is

if the text is true!

 

I like you, so my mind is open to the possibility that i misunderstood,

but...I look at my argument and see no easy way of disproving it.

 

I would go as far as claiming it proves itself to be true!

(Thereby saving myself lots of work.)

 

2 In my view religion is a "disease", and , I include atheists among the infected.

I got the impression that you are one, do I err?

Being the only pantheist I ever met id like to "broaden" my view on...

well actually just about anything :)

 

 

Pantheist, I have friends who are Pantheists, what Pantheon of Gods or Goddesses do you worship?

[sigurdV]

Pantheist, I have friends who are Pantheists, what Pantheon of Gods or Goddesses do you worship?

What do you mean by the ugly word "worship"?

 

Falling on your knees? Banging your head to the ground?

 

Inviting the heaven to xxxx you?

[Eclogite]

I thought we had agreed to deal with one thing at a time, but you have continued dumping material, like unsolicited marketing bumph in a letter box. If your objective is to persuade readers as to the veracity, or at least the plausibility of your ideas, this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. This creates the impression that you are a crank, a crazy, a nutter. I find it unlikely that this is your intention. Please stop it. Focus. One thing at a time.

It seemed the adage was susceptible to the subjectivity of the Present and set its boundaries only by the definition of the latter.

Any meaning I can extract from this vague sentence is wrong:

1. The present is not an entity and therefore possesses no subjectivity.

2. The boundaries of uniformatarianism have been set by the various authorities who considered it. In its extreme form the boundaries excluded processes not currently observed on the planet. This inappropriately disqualified extremely large volcanic eruptions, bolide impacts, etc. Only in that sense were the boundaries set by the present. This extreme form is not how the concept came to be considered in the last century and most definitely not in the second half of the century: punctuated equilibrium; dinosaur killers and plate tectonics testify to that.

 

 

However, how would the case be when subjected to more complexities that it may encounter in the Future such as some sort of "interplanetary time scale"?

The present view of uniformatarianism pays full attention to longer time intervals: billions of years now quite acceptablely fall within its scope. As I suspected you seem to be arguing against an outdated, strawman version of the concept.

 

Also, Uniformitarianism may have sought geological evidence that tangibly manifests, but could not necessarily provide more intricate answers as to its intangible causes.

Please provide an example so that I can understand what the heck you are talking about.

 

From what I observed, it seems Catastrophism may have provided the language to explain the enigma of the lost continent.

There is no significant evidence for any lost continent and abundant evidence (geological, geophysical, chemical, geographical) that it never existed. However, this appears to be getting wholly off the specific topic we are meant to be dealing with at this point.

[sigurdV]

Well rocket perhaps you love to see yourself fighting...Don Quixote comes to my mind ...Stop fighting... go back to the beginning, edit out all you said about yourself... I know you love it but the first law authors should obey is: Kill your darlings!

(Unless the public asks them resurrected.)

 

Next reformulate all claims into suspicions or hypotheses...

 

DO NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE UNTIL YOU ARE READY!

[pamela]

I would like to adress you pam ,but i dare not, and I did not!

(If it got y o u r attention it was not really intentional.)

I think rocket needs to shape up,to polish his act, to stop

pretending he is some champion in a contest. That said...

 

feel free to address me any time,nothing to fear here :)

 

Hi Pamela!

 

1 I still do not understand your view on interpretation: I deny that

theological text,or any other text, CAN be interpretated without their

truth entering into the picture!(As I remember you were claiming?)

truth may be their claim but that doesnt mean it is in fact truth based upon scientific fact

we can discuss theology without making claims-we simply just view concepts and how they have affected mankind or history

 

My argument is:

 

To interpret a text is

to understand what the case is

if the text is true!

 

True? in order for it to be deemed true then there must be empirical data in support of it

 

I like you, so my mind is open to the possibility that i misunderstood,

but...I look at my argument and see no easy way of disproving it.

 

I like you too :)

 

I would go as far as claiming it proves itself to be true!

(Thereby saving myself lots of work.)

 

but you cannot make that claim without scientific back up

 

2 In my view religion is a "disease", and , I include atheists among the infected.

I got the impression that you are one, do I err?

Being the only pantheist I ever met id like to "broaden" my view on...

well actually just about anything :)

 

well I beg to differ,as I do not consider religion to be a disease. Mankind through out history has found it useful to give an explanation to the unknown while ignorance was at its peak. It has also given hope to many in order to avoid fear of death. You can take and choose what you like or not; simply put. I do not fault those who ascribe to religions or beliefs of any kind. For the individual, what works best for them is their own and certainly not mine. I do not discuss my beliefs or lack of, as what would be the point? I do not wish to persuade or deter anyone as that would be unfair in my opinion. To each their own. However I will say this. I believe in love and that I do share with others. It is a freely given gift and there are no expectations on my part. So whether I take the words of Gibran, or a biblical verse or two or any piece of literature, in order to convey love, then that is my choice. It works for me and likely no one else.I cannot prove love, I can only observe how one is affected through emotion.I simply embrace love; it doesn't have to be logical to me. I think that a life without love would be desolate and that path I choose to avoid.

[sigurdV]

feel free to address me any time,nothing to fear here :)

 

 

truth may be their claim but that doesnt mean it is in fact truth based upon scientific fact

we can discuss theology without making claims-we simply just view concepts and how they have affected mankind or history

 

 

 

True? in order for it to be deemed true then there must be empirical data in support of it

 

 

 

I like you too :)

 

 

 

but you cannot make that claim without scientific back up

 

 

well I beg to differ,as I do not consider religion to be a disease. Mankind through out history has found it useful to give an explanation to the unknown while ignorance was at its peak. It has also given hope to many in order to avoid fear of death. You can take and choose what you like or not; simply put. I do not fault those who ascribe to religions or beliefs of any kind. For the individual, what works best for them is their own and certainly not mine. I do not discuss my beliefs or lack of, as what would be the point? I do not wish to persuade or deter anyone as that would be unfair in my opinion. To each their own. However I will say this. I believe in love and that I do share with others. It is a freely given gift and there are no expectations on my part. So whether I take the words of Gibran, or a biblical verse or two or any piece of literature, in order to convey love, then that is my choice. It works for me and likely no one else.I cannot prove love, I can only observe how one is affected through emotion.I simply embrace love; it doesn't have to be logical to me. I think that a life without love would be desolate and that path I choose to avoid.

 

Great! Ill think you over then, lets debate/discuss/exchange endearments in theology: The frame of all frames. I think we interpret"interpretation

differently: I see it as understanding you see it as...well you can tell me about it there. ill think now and claim later. :blahblahblah:

[pamela]

so i am to assume you will be starting a new thread? Peruse the rules again and go for it :)

[belovelife]

i like the plate tectonic thoughts on this thread

 

:P

[sigurdV]

so i am to assume you will be starting a new thread? Peruse the rules again and go for it :)

 

Its there already, i dont use it much yet. "Frame of all frames."

 

Hi belovelife!

 

I like this thread too... pity if it gets silenced...

 

Pam has been rather patient with it though ... Well lets wait and see.

 

His claims of intelligent Dino Civs aint necessarily silly,

 

not much evidence would remain to be found. They all died

 

out suddenly, not aware of the need to shield themselves from the

 

coming cosmic ray that destroyed them.

 

I suppose sols neighbourhood is safe now...

 

No need to colonize the bottom of the sea is there?