dvnt wrote:The idea that a third planet might have passed in between Venus and Earth has nothing to do with logic! Where is the logic? You need information to perform logic on. Of which you have none!

Both me and stonehenge said that it is a possibility that could relate to a multiple number of things. We never said that IT IS a fact. It's hypothetical. Like most of the ideas discussed here.

No no no, you don't understand at all what I'm getting at. As I just said, I'm not saying that discussions like this shouldn't take place, you're right it's the foundation of inquiry. What I'm saying is that it's important to know what is science and what isn't. When this isn't clear then you end up with talking snakes and magical underpants.

dvnt wrote:No no no, you don't understand at all what I'm getting at. As I just said, I'm not saying that discussions like this shouldn't take place, you're right it's the foundation of inquiry. What I'm saying is that it's important to know what is science and what isn't. When this isn't clear then you end up with talking snakes and magical underpants.

All I've done is mention some ideas that could, logically, relate with a multiple number of events that ocurred on Earth. It's not scientifical as I said, it's hypothetical, just a discussion. I never intended to make it look like proved and actual science, I'm sorry if it did look like that.

Oh. Well, then it's not my problem

When using scientifical facts as evidence for an idea, I try to make sure it is a proved and accepted scientifical fact.

I'm sorry I hold people to higher standards of intellectual honesty than you two do.

That's your opinion, dvnt. I can't remember stating anything here that is not intellectually honest. I made my position clear from the start - I have spent a long time researching Stonehenge and have come to the conclusion, with the help of professional astronomers, that the geometry works best at latitude 45N. In addition I have given sufficient grounds to contest the method and date of construction, and intended purpose of the site, all of which is available in a 200 page book, which you have not read. Currently I am waiting for another professional astronomer to provide me with the azimuths of northermost and southernmost major and minor standstills of the Moon for latitude 45N at 12,000BC. It's not essential but will add credence to the use of the Trilithons in measuring the Moon's position over an 18.61 year cycle, which would take at least 40 years of observation. When this data is made available I'm going to press. I'm on this site to discuss why Stonehenge might be in the wrong position. Now, do you have anything of intellectual value to add yourself, dvnt?

Yes, you don't get it. I'm not talking about you or him or that person or this. I'm talking about the entire philosophy of fostering beliefs like the 2012 prophecy. I hold people to higher standards of intellectual honesty than most people do. I don't appease purely speculative conjecture by telling people warm and fuzzy things like, "You have the right to believe whatever you want to." Of course they do, and I'm doing them the service of telling them that they're idiotic. Not because the believe what the believe but because of the reasons that are completely nonsensical and contradictory that they source for their faith. It has nothing to do with stonehenge or the position of the moon 14000 years ago.

Majority of scientist are liars or just dont have a clue when they think they do, they get stuck on a theory and generally dont move and will not allow for anyone that has a differing opinion, and if something doesnt fit with their theory, then they ignore it, and dont bother even reporting on what they find. Science is just a hypothetical as any other source of information. It has been proven across the board. So tell me why should we trust what they say, when they dont know what they are talking about themselves half the time.

Angiem wrote:Majority of scientist are liars or just dont have a clue when they think they do, they get stuck on a theory and generally dont move and will not allow for anyone that has a differing opinion, and if something doesnt fit with their theory, then they ignore it, and dont bother even reporting on what they find. Science is just a hypothetical as any other source of information. It has been proven across the board. So tell me why should we trust what they say, when they dont know what they are talking about themselves half the time.

Even if what you just said were to be true, you just answered your own question. At least scientists would be right HALF the time. Besides, where else would you look for technological advancemente? Religion? Where they don't know what they are talking 90% of the time? Good luck.

I definatley think we need both, and Religion and science could work well if they worked together and not be so blind sited by their views, which are as old as some of the Drs and Priests/Monks/brothers etc that are still there (I think Methuselah may be on his way out now though ), religion is so strict in the doctrines that they made up (and yes they did make them up, as they are no longer in their original forms and have been edited to suit their needs of control) that they are just as bad as the scientist, so I agree with you!!
Technological Advancement is not necessarily done by scientists, the everyday joe has been know on many many an occassion to make huge advancements where science could make none, where the everday person has taken the time to study something and thinks not in the same lines as the above do, so they are open to new ideas and can add and even better the current knowledge because they dont exclude.
Either or we are damned if we do and we are if we dont, when it comes to scientists/ and religious figures. We place to much trust in people that a lot of the time rely on old knowledge.

Angiem wrote:I definatley think we need both, and Religion and science could work well if they worked together and not be so blind sited by their views, which are as old as some of the Drs and Priests/Monks/brothers etc that are still there (I think Methuselah may be on his way out now though ), religion is so strict in the doctrines that they made up (and yes they did make them up, as they are no longer in their original forms and have been edited to suit their needs of control) that they are just as bad as the scientist, so I agree with you!!
Technological Advancement is not necessarily done by scientists, the everyday joe has been know on many many an occassion to make huge advancements where science could make none, where the everday person has taken the time to study something and thinks not in the same lines as the above do, so they are open to new ideas and can add and even better the current knowledge because they dont exclude.
Either or we are damned if we do and we are if we dont, when it comes to scientists/ and religious figures. We place to much trust in people that a lot of the time rely on old knowledge.

Religion and science working together. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"
Experiment number 1
Possible 'causes:
Gravity
Axis Shift
Magnetical Interference
God
"

Yeah.