If Von Daniken is a 'crack pot,' so were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Quoted for Truth.
If Von Daniken is a 'crack pot,' so were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
If you tilt your head, it looks like Gérard Depardieu.
There's no face on Mars. "Ancient Alien theorists" appearing in the media are idiots, con men and loonies. Von Daniken is a crackpot and the entire premise that extraterrestrials were responsible for a single thing we know about the history of this planet is moronic beyond belief, pabulum for the credulous.
Meh. Is it any less "moronic," than a 'god,' depositing his DNA into a middle eastern Jewish woman named Mary - having a child who at the age of 33 has a grand epiphany that he's also a god/man who goes onto magically create food out of thin air, make water into wine, and even raise a man from death.?
If Von Daniken is a 'crack pot,' so were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Did you have a point, or do you just consider yourself clever?
I'm sure it WOULD have if science had existed back then.Actually, I think the Ancient Aliens method is more dishonest than the Bible method. The bible never pretends to be scientific.
There's no face on Mars. "Ancient Alien theorists" appearing in the media are idiots, con men and loonies. Von Daniken is a crackpot and the entire premise that extraterrestrials were responsible for a single thing we know about the history of this planet is moronic beyond belief, pabulum for the credulous.
Meh. Is it any less "moronic," than a 'god,' depositing his DNA into a middle eastern Jewish woman named Mary - having a child who at the age of 33 has a grand epiphany that he's also a god/man who goes onto magically create food out of thin air, make water into wine, and even raise a man from death.?
If Von Daniken is a 'crack pot,' so were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.![]()
Actually, I think the Ancient Aliens method is more dishonest than the Bible method. The bible never pretends to be scientific.
Even if you don't choose to believe what they did, you'll agree that Von Daniken is unlikely to die for his claims and doesn't claim (as far as I know) to have witnessed them. There is a difference.
At least in Van Daniken's case - he can point to a real stone, sitting on a real mountain - carbon dated 5,000 years old and ask the question, how the fuck did they do that with primitive tools.
Even if you don't choose to believe what they did, you'll agree that Von Daniken is unlikely to die for his claims and doesn't claim (as far as I know) to have witnessed them. There is a difference.
Whether Von Daniken is willing to die or not for his theories is irrelevant IMO as to whether they have any basis in fact or not.
Lonemagpie wrote:
Sadly he's also a guy who could ask stupid questions like (in Gold Of The Gods, IIRC) "how could these primitives have so accurately carved the shape of a skeleton on a stone centuries before X Ray machines were invented, unless aliens brought X Ray technology?"
If he's so unclear on the use of sharp instruments, he should apply Occam's Razor once in a while.Lonemagpie wrote:
Sadly he's also a guy who could ask stupid questions like (in Gold Of The Gods, IIRC) "how could these primitives have so accurately carved the shape of a skeleton on a stone centuries before X Ray machines were invented, unless aliens brought X Ray technology?"
Upon re-reading, I am going to retract that entire last post except the part about Occam's Razor. Most crackpots have strong faith and serious belief. Doesn't keep them from being out of touch with reality, as evidenced by the "Build the real Enterprise!" thread I'm engaged in at the other end of the dial. Therefore I cannot absolve the apostles and simultaneously condemn Von Daniken on that basis alone.
Still think he's a flake, though.
Given that choice, I'll say the Enterprise folks.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.