|
pheonix28
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2010, 05:48:44 AM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
T-Raff
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2010, 12:27:47 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You read it, you can't unread it.
|
|
|
|
Abyss
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2010, 04:46:42 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. Phoenix is more correct on this one. The calendar signals ends to a cycle - I'm pretty sure that's a confirmed statement of fact. However, some ALSO believe the end of a cycle is synonymous with a catastrophe - that has not been "proven" so-to-say. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<BinaryShinigami> I'm bored, gonna make a IRC bot for the hell of it
<BinaryShinigami> whats some good features to add
<ishkur> cognitive reasoning
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
|
pheonix28
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2010, 05:59:07 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. not everyone uses the internet as their source for information. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
T-Raff
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2010, 06:43:23 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. not everyone uses the internet as their source for information. Some of us have some info before we make a claim. I figure you knew an artifact that was dated after 2012 if you say there is such an item. @abyss, yes pheonix28 is right now, but i talked about cycles earlier and from all the history and nat geo specials ive been watching Mayan's signified their cycles by identifying the catastrophes that happened to the people at the time, whether they were the mud, wood, or amber. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You read it, you can't unread it.
|
|
|
|
pheonix28
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2010, 06:55:59 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. not everyone uses the internet as their source for information. Some of us have some info before we make a claim. I figure you knew an artifact that was dated after 2012 if you say there is such an item. @abyss, yes pheonix28 is right now, but i talked about cycles earlier and from all the history and nat geo specials ive been watching Mayan's signified their cycles by identifying the catastrophes that happened to the people at the time, whether they were the mud, wood, or amber. that's your problem, your information comes from stuff you see on tv, or read on the internet. Those are the least reliable sources available. Try actually reading some books by accredited archeologists, then come back and act like you know everything. At this point, I'm done "discussing" this with you, until you're willing to actually try and figure something out, other than letting everyone else tell you how it is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
T-Raff
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2010, 10:08:17 PM » |
|
riddle me this: if the world is supposed to end in 2012 (according to the mayan calendar) why would they have dates after 2012 in other mayan artifacts?
I dont know, i havent never heard of these artifacts. And the calendar doesnt signal an end to the world, it signals a catastrophe. Get it right.No, it signals the end of the cycle, get it right.You still didnt post artifacts that are dated after 2012. And cycles are distinguished by catastrophes. not everyone uses the internet as their source for information. Some of us have some info before we make a claim. I figure you knew an artifact that was dated after 2012 if you say there is such an item. @abyss, yes pheonix28 is right now, but i talked about cycles earlier and from all the history and nat geo specials ive been watching Mayan's signified their cycles by identifying the catastrophes that happened to the people at the time, whether they were the mud, wood, or amber. that's your problem, your information comes from stuff you see on tv, or read on the internet. Those are the least reliable sources available. Try actually reading some books by accredited archeologists, then come back and act like you know everything. At this point, I'm done "discussing" this with you, until you're willing to actually try and figure something out, other than letting everyone else tell you how it is. Yes, cause the history and Science channels will totally have blatant false information on their shows. They are going to say the Maya had 5 cycles when it was really 7. Of course, thank you for opening my eyes. Books totally do not any bias, opinion, or false information in them. And i still haven't found any Mayan artifacts dated after 2012. Lets private message some background of each others' education 'n such to each other before continuing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You read it, you can't unread it.
|
|
|
|
Abyss
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2010, 06:00:39 AM » |
|
Sidetopic: I love that people think that books are more reliable than TV or internet.
All of them are created by humans. Any of them can contain bias. All of them as just as invalid if used incorrectly.
I consider History channel a decent enough resource. I consider articles online, also decent enough resources, as long as it's not a wiki article (Anything on wikipedia should be cited, so go to their cite and use that instead), with the use of discretion (obviously a yahoo profile isn't a reliable resource for the cycles of the Mayan calendars).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<BinaryShinigami> I'm bored, gonna make a IRC bot for the hell of it
<BinaryShinigami> whats some good features to add
<ishkur> cognitive reasoning
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
|
T-Raff
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2010, 10:08:33 AM » |
|
Sidetopic: I love that people think that books are more reliable than TV or internet.
All of them are created by humans. Any of them can contain bias. All of them as just as invalid if used incorrectly.
I consider History channel a decent enough resource. I consider articles online, also decent enough resources, as long as it's not a wiki article (Anything on wikipedia should be cited, so go to their cite and use that instead), with the use of discretion (obviously a yahoo profile isn't a reliable resource for the cycles of the Mayan calendars).
Dude, you get my reps! This is so true. The reason, I believe, why books are seen as "more accurate" is because typically the more educated read more and watch less TV; you said it right. The history channel and the discovery families have correct info most of the time (like in the 90 percentile), but they are focusing on entertainment now, that they may get more viewers. Wiki is not reliable. Typically it represents the opinion of who has more time, or in cases of corporations, prime time, or late night tv shows it represents those with the most interest or money. I typically start there and cross reference what I find in the intro with other sites or articles. I find that the wiki starts off with factual background then jumps right into bias, typically. Ex. Background of an author in the first (possibly second) paragraph, then in the third talk about his intentions, ie. what people should believe backed by a good reason, but no counter-argument. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You read it, you can't unread it.
|
|
|
|
pheonix28
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2010, 12:19:53 AM » |
|
Sidetopic: I love that people think that books are more reliable than TV or internet.
All of them are created by humans. Any of them can contain bias. All of them as just as invalid if used incorrectly.
I consider History channel a decent enough resource. I consider articles online, also decent enough resources, as long as it's not a wiki article (Anything on wikipedia should be cited, so go to their cite and use that instead), with the use of discretion (obviously a yahoo profile isn't a reliable resource for the cycles of the Mayan calendars).
The difference is, normally scholar level books are about the information, not about making a quick buck. TV is about ratings, plain and simple. History channel (as much as I love it) has so much bull on it, that it's not that reliable. They show what gets them the ratings, not what is true. Ratings come from confrontational, shocking, disturbing, etc. material that people want to see. No one wants to watch a tv show stating that there isn't really anything going to happen, that doesn't make money. They want to watch something that is entertaining, or causes an emotional reaction. No matter how much you don't want to believe it, TV is about the ratings, about making money. The internet, well, that's self explanatory. That being said, anyone can write a book which is why I said an accredited archeologist. I didn't say read any book on it, I said a book by an accredited archeologist. Also, about containing a bias, there is nothing wrong with something being biased. Why would anyone write a book on something they don't care about? Doesn't mean that it's untrue. If the person actually cares about the subject (not about getting rich, famous, etc.) then they will work, overly, to make sure that the information is accurate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Abyss
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2010, 04:29:05 PM » |
|
Sidetopic: I love that people think that books are more reliable than TV or internet.
All of them are created by humans. Any of them can contain bias. All of them as just as invalid if used incorrectly.
I consider History channel a decent enough resource. I consider articles online, also decent enough resources, as long as it's not a wiki article (Anything on wikipedia should be cited, so go to their cite and use that instead), with the use of discretion (obviously a yahoo profile isn't a reliable resource for the cycles of the Mayan calendars).
The difference is, normally scholar level books are about the information, not about making a quick buck. TV is about ratings, plain and simple. History channel (as much as I love it) has so much bull on it, that it's not that reliable. They show what gets them the ratings, not what is true. Ratings come from confrontational, shocking, disturbing, etc. material that people want to see. No one wants to watch a tv show stating that there isn't really anything going to happen, that doesn't make money. They want to watch something that is entertaining, or causes an emotional reaction. No matter how much you don't want to believe it, TV is about the ratings, about making money. The internet, well, that's self explanatory. That being said, anyone can write a book which is why I said an accredited archeologist. I didn't say read any book on it, I said a book by an accredited archeologist. Also, about containing a bias, there is nothing wrong with something being biased. Why would anyone write a book on something they don't care about? Doesn't mean that it's untrue. If the person actually cares about the subject (not about getting rich, famous, etc.) then they will work, overly, to make sure that the information is accurate. You're saying that the History channel shows things that are shocking, but false, and claims they are true? I don't believe that at all. However, before I believe anything on TV, I look a bit more into the topic. Just to point out how silly your claim is: Either History or Discovery, has shown a documentary countering the argument of 9/11 being set up by the Government. The show is primarily leaning towards the counter argument, but the show shows both excerpts from "Loose Change" and then has various experts in their fields speak to the claims and against the claims. Right now, the "shocking" thing that brings in money is Global Warming. Showing a documentary against that is against their goals. Discovery's goal is to, yes, display shocking information, but I've yet to see them do so in a blatantly false fashion - just sometimes the shows have the information wrong. It happens. Sometimes books have it wrong, too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
<BinaryShinigami> I'm bored, gonna make a IRC bot for the hell of it
<BinaryShinigami> whats some good features to add
<ishkur> cognitive reasoning
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
|
T-Raff
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2010, 07:16:46 PM » |
|
Just about everything is wrong at one point in time or another. I typically rely on TV to spark my interest in a subject then do research. Trying to find non-bias info is just tough.
@Abyss, I see what you are saying. History shows stuff on Nostradamus. I personally think is a cook. A hippie who got high and wrote down what he "saw".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You read it, you can't unread it.
|
|
|
|
adowl2001
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2010, 05:40:32 PM » |
|
Just about everything is wrong at one point in time or another. I typically rely on TV to spark my interest in a subject then do research. Trying to find non-bias info is just tough.
@Abyss, I see what you are saying. History shows stuff on Nostradamus. I personally think is a cook. A hippie who got high and wrote down what he "saw".
I agree. i too see things when i go high. why should we care. if world is ending in 2012. we are running short of time. finish all the good work. and be happy till the end. we are fortunate to see the end. and BONUS --nobody will be left behind to judge us. See u all in hell. my friends. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
God knows why i m here.
if u need to know too.
Go Ask him....
have to come back.
can't live without it.
|
|
|
Find us at Facebook! - 
Follow us with Twitter! - 
Stumble upon us! - 
Subscribe to our feed!
Loading...
