Deep Sight:

Quote from thehomer -
What I simply mean is this: do you consider it likely that intelligent life exists only on the earth, given the approximate size of the universe.
To answer this we needn't make any comparisons with other universes - given that we know nothing of such.

I already said it was likely.

Deep Sight:

The real question in case you missed it is this: Since planetary engineering and also bio-engineering of living clones is already within the realm of human science and having regard to whatever you may consider is the degree of probability of the existence of intelligent life other than on the earth, would you consider it possible that other civilizations may also have engineered planets and creatures?

Sure it may be possible.

Deep Sight:

Do you consider it absolutely unthinkable, inconceivable and impossible - that the earth could be one such engineered piece?

What I think is simply irrelevant because, I will change my mind if there is good enough evidence for me to do so but so far, the evidence is not good enough. I go with the best evidence available.

Jenwitemi:

Homer, do you realize that there is very few structures, if any, that modern man has built that can still stand in two hundred years, talkless of millenia? None of those things you mentioned would survive a millenia here on the planet. And yet, the ancient man, who is not supposed to possess any technical knowhow, succeeded in building such structures. What all these have shown us is that we have not been told the truth about our ancient past. We have been terribly lied to. Ancient myths the world over have told us that ETs were here but they removed their presence due to the reasons best known to them and we see the signs of their once upon a time presence on earth.

Huh? What does one have to do with the other? So you think the fact that we've moved on past the sort of superstition that makes people build such structures means such structures cannot be built today? Are you serious? Do you understand the revolutions that have gone on in engineering and building materials that makes such structures paltry by today's standards?

Jenwitemi:

As for modern man building pyramids with the same size and megalithic building materials, let us face it, he can't. So, it is better not to embarass ourselves by trying. Enough of the excuses. Why do you think the great Giza pyramid was chosen as a world wonder and not some space shuttle or whatever?

He can't? Are you for real? What's the relationship between these structures being chosen as World Heritage Sites to their being done by extraterrestrials? We are not building them because we do not need them.

Jenwitemi:

As primitive as laser cutters? What kind of tools would have been used to hewn such a huge stone out of a bedrock? And no, it was not built at the time of the romans. The date goes much further back, as well as the age of the pyramids and the sphinx. We have not even started talking about how these monstrous obelisk were transported because they were quarried far from where they were to be used.

That stone was not made of bedrock, it was made of limestone. Limestone is not very dense and it dissolves in acid. Please remember that these people already had metal tools. You may need to compare its density to that of metals.

Do you have some evidence of this new date you wish to present?

thehomer:

That stone was not made of bedrock, it was made of limestone. Limestone is not very dense and it dissolves in acid. Please remember that these people already had metal tools. You may need to compare its density to that of metals.

Do you have some evidence of this new date you wish to present?

That stone weighed 1000 tons, homer. What on earth are you talking about? A thousand tons!! How do you quarry an obelisk of such mass so straight with metal tools? Get real, homer. This is actually getting ridiculous now. Does that stone look like a structure quarried with some metal tools? High tech was at work in that quarry.

thehomer:

Huh? What does one have to do with the other? So you think the fact that we've moved on past the sort of superstition that makes people build such structures means such structures cannot be built today? Are you serious? Do you understand the revolutions that have gone on in engineering and building materials that makes such structures paltry by today's standards?

He can't? Are you for real? What's the relationship between these structures being chosen as World Heritage Sites to their being done by extraterrestrials? We are not building them because we do not need them.

Superstition? Those structures were built to withstand time and any future cataclysms(like earthquakes, global floods, or earth crust shifts) that might occur, and they did. It has nothing to do with any "superstition" as you falsely assumed. It took a lot of technological knowhow to build such structures, knowhow that modern man still does not possess. The structures obviously some kind of future significance which we do not know yet, and that was why they were built to be standing for millenia. That is also why these structures were chosen as wonders of the world, because how they were built is still beyond modern man's comprehension, which means they have to have been built with ET technology.

To you, evolution in engineering is not being able to build structures that can stand up for more than 2 to 3 hundred years. No, it is engineering devolution. Modern is only just rediscovering the supreme engineering skills that once existed in the distant past.

An author once wrote a book about the 60 things ancient man did that modern man cannot do today with all his technology, and one of them is building huge megalithic structures.

Jenwitemi:

That stone weighed 1000 tons, homer. What on earth are you talking about? A thousand tons!! How do you quarry an obelisk of such mass so straight with metal tools? Get real, homer. This is actually getting ridiculous now. Does that stone look like a structure quarried with some metal tools? High tech was at work in that quarry.

So what if it weighed 1000 tons? They had the required tools to dig it up and carve it. What makes you think metal tools cannot be used to make objects with straight edges? How do you expect a limestone structure quarried with metal tools to look? You can try this yourself. Pick up a sharp piece of metal, and scrape it any limestone you find. Then let me know which of them gets scraped. Then imagine this being done by several people together.
What sort of high tech tools are you claiming were actually used?

Jenwitemi:

Superstition? Those structures were built to withstand time and any future cataclysms(like earthquakes, global floods, or earth crust shifts) that might occur, and they did. It has nothing to do with any "superstition" as you falsely assumed.

They were built as tombs for the pharaohs. And the mummified remains of pharaohs and some of their subjects have been found in them. Along with inscriptions and curses. They were built to last because they really honoured their pharaohs who were also considered Gods.

Jenwitemi:

It took a lot of technological knowhow to build such structures, knowhow that modern man still does not possess. The structures obviously some kind of future significance which we do not know yet, and that was why they were built to be standing for millenia. That is also why these structures were chosen as wonders of the world, because how they were built is still beyond modern man's comprehension, which means they have to have been built with ET technology.

That modern man does not possess? Do you think these people could have built skyscrapers, oil rigs in oceans and space shuttles like we have? Why do you think we cannot build such things when we have by far surpassed any of their structures as is expected with progress?
They were chosen as wonders of the world by a Greek traveler. The other six have long fallen. They did not stand for millennia so your statement is actually false.
How they were built is not beyond modern man's comprehension considering the sort of understanding required to build huge suspension bridges.

Jenwitemi:

To you, evolution in engineering is not being able to build structures that can stand up for more than 2 to 3 hundred years. No, it is engineering devolution. Modern is only just rediscovering the supreme engineering skills that once existed in the distant past.

Engineering is not just about building large structures. The complexity of the task and the sorts of materials used are also very important. Do you really think that in today's world, anyone actually has the time and resources to expend building such structures?

Jenwitemi:

An author once wrote a book about the 60 things ancient man did that modern man cannot do today with all his technology, and one of them is building huge megalithic structures.

Yet modern man has built stupendous sky scrapers, I think you really need to look up the stats for the space shuttles that are about to be retired to understand what I'm saying. Check the size the complexity and its reusability. It went into space several times. Then check the sort of technology required to make supersonic planes, compare this too to the modern computer, plasma televisions, ipods and other eletronic decices. Then come back and compare that to moving about a pile of stones while having a large labour force to do this. I'm not saying this feat was not remarkable given the time period in which it was done but to compare it to current technology I think is a joke.

Have you looked at the structures that have been built?
Given this particular claim by this author, I'm quite skeptical about any thing else that comes out of his book.