Oh this is awesome!

Ok, I am really curious about the future stories. How is this going to be organized? A storyline in the past, then one in the present, then one in the future or intermixed? I'd rather have it separated out and have an entire storyline that takes place either in the past or in the future.

I'm sorry, I stopped listening, what?

Oh, I haven't seen it myself. I haven't watched Bond since Brosnan banged Denise Richards, you know the whole "I thought Christmas only came once a year" thing is when I checked out. I haven't seen Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace. My friends just told me that the second one sucked but maybe that is because they…

Interesting. I did not know that. I have had Craig's Casino Royale sitting in my Netflix queue forever and have never pulled the trigger on watching it despite the fact everyone tells me its amazing and the second one sucks. So by "relaunch" do you mean that the continuity of the first two Craig films is thrown out or…

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Weird Blind Boy"

Wow, he looks old already. So they are going for that, eh? I know nothing about this new Bond film, I haven't even seen the last two. Are they going for more of a Dark Knight Rises type story of the aging hero coming out one last time? Or are there going to be more Daniel Craig Bond films in the future?

Wow, you are defensive and over-sensitive. Science is about asking questions. I ask questions about the validity of a preconceived belief about an ancient relic and you fly off the deep end. Maybe you should consider what that says about you.

I'm liking this so far! I get why they went with a non-Chinese person as the Mandarin and, honestly, it is probably better off. Kingsley looks sufficiently threatening to me.

Fair enough. From what I see, the only "Arks" that we have actual physical evidence of are the replicas created during the Middle Ages. For all I know, these are the only Arks that have ever existed outside of religious or popular belief as they are the only ones that we have evidence of. You are right in that the…

There is no evidence for the Ark of the Covenant aside from being mentioned in religious texts and being talked about by those that believe in the faith. It is not hard to believe it existed. It is not hard to believe in a lot of things. It is not hard to believe in Bigfoot or UFOs. But there is no evidence for…

There is no argument. I stand on the side of science and critical reasoning, you are accepting legends as historical fact based on faith and religious leanings. I'm not going to convince you (because you don't listen to reason), you are not going to convince me (because you have no evidence).You think I'm an idiot, I…

No worries. My original post was.....perhaps too far. I apologize for that or if I insulted your faith. I just don't believe in all of that myself.

But the difference is that no one can deny the Vatican exists, hell, I've been there myself and saw it with my own eyes! But no one has seen this Ark of the Covenant in 2000 years and even then the only ones who did see it are the very same people who incorporate it as part of their faith and it is only written about…

Yes, the temple is real. We have evidence for that, correct. But for what it contained? That we have to take on faith because we don't have evidence for what was contained inside.

What beliefs am I allowing to cloud my judgement? Scientific reasoning and critical thought? The book of Maccabees was written by Jewish authors to account their history. It is what you would call a biased source.

Yes, we have evidence for the Temple Mount but not for the box that was stored there.

No. Bullshit. There is no evidence of the Ark of the Covenant. What evidence are you referring to? Legends, myths, religious scripture? Why should I believe what they say? And it is not "know it all" to demand scientific evidence. We can find scientific evidence of climate change, we can find scientific evidence of…