Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Travis, in fairness, you should also provide peer reviewed journal articles for your positions :)
Click any single fossil on the Smithsonian website and it will give you a list of them.
Lol :)
I don't want to choose a side with anyone here, but I'm really starting to wonder why there can't be a single discussion without you turning it into an aggressive argument Jeff?
You even had to go ballistic on Victor after welcoming him to the forum. Sure, I thought he was a bit cranky too, but as soon as anybody criticizes what you write, you turn it in to a gigantic and angry argument. It doesn't have to be, if you could just try to let it go sometimes.
I know this will probably piss you off and you will probably think I'm siding with others, but I'm not. I'm just tired of these constant arguments.
"I don't want to choose a side with anyone here, but I'm really starting to wonder why there can't be a single discussion without you turning it into an aggressive argument Jeff?"
The only aggressive people here are them, in fact i am the guy who is open for discussion and ask/answer questions that are actually informative.
If you are honest with yourself the one who actually started anything remotely offensive as you claimed in this topic was Travis:
"or keep on trolling elsewhere."
I was just replying to ImagoDei, I do not see what I did wrong.
Before accusing me of being aggressive please quote.
Its always the same circle of people who butt in to show their ignorance in the subject.
"You even had to go ballistic on Victor"
Well, I did not go ballistic, as you claimed, actually he accused me of deeming myself superior, just because i praised him.
I just explained my intentions, I even went far as apologizing for my method.
He is the one who went ballistic.
I doubt you would have had my same patience if you were accused unjustly.
"It doesn't have to be, if you could just try to let it go sometimes."
I don't because I like the truth and honesty more then being liked by the people here.
And i am perfectly calm when I am saying this, please do try and make an attempt to remove your bias about this.
"I'm just tired of these constant arguments."
I am sorry that when people accuse me unjustly, I just don't shut up about it, but fight back for what is right.
If this breaks your bubble I'm sorry.
I will only let go when there are enough mature people to help and be unbiased in a situation.
Up until now you showed me quite the opposite, so i will keep defending my position when I deem I am right because no one else will.
"I know this will probably piss you off and you will probably think I'm siding with others"
No, I don't think you are siding with others, I think you are being naive and biased about the situation and not helping at all.
You cannot moderate something when you are naive to the real problem.
The truth is that I cannot reply to someone without having idiots constantly butting in just to try to discredit everything I say with outright nonsense/lies/false accusations/provocations/spam and fallacies.
In any decently moderated forum they would have been banned long ago.
For you this is not a problem because you are not on the receiving end, I doubt you could even handle it.
I will defend my position regardless of how annoying my discussion will be to you.
Again when claiming something about what I said/done quote please.
Good day.
@Jeff
What I mean is that you turn everything into a prestige fight.
And it's not like you're able to hide that you have a personal beef with several other forum members.
If anyone criticizes you, they are "ignorant", "biased" or "naive" and you are always right. This is not as you claim "the guy who is open for discussion".
I have tried having a serious discussion with you via personal messages, where I gave your accusations against other members the benefit of a doubt, since it was possible you were speaking the truth.
In a discussion between you, Nyarlathotep and Travis Hedglin, you claimed Nyarlathotep (among other things) had deleted a post.
So I thoroughly analyzed the thread ( http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/fancy-your-chances ) where you claimed Nyarlathotep had deleted a post, and at a first glance it looked as if you were right. But when I made a time line of all the posts, I found that Nyarlat's missing post was made on the main thread. After that, you replied to Travis's post that was placed above Nyarlat's post, while quoting from Nyarlat's post. A lot of discussion with replies on replies took place, each pushing Nyarlat's post further down in the thread, where it ended up looking weirdly out of context. And it left your post looking like you're quoting from a non existing post.
Even though I showed you clear evidence with links to individual posts you didn't accept it and instead reinterpreted Nyarlat's "missing" post to be a reply to something else, even though the time stamp and the content of the post matched the flow of the discussion.
You clearly showed me that giving you proof does not affect your position, instead you reinterpret and try to twist information to your benefit. You seem to have the exclusive right to interpretation of the evidence, and for some reason it's never against your position. I think this is because of your personal beef and that you have an extremely high opinion of yourself. Still, it's everyone else that are "biased".
How is this "the guy who is open for discussion"?
---
So, let's play your childish game of exact quoting and accusations then:
"Before accusing me of being aggressive please quote."
I did not say YOU were aggressive, I said that you turn discussions into aggressive arguments, please quote me or stop making false accusations.
"Well, I did not go ballistic"
That would entirely depend on the definition of ballistic. I mean that your pride got hurt and you couldn't just apologize but had to argue about it: "If you find this; somewhat "being vetted" that is your problem."
Nice welcoming to new members by the way...
"He is the one who went ballistic."
What exactly do you mean by ballistic here then? I guess you mean this post by Victor?
"I hope I have not made the mistake of joining a forum where new contributors are constantly being vetted and condescended to by those who deem themselves superior. That would be tiresome. Peace and love"
Please explain to me what exactly he did to, as you say "go ballistic", that was so much worse than you? Since you clearly state that you did not go ballistic and he did. Please, provide quotes and definitions of words while comparing your posts to justify why you are right in this position. Or stop making false accusations.
---
Can't you see how childish and passive aggressive this kind of "discussion" is?
I can only see one thing.
You disclosed our private conversation about them to everybody.
if as you claim I am biased and my "beef" is clouding my judgment, then provoking me is this manner is the opposite of what you should be doing.
At the very least you are far more immature then you think you are.
Luckily for you, my judgment is quite clear without any bias.
I can see that your claim of not taking sides is Bullshit and exposed by the simple fact that you ignore any valid points I made.
You don't even deny them.
"I'm really starting to wonder why there can't be a single discussion without you turning it into an aggressive argument Jeff?"
So you are claiming that I turn discussions into aggressive arguments without being agressive?
So why are you blaming me for it?
The only way you could blame me is that you are implying that i am aggressive or provoking in some way.
"I did not say YOU were aggressive, I said that you turn discussions into aggressive arguments, please quote me or stop making false accusations."
You yourself did not even give any other options or clarify this misunderstanding, thus it is assumed that I guessed right, that I am either being aggressive or provoking in some way.
You confirmed it when you later accused me of going ballistic(aggressive).
Now you are going to change subject on our discussion since you cannot find any reasonable arguments that support your claims.
"If anyone criticizes you, they are "ignorant", "biased" or "naive" and you are always right."
Instead of accepting that you were wrong you are turning to fallacies.
That is called a generalization fallacy.
Really? Anyone?
Yea you are defiantly taking sides here.
"I have tried having a serious discussion"
lol
No you did not, you think you were, yes.
A serious discussion starts when one understands that he COULD be wrong, you never even hinted at that, not once did you even admit the obvious, in our discussions.
You just say nothing or change subject, which happened basically every time to the end of our discussion.
Our discussion has been so much 1 sided that I was more patient with you then I ever was with anybody else in my life.
EG:
Did Travis call me troll in this topic unjustly?
No comment on your side.
Would you still not comment?
Which part of you not taking sides applies only to my side?
not taking sides unless it is to accuse me of something = taking sides.
Can you at least stop being such a hypocrite?
"You clearly showed me that giving you proof does not affect your position"
You did not give me proof, you just showed that one of my claims could not be proven.
That is quite different, and actually I admitted that it in our discussion.
So your outright lie here shows what kind of person you are.
My position was about him provoking and I did prove that to you, you never ever acknowledged that he is the one who started.
Not even now even if it is a fact.
Yet you blame the the victim instead of the perpetrator.
Accept the fact that he jumped before and even in this topic, thus he started the aggressiveness, and then you would be considered as actually discussing with reason.
You never showed any reason in our discussion even if you think you did.
The fact that you never acknowledged facts showed me which side you are on, even so I kept treating you with the benefit of the doubt and kept giving you the chance to do the right thing.
In vein it seems.
But at least I am happy that you don't need to be a hypocrite anymore and show your true colors.
BTW the comment about taking sides, to cushion the impact was indeed magnificent.
It did tempt me to not say the truth even if it was quite obvious.
How is this "the guy who is open for discussion"?
I'm ready to discuss anything, even right now i keep the discussion on.
Unlike you which keep changing subject or ignoring points.
I don't do that, I do not ignore your points, i face them head on and if it is shown that I was wrong about them, I will admit them.
like I did several times before.
Your claim that I am always right is just a lie.
There are several posts on this forum alone that I admit I was wrong.
But why do i need to be perfect for you to see the flaws of others too?
You just ignore them.
It proves that you do take sides.
And also ready to lie and distort the truth to get where you want the argument to go.
"He is the one who went ballistic."
ballistic means I was offensive in some way.
This is not offensive:
"I did not mean to judge you in any way, I just expressed my current opinion of your responses thus far.
If you find this; somewhat "being vetted" that is your problem."
here i apologized and made it clear that if he finds the way i expressed myself offensive, it is his problem.
I will not ever change my way of expressing myself because some guy thinks that whoever praises him is offending him without giving a good reason for it.
He did not deliver a good reason but just insults and offensiveness.
1. accuse of "faint praise"(offensive)
2. accuse "forum where new contributors are constantly being vetted(unsupported claim)
3. accuse of "deem themselves superior"(offensive)
Actually he was lucky with just me stating my position on the matter.
I will not change my attitude because he finds something offensive without a reason.
This applies to him, you and everybody else on the forum.
You may find it offensive too if you wish, but it is the truth that applies to every other sane person even Victor.
It is a fact that it is his problem to accept that not everybody thinks like him with regards to praise.
"Please, provide quotes and definitions of words while comparing your posts to justify why you are right in this position."
"tone of both of your responses is patronising"(lie and insinuative)
"whiff of superiority." What made him say that?
"aggressive tenor of your writing" just because I stated my position on the matter i am aggressive. Give me a break.
"you think it appropriate or even possible to comment on the maturity of someone you have never met."
never commented of his maturity so another insulting lie.
"seriously then practise a little politeness and humility."
further insults by implying i'm not polite and humble.
That is what he said, you want to compare to what I said:
I did not mean to judge you in any way, I just expressed my current opinion of your responses thus far.
If you find this; somewhat "being vetted" that is your problem.
I said nothing to merit such an aggressive response.
Your claim at me being offensive is just stupid.
This is what it means:
If he finds my current opinion of his responses thus far(mature replies) offensive it is his problem.
I see no reason to change my current opinion, or better, he presented nothing for me to change them.
Now if he misunderstood, it is also his problem.
Thinking back, the forum does not need a member that cannot take a praise without getting offended.
What would he have done if i said.
"I seem to disagree with most of what you said because i find them mostly childish and immature replies."
Would he have sent a bomb under my car?
This is just stupid, I do not see why you are making such a fuss about a person who cannot even take a praise when he actually deserved it.
It does not support your claim about my aggressiveness, it actually contradicts it, since I was not the one who started being aggressive, I was the one who tried to calm it down by apologizing for no good reason.
If he misunderstood he should have asked clarification, not jump to conclusions.
That is what mature people do at least, but he actually showed with later posts that he was not such a person.
So there you have it.
I was wrong, he was not a mature person even though his posts hinted at that at the time.
lets flip the script here.
when are you wrong?
when are you going to admit that travis started the aggressiveness in this topic.
You do not see me jumping in on topics or posts Travis makes, you don't see me constantly making genetic fallacies left right and centre like Nyarlathotep does.
When are you going to at least admit that he makes Genetic fallacies just to discredit the argument?
Can you be honest for once?
Or you only expect me to accept faults(mostly that are not there), while you get a pass on things which should be obvious for anyone which does not take sides.
Like all your biased replies so far this question will have no answer too.
But i am happy for you since now you can tell me what you really think without worries of infuriating the nervous unstable Jeff or whatever was your accusation.
Shoot I am ready for it and if you make a singe point which actually is true i will be happy to tell you I was wrong.
Because it seem the more wrong i am the more I get credibility here.
I'm also glad we can finally be honest with each other.
@Jeff
I don't like how these squabbles keep poisoning the subjects where they end up, but I'm answering here anyway since I don't like being accused of lying.
Jeff: "if as you claim I am biased and my "beef" is clouding my judgement, then provoking me is this manner is the opposite of what you should be doing."
Your absolutely right. I have been avoiding it for a long time, because I want to avoid exactly this kind of pointless and time consuming disputes. There is little point in making enemies, especially when we are on the same side of what I think matters most in todays world: Anti-theism.
As you have said, "they" keep butting in. But, why is that do you think? It's not when you discuss theology, did you notice that?
It's almost exclusively when you promote some scientific claim that most people would call pseudo science (the exception to this seems to be discussions about feminism or misogyny, since that also fires up a heated debates). I might be wrong, but I don't recall you presenting such challenging scientific claims as anything else than facts, established truth. And you wonder why they wont leave your claims alone. Calling them idiots probably won't help your case either, in fact I'm quite sure it won't.
Jeff: "Your claim that I am always right is just a lie. There are several posts on this forum alone that I admit I was wrong."
Yes, you are absolutely right that you do admit to being wrong. That's my mistake and I apologize for that. I wrote that in haste and simply wrote wrong, it was not at all intentional. In my opinion you are way to quick to jump to the conclusion of deliberate lying. What I should have clarified was that, as far as I have seen, as soon as you have any pride invested in the discussion or the subject is about your alternative science claims, you never admit to being wrong. And personally, I don't think evidence would affect your position in those situations. But I would love to be proven wrong.
Jeff: "So you are claiming that I turn discussions into aggressive arguments without being agressive? So why are you blaming me for it?"
Because you are patronizing, passive-aggressive and as soon as somebody doesn't agree with you, the accusations are way to quick. Yeah, yeah, I know: That's our problem, not yours. But then stop whining about people getting in your face. I tried to show you with examples in the last post, but I guess that's such a natural attitude for you that you don't even notice. Anyway, you're obviously not interested in improving in that area so there is no point in discussing it.
Jeff: "you ignore any valid points I made. You don't even deny them."
I don't agree that they are valid, but yes I ignore your points and claims sometimes. I explained this to you before in the PM's, but I guess I can elaborate:
I avoid answering your points and claims sometimes for several reasons... First because I know that when I answer, it will lead to an endless series of new posts because you won't like my answer. Secondly because I don't have the time to engage in endless word-twisting debates with you, real life has priority and time is in short supply. Third, because I don't like pointless arguing and I don't have the slightest interest in having discussion about who said what and why. Fourth, because you are already so sure your right that there really is no point in discussing it at all.
Jeff: "You did not give me proof, you just showed that one of my claims could not be proven.
That is quite different, and actually I admitted that it in our discussion.
So your outright lie here shows what kind of person you are."
Quoting you from our PM's about it, Jeff: "It, was indeed posted before mine and does invalidate my evidence, but that reply was not for that post."
What, you wanted proof that all your claims were false in a single instance?!
I did give you proof, against your accusation that Nyarlathotep had deleted a post. Specifically, it was a post that seemed to be missing before what you referred to as your "23'rd post". This is what the proof was against, not several different claims or your generic claim that Nyarlathotep is an asshole (that might be harder to disprove :-). Even though you could clearly see that the post still existed and fit into both the time line and the discussion, you could only admit that it invalidated your evidence, not that you were wrong about him deleting that post.
So no, I did not lie as you keep accusing, Jeff: "So your outright lie here shows what kind of person you are."
Quite the contrary, I took the time to look into the matter seriously, but that doesn't seem to matter much to you. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again.
"Did Travis call me troll in this topic unjustly?
No comment on your side.
Would you still not comment?"
I didn't comment on that, because of all the reasons I stated above for ignoring your points. But to be more specific: I agree with Travis that your promotion of such pseudo science is wrong and should absolutely be pointed out and disputed. I don't agree that it's qualifies specifically as trolling. Especially if it's just in a single post or concerning just one specific scientific area. But when the claims are accumulating and/or are not just dealing with a specific scientific area, I would certainly call it disruptive and misleading. Prone to the Fox Mulder syndrome: "I want to believe".
If I would have commented on that, it would no doubt trigger an endless, time consuming, angry debate about me being stupid, ignorant, lying and so on. Kind of like the discussion we have here. Now, you can just write me up on your list of enemies towards your claims of such nature and leave it at that.
And to be absolutely accurate, he said: "keep on trolling elsewhere". In other words, he did not specifically call you a troll, but instead that you were trolling in that post.
We can agree to disagree and stop this kind of unnecessary who-said-what disputes. You can of course continue accusing me of lies, but accusing me won't make it true. In any case, this is the last time I will sacrifice this much time and effort in discussing these unproductive and pointless matters.
"I don't like how these squabbles keep poisoning the subjects where they end up, but I'm answering here anyway since I don't like being accused of lying."
Don't lie and you won't be accused by me at least.
"Your absolutely right. I have been avoiding it for a long time, because I want to avoid exactly this kind of pointless and time consuming disputes."
K and you brought it up for what reason, apart from trying to anger me(unsuccessful)?
Even if I was wrong and even if i did not admit it, before that does not mean I am wrong now on the current subject.
I really do not see any useful reason why you brought this up.
I more think that your bias clouds your judgment to the point of not being able to reason clearly anymore.
"There is little point in making enemies, especially when we are on the same side of what I think matters most in today's world: Anti-theism."
Anti-theism is not what matters most in today's world. What matter most to me is the reason I became an anti-theist.
The truth.
The fact that you cannot even acknowledge facts is what makes us natural enemies.
You do not care about the truth, just like any other theist, you believe I am at fault and try to find the reason for it starting from the conclusion.
"As you have said, "they" keep butting in. But, why is that do you think? It's not when you discuss theology, did you notice that?"
This is one of your worst attempt to be reasonable.
So now not only you are claiming that what I am saying are not facts(without supporting them) but you are also an apoogetic for their actions.
So according to you, they do not but in in my theologic replies because they think I am right on that topic?
Why not instead, they know nothing about the subject?
Or better why instead they don't care that much.
They but in on my replies because they believe differently and thhink I am sprouting nonsence.
That is what you are basically claiming here.
Another indirect claim here is that you think they are actually discussing or calling me out on my BS in their replies.
Well this is another lie on your part, in this topic alone all I did is state facts, we do not know yet what happened, and I was the skeptic here.
They believe we evolved from Miocene apes, but presented nothing to support that.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
They not only presented no arguments but used fallacies and insults to troll.
I'm ok if they come in to discuss, it is their right to do so, what I am not OK with is them making fallacies and false accusations just to discredit what I said.
Which is what they did here and you still did not accept this fact.
Which proves you are taking sides. even if you said you would not.
Jeff: "You did not give me proof, you just showed that one of my claims could not be proven.
Prag-"What, you wanted proof that all your claims were false in a single instance?!
I did give you proof, against your accusation that Nyarlathotep had deleted a post."
Yes, that is not proof of him not deleting.
It is proof of me being wrong in thinking I could show it happened in that way.
That is different. So you did lie, even if you did it out of your biased interpretation.
"Because you are patronizing, passive-aggressive and as soon as somebody doesn't agree with you, the accusations are way to quick."
Lol you are the one calling me patronizing and I am the one who's accusations are way too quick?
"as soon as somebody doesn't agree with you"
Who does not agree with me and I had a "patronizing, passive-aggressive" behavior?
Where do i show that anyone is inferior?
If by not agreeing with me you mean; calling my post a trolling post and for me to go to troll somewhere else,(therefore implying I do troll) then you fail at reasoning honestly yet again.
Especially when he did not really contribute to the subject at hand.
If there was a troll post it was his, still failed to provide the evidence for his claim.
"passive-aggressive and as soon as somebody"
I only take an approach of correctness when somebody accuses me of something.
So if there is an idea of an aggressive behavior at all, is when I take a defensive attitude towards false accusations.
"Quite the contrary, I took the time to look into the matter seriously"
Yea what amazes me is that from the most obvious claims i made, like his constant fallacies he keeps making without contributing anything, which even a 5 year old can see, you had to check that one, the one which I could not prove.
I called you again to admit that he jumps in to make a fallacy and you yet did not reply to this fact.
"it will lead to an endless series of new posts because you won't like my answer."
If you lie, yes i would not like your answer.
It is an excuse to not answer a simple yes or no question though.
Stop being a hypocrite for a change please.
Since that is all I need to prove that he is the one who starts (not to discuss) but to provoke me into a flaming war.
Thus all your accusation of me starting would be proven wrong by that fact alone.
You cannot afford to accept you were wrong can you?
That is what really shows what a hypocrite you are.
Maybe it is because you want to keep them as friends, they are the many, well good for you, then.
"I agree with Travis that your promotion of such pseudo science is wrong and should absolutely be pointed out and disputed."
So, you agree that my promotion of pseudo science is wrong?
What pseudo science?
All I said is that the evidence is simply not there, it is just propaganda to keep the bible fairy-tale out of schools.(politics)
And if it was there, you or your friend Travis would have presented it by now.
"Fox Mulder syndrome: "I want to believe"."
This is like when I debate theists, I am the skeptic asking for the evidence and the theists say we agree on it because we all can talk to Jesus.
Your human evolution form a Miocene ape is all in your head, by years of propaganda about it.
If you even read the papers, you will see how humble and scientific they are, especially Darwin himself who postulated the idea.
Funny that "I want to believe". applies to Travis most of all.
"keep on trolling elsewhere"
"In other words, he did not specifically call you a troll, but instead that you were trolling in that post."
He called my post a troll post which is an unjust accusation.
You agree or you do not.
YES or NO
Do you find it just to accuse me of making a troll post when it is not?or without supporting his claim.
Also it implies that I do troll.
When in fact I never trolled in my life.
It is an insult, since I ban trolls.
He said it because i accused his lover of trolling(which I proved he did) and thus he wants to discredit my accusation by showing I do the same.
That is the only reason he accused me.
"We can agree to disagree"
There is no agreement, you accused me of starting disputes after not accepting facts.
You can either discuss it or apologize for it.
( i knew you were biased and chosen your side from the PM yet I waited to this topic to call you in on it, this shows I am not quick to jump to conclusions as you claim)
If I accuse you in public that you are a rapist and you prove I am wrong, would you settle for a We Agree to Disagree?
"In any case, this is the last time I will sacrifice this much time and effort in discussing these unproductive and pointless matters."
Yea very convenient way to not admit you were wrong about a subject.
Of accusing me of starting disputes just because I want honest discourse and find the truth.
You prefer to side with trolls and persecutors instead of justice to keep your friends and your beliefs.
Shame it makes you worse then the theists you so much try to reason with.
@Jeff
I'm starting to think you enjoy acting like a douche and actually feed of the responses. Now THAT is the definition of troll.
This was just another classic Jeff: Laughable attempts to make me angry, same lame accusations of lying and still no accepting clear evidence against a specific claim. The points you ask about, I already explained, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you.
No point in discussing since you are clearly unable to do so.
I enjoy the truth, if you think that you not accepting you were wrong can be easyly dismissed by accusing me of "acting like a douche and actually feed of the responses",will not work.
I asked very specific questions and you simply dodged to answer them.
Yes or NO
Even Travis admitted that he was wrong in calling me a troll, but it seems it comes hard to you to accept the facts.
"The points you ask about, I already explained, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you."
Yes, its not enough to dodge all my points, stop being a hypocrite with yourself about it and answer the questions.
You are not fooling anybody but yourself.
Was it right or wrong to accuse me of trolling for my first post?
yes or no
Set aside your latest baseless accusations.
I find no enjoyment in wasting my time with someone that cannot even admit the obvious facts.
Instead of discussing those facts, you just ignore them or dismiss them without explanation.
This is the only very "Laughable attempt to make me angry" by giving me the silent treatment.
"No point in discussing since you are clearly unable to do so."
No, I am able to discuss every single point, you are unable answer very simple questions without dodging them.
@Jeff
Jeff: "I enjoy the truth"
Sure, but only the truth according to Jeff. Otherwise I don't think you would lash out with ridiculous accusations of lying when given proof against one of your claims.
Jeff: "I asked very specific questions and you simply dodged to answer them.
Yes or NO
Even Travis admitted that he was wrong in calling me a troll, but it seems it comes hard to you to accept the facts.
"The points you ask about, I already explained, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you."
Yes, its not enough to dodge all my points, stop being a hypocrite with yourself about it and answer the questions.
You are not fooling anybody but yourself.
Was it right or wrong to accuse me of trolling for my first post?
yes or no"
I understand that you get a power trip of trying to force people to answer according to your demands. But it should be beneath you to act this farcical, especially since I did answer you.
Or is this what you call dodging the question:
Me: "I didn't comment on that, because of all the reasons I stated above for ignoring your points. But to be more specific: I agree with Travis that your promotion of such pseudo science is wrong and should absolutely be pointed out and disputed. I don't agree that it's qualifies specifically as trolling. Especially if it's just in a single post or concerning just one specific scientific area. But when the claims are accumulating and/or are not just dealing with a specific scientific area, I would certainly call it disruptive and misleading."
Translation for those with impaired interpretation abilities:
No, I think calling it "trolling" was a bit too harsh. But since you have promoted "science according to Jeff" a lot more than in this particular instance, I certainty understand why he used that word.
You know what? Fuck this, it is irritating. I am sorry Jeff, I shouldn't have accused you of trolling. I accept that you genuinely believe that mankind mysteriously got here through some special mechanism unlike ANY other animal. I disagree, there is a great deal of evidence that mankind evolved on this planet from a primate ancestor, but I am not an evolutionary biologist. As a physicist I will not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I am almost certain you are wrong based on much of what I did learn. There are Atavisms we can get, such as tails. We also, like other primates, lack the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid(vitamin C) which causes us to get scurvy if we do not ingest it. We have things in common with other primates, and even other animals to a lesser degree, so your arguments seem to be ridiculous to me.
What are we then? Ancient fucking Martians? Where are the space ships? I swear, the history channel deserves to be shut down after their ancient aliens brainfart, for disseminating utterly false and vacuous nonsense for the gullible to eat up like jello.
Travis - "What are we then? Ancient fucking Martians? Where are the space ships? I swear, the history channel deserves to be shut down after their ancient aliens brainfart, for disseminating utterly false and vacuous nonsense for the gullible to eat up like jello."
exactly
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Same old RELIGIOUS nonsense, different package.
"I am sorry Jeff, I shouldn't have accused you of trolling."
Thanks, apologies accepted.
"I accept that you genuinely believe that mankind mysteriously got here through some special mechanism unlike ANY other animal."
That was not what I believe, but just that we do not know how we came to be yet.
It might be several things like:
-Cross between an ape and an other unknown extincte specie which we have no fossil record of.
-Radiation to some anomaly.
Natural Evolution is not only not the only explanation out there but we know so much about it that we can rule it out because of how improbable that it was the main factor involved.
Natural evolution, as described by Darwin deals with how a habitat influences a specie to evolve to be more adapted to it.
Now to formulate a hypothesis of how a species evolved you MUST at the very least have an explanation of how it happened, thus providing a possible habitat to explain the effects of such an evolution.
Therefore, if you cannot even imagine what natural habitat could have transformed an ape into a human, there is no hypothesis.
-What habitat could explain the complete change of the bone structure of the feet in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the loss of hair to protect from cold and radiation in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the ability to modulate(+sinus) we have and the apes did not in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the night vision eyes transformed in colour vision in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
.
.
The list goes on........
.
.
There is no evidence of how this happened or even a possible explanation, thus it is a fairy tale just like the Jesus story.
To not even be able to imagine a possible habitat makes it worse then saying god did it.
At least you can imagine that.
Both are ridiculous propositions born out of propaganda.
Evolution is real but to use it as an explanation of everything is not scientific, especially when there is contradictory evidence.
"What are we then?"
The truth is that we currently do not know yet, and it is ok to say that we do not know.
"That was not what I believe, but just that we do not know how we came to be yet."
Seems pretty clear to me that it is.
"It might be several things like:
-Cross between an ape and an other unknown extincte specie which we have no fossil record of."
Really? We are not the product of an ape and a muskrat. We are the product of apes, even if cross breeding occurred, it was with other apes; because that is how reproduction works. Calling it an "unknown species" doesn't help you, it would still be a goddamned ape.
"-Radiation to some anomaly."
Did you watch too much Ninja Turtles growing up? Genetic mutation due to radiation does not produce the visible monstrosities of science fiction; it simply produces a greater frequency of the same mutations that occur continuously and spontaneously in nature. Ergo, there is little reason to think the changes were caused by some special unjustifiable radioactive event, when we do have a rather smooth progression of fossils from a multitude of ape-like ancestors.
"Natural Evolution is not only not the only explanation out there but we know so much about it that we can rule it out because of how improbable that it was the main factor involved."
Given your rather poor grasp of probabilities, you will have to excuse me if I don't believe you.
"Natural evolution, as described by Darwin deals with how a habitat influences a specie to evolve to be more adapted to it.
Now to formulate a hypothesis of how a species evolved you MUST at the very least have an explanation of how it happened, thus providing a possible habitat to explain the effects of such an evolution.
Therefore, if you cannot even imagine what natural habitat could have transformed an ape into a human, there is no hypothesis.
-What habitat could explain the complete change of the bone structure of the feet in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the loss of hair to protect from cold and radiation in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the ability to modulate(+sinus) we have and the apes did not in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?
-What habitat could explain the night vision eyes transformed in colour vision in just a few 100 000 years where for millions of years they remained virtually the same?"
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121029
We have a habitat that explains it, we've had one for fucking years. Why is it that you people seem to want to think we are so damn special? We aren't, and the evidences for that fact is rather overwhelming, did you even check out the Smithsonian link? It shows quite a few species that are intermediary forms, giving us a picture of how we have evolved, making this sort of reasoning really no better than creationism. And your evidence? Fucking personal credulity, you don't understand how it could happen, so it must not have. Fucking classic.
"Calling it an "unknown species" doesn't help you, it would still be a goddamned ape."
How would you know if it would be an ape or not?
Would you call a donkey, a horse?
What makes is so hard to accept that maybe there were genetically compatible species with apes?
"-Radiation to some anomaly."
Genetic mutation due to radiation does not produce the visible monstrosities of science fiction; it simply produces a greater frequency of the same mutations that occur continuously and spontaneously in nature."
Yes we agree, but you fail to understand how radiation can slowly change a specie over a period of time by increasing the frequency of mutations, it can also make a specie more adapted to radiation, which would explain how low radiation poisoning effected everything in the area except children born in Hiroshima, Nagasaki when the nukes fell.
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/06/stories/08060003.htm
"Ergo, there is little reason to think the changes were caused by some special unjustifiable radioactive event, when we do have a rather smooth progression of fossils from a multitude of ape-like ancestors."
We do not, there are multiple missing links 12-24 that would be the minimum required for a "smooth progression of fossils" for the heads alone.
The feet(the one you should address) we have none.
The truth is that those very few "intermediate fossils" could very well be other branches, like the Neanderthal were.
In 1999 everyone(most of the scientific community) thought that the Neanderthal were our ancestors, then it was shown with genetic testing that they just share a common ancestor with us.
This is just to show you how much guess work there is on this subject by the scientific community.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121029
This link only says:
"Fossils of early humans and their ancestors and extinct relatives have been found in both wooded and open environments in East Africa."
That does not answer the questions I asked.
"We have a habitat that explains it, we've had one for fucking years."
Explain what?
You haven't really addressed anything yet.
How does the open scorching hot Savannah explain the loss of hair?(it protects from solar radiation and cold nights)
What?? they got a temporary solar radiation immunity?, then when they became human, the immunity expired?
Or how about the feet, how does the Savannah explain that their feet got weaker and that we can't walk strait like the apes did?
(they were upright walking too but walked better then us from the tracks found at Liatolie apox 3 mil years ago)
(we swing our momentum left and right when we walk, our joints suffer from this defect when we get old)
etc...
You seem to not understand that if you wish to claim natural evolution then you must provide a habitat which actually would effect a specie to evolve accordingly.
Example:
A bird would evolve to have a longer beak, if the habitat he was in would require him to have one to survive in it. Like trying to catch a worm through the cracks of popular tree in an area.
Thus only the birds with long beaks would survive over millions of years and their generations will be the only ones left there.
Thus the species evolved to have longer beaks because the habitat pushed this kind of adaptation.
That is the natural evolution explained by Darwin in his paper "Natural Selection".
That is why he named it "Natural Selection".
Nature selects the best suited.
Now what habitat could there possibly be to force an ape(which was the king of the world, they were everywhere and nothing was hunting them) to adapt and become a human in such a short period of time?
What habitat would explain all the differences?
Your last paragraph...
Nothing was hunting apes...really?
King of the world...really? What the hell is that?
Your first paragraph...
Would you call a donkey a horse? I'd call them both equidae...just as humans and chimps are both apes.
CyberLN, i am tired of answering your arguments from ignorance.
You still haven't thanked me for last time I answered you questions, so I won't waste my time with you anymore unless you apologize for being so ungrateful.
I was actually going to respond, then I scroll down and read this bullshit. You are really going to go there? You self-sanctimonious piece of shit. This is pure trolling, get the fuck out of here with this.
"I was actually going to respond, then I scroll down and read this bullshit. You are really going to go there? You self-sanctimonious piece of shit. This is pure trolling, get the fuck out of here with this."
Again flaming and accusing of trolling.
I gave you the definition of a troll and nowhere do I fit that description.
I simply made it clear to cyber, many times over that I would not reply to her questions unless I see that she is actually interested in the subject and not just asking questions to waste my time.
After answering her, she just stops talking.
If there is anybody who trolls is her, not me.
You are literally accusing the best mod we have ever had of trolling now, you really need to pull your head out of your ass. I am going to go buy a cute LITTLE cactus in a cracked pot, then name it after you, because you are a fucking prick.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
She might have fun asking questions without even making an effort to look it up, I have no pleasure answering them, especially if after I answer them, I get the silence treatment like what trolls do.
stop insulting people because you disagree with their opinion.
Even if the "best mod" does not do anything about it, it does not mean it is right to do so.
Oh Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...
I typed, "Your last paragraph...
Nothing was hunting apes...really?"
Nothing for me to look up there as you suggest, since it was a purely rhetorical (and snarky) question.
"King of the world...really? What the hell is that?"
Nothing for me to look up there as you suggest, since a Google search of 'king of the world' will likely result only in hits having to do with 'The Titanic'.
"Your first paragraph...
Would you call a donkey a horse? I'd call them both equidae...just as humans and chimps are both apes."
Nothing for me to look up there as you suggest, since I am actually the one providing information.
By suggesting that I look these things up myself instead of asking you, I worry that you actually think I would contemplate coming to you to provision substantive answers to real questions I might have. Well, perhaps I don't actually worry about it...perhaps, instead, I just find it a tad amusing.
As to your crack about getting 'the silent treatment', I have a rather lovely life and was off living it instead of immediately responding to childishness.
@CyberLN
"a Google search of 'king of the world' will likely result only in hits having to do with 'The Titanic'."
Really? I got this...
(Note: This is satire, I couldn't resist)
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Now THAT'S funny!
This kind of post is what I would call a troll post.
I clearly meant to search regarding the apes not being hunted by any other predator in the Miocene era.
How you made it a google search of every word i said is just a troll post.
Kings* of the world, is a figure of speech that means they ruled the world.
Also if you actually do some research they were so many of them that we find their fossils more then other species fossils of the Miocene era.
This is a well established fact.
taking "donkey a horse" out of context from the question that phrase was answering is just a Equivocation fallacy.
Travis was saying that there could not be mix between different specie, a mule is a mix between a donkey and a horse.
Now if you want to argue about even more previous common ancestor, then you would have to admit that 2 different species are compatible anyway as long as there is a common ancestor somewhere in the past.
Which would prove my point that a mule displays sudden changes in a species just because of a cross rather then adaptation to an environment.
This was just one of the possibilities to explain the sudden change from an ape to a human which is currently being studied.
"just as humans and chimps are both apes."
We were talking about the Miocene apes, upright walking apes, another Equivocation fallacy there, taking a word out of context to suit you objective.
Ridiculing the argument.
See why i do not answer your questions, you do not care about the discussion but just want to ridicule what I am saying.
"I have a rather lovely life and was off living it instead of immediately responding to childishness."
If you are so busy why the hell bothering asking questions that you are not going to check the answers?
A yes trolling.
"Travis was saying that there could not be mix between different specie, a mule is a mix between a donkey and a horse."
Actually what Travis was saying is that even in the event that cross breeding occurred, it would have still been with another ape, as you can't fucking crossbreed with a different goddamned order outside of primates. Prove me fucking wrong.
As to your example of donkeys and horses, they have a different number of chromosomes, meaning that there is not one single case of a fertile male. They are not a special species of their own, for they can't fucking breed, you damned idiot.
"...for they can't fucking breed..."
Wish I could agree multiple times.
Pages