Did anyone attend The Paradigm Symposium?
I’m just curious — The Paradigm Symposium was held last weekend in Minneapolis, featuring such remarkable stars of the wacky contingent as Erich von Däniken, Giorgio Tsoukalos, and George Noory. This is the conference I was invited to attend, but didn’t bother.
For such a glitzily publicized event and a large collection of weird “stars”, though, there isn’t much appearing on the web about it. Maybe everyone who attended was sworn to secrecy as they left, or the Men in Black showed up and wiped all their memories.
Anyway, if you were there and would care to submit a guest post, I’d probably put it up here.
I’ve been told that Eve Siebert attended, and also tweeted about it. Surprise, surprise, the speakers didn’t understand evolution.
Sastra:
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I didn’t attend, I don’t know anybody who did, but I DO know people who have attended things like this. And your description of what happened at your “debate” sounds very familiar:
Had you accepted that invitation for another ‘debate’ at this conference I predict the same damn thing would have happened. Nobody would have wanted to argue on any of the facts. That’s divisive. Instead, they would have immediately tried to steer the subject to how you and they have different, yes, paradigms. There’s no common ground.
You see, skeptics are different kinds of people than the open-minded are. We are shut. They are accepting. And they would have pushed long and hard on what they imagine is a fundamental difference in character, philosophy, world view, paradigm. Anything and everything to avoid the actual subject — and get into details. As you say, they prefer “gelatinous gooey non-statements.” Deeeep.
That’s why they like skeptics to come: to be propped up as strawmen and used as smug examples of what kind of person they are NOT. It would have been fun if you had attended … as long as you made sure it was more fun for you than them.
grumpyoldfart:
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I was expecting some funny stories and so far – nothing.
joed:
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Paradigm, the wafer-thin barrier between you and chaos.
gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet:
October 23rd, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Erich von Däniken?
Maybe Ridley Scott was there to get ideas for a Prometheus sequel.
gworroll:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:35 am
I would love to go to something like this.
I’d be guaranteed some laughs, and I could treat receiving good information as if I had won the lottery. 6 times. Consecutively.
madscientist:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:08 am
No need to call in the Men in Black – chemtrails are good enough for that job.
Crudely Wrott:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:45 am
You should have attended, PZ. You could have forced the issue about where Art Bell has actually disappeared to.
You could have forced the issue by virtue of knowledge, wit and tentacles. You could have established that he couldn’t have, oh, let’s say, decided he got tired of the schtick and had enough money to just not care anymore. He must have actually gone, let’s say, away.
You could have done humanity a great service by discovering just exactly where away is by following his spoor!
Then you have brought back the coordinates so that we could all go there and needle him endlessly. He and Dick Hoagland.
Man, I’m so bummed.
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:50 am
They wouldn’t let me in. I didn’t have a pair’a'dimes. I only had four nickels. :(
That, and people presenting woo like it was heavy with any sort of legitimacy makes me call people horrible, horrible names. I haven’t mastered control of the ad hominem, and probably never will.
No, it won’t help to say quit acting like a twelve-year-old. I haven’t advanced that far yet.
birgerjohansson:
October 24th, 2012 at 6:44 am
Never trust people who like to say “paradigm”!
ebotebo:
October 24th, 2012 at 7:55 am
How about “paradigm shift??”
qwerty:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
I see the History Channel was one of the sponsors because of their “Ancient Aliens” series. Whenever I am channel surfing and catch a glimpse of this program, it makes me wish they had more programs that dealt with actual history.
McC2lhu doesn't want to know what you did there.:
October 24th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
The History Channel is history. Looking at all of the cable learning channels, they have all essentially become history. Selling out to cheap production and virtually zero writing and research is the new mantra. The only channel that still maintains a legitimate educational impact is PBS, likely because there are no shareholders to impress with dollar signs at the parties with the little shrimps and wienies (and those aren’t the appetizers, those are the channel execs).
scottyroberts:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Sastra,
I don’t recall “protesting” anything. I simply was attempting to prep people for the fact that I hadn’t been informed I was entering into a “formal debate” – which is very different than the “open discussion” I was told it would be.
Nor was I given any idea that I’d be debating an evolutionary biologist and a PhD in archaeology, so I did not come prepared for anything other than what I thought would be a casual discussion on the topic.
PZ led off by misquoting me from my own book, utterly misrepresenting the point I was making in the passage he read. This tactic of stating incomplete context is utilized to misinform and keep the opponent defending the misquote rather than moving into other topics.
In the first few minutes, PZ referred to me as a “Nephilimer, ass-plucker and a denialist” – not to mention the inference that someone “like me” couldn’t figure out how to use an iPad. My response was to say, “I deny that…” and I went on to correct PZ’s incorrect characterizations. My book presents the Nephilim as Hebrew mythology, not fact, and then the book goes on to make comparatives with other cultural tales and religious mythologies.
Further, I was not at all unwilling to talk about facts. But something I did notice was that if I said, “This is so,” I would be booed and jeered by PZ sychophants, while his “No it isn’t” would be applauded. Definitely a loaded crowd that smacked of having the feeling of a set-up.
That is precisely why I said, publicly, that I’d be ready for a re-match next year, in which, if this is a formal debate, we’ll both have opportunity to prepare for specific questions. I did not hear an acceptance of the challenge from PZ, who seems to thrive on being the nay-saying curmudgeon, but becomes quite toothless and limp when challenged off-stage.
When I invited PZ to come to the Paradigm Symposium for a similar debate, he resorted to what most do when relying solely on his audience to bolster his case, He mumbled back, “Well, I don’t know, I’d be in the enemy camp, then wouldn’t I?” I told him not any more than was in an enemy camp, especially if what we both seek is fact and solid answers despite our respective theories on varying topics.
I contend that there are “Big ‘S’” Skeptics and “small ‘S’” skeptics. I classify myself as the latter in that I do not deny offhandedly and without consideration. I have an open mind that wants to know facts.
Bob Blaskiewicz of the Skeptical Inquirer attended the Paradigm Symposium on a press pass. I suggest you ask him his take on the information being disseminated.
scottyroberts:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
As for the name “Paradigm Symposium,” it was in reference to the “shifting paradigm in the ufological field of research.”
No longer is it about lights in the sky and waiting for benevolent aliens to rescue me from my mother’s basement apartment, taking me to some better planet in some distant galaxy. It is about researching the theory of pale-contact as seen through the filters of archaeology, anthropology, cosmology and, yes, philosophy. Hence, “The Paradigm Symposium.”
Our speaker list not only included guys like von Daniken, but also Laird Scranton talking about his latest book on Immanuel Velikovsky, “The Velikovsky Heresies.” Also speaking was my good friend Dr. John Ward of Hereford, England (GB), archaeologist/anthropologist living in Luxor, Egypt. He spoke on ancient symbols, and is very much an opponent to the “ancient alien” theory.
There were several presenters who approached the topic from a very different point-of-view, offering up not a “know everything” approach, but differing views for people to hear and assimilate.
As my partner in this effort said, “I would love to correspond with (PZ Meyers) and share ideas. He, on the other hand, looks like he would run screaming, and attempt to deconstruct what he presupposed to be my “positions” with misquotes and verbal banter, well-wielded by those of his own kind, which root themselves amidst the cult of “skeptical debunkers.” But for goodness sake, if the guy ever DOES find out who I am, please don’t tell him that I, in truth, am a skeptic as well. After all, I’m not sure I’d want to deal with his biologically-oriented ejaculatory paroxysms…”
scottyroberts:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Paleo-contact, not “pale”*
chigau (棒や石):
October 27th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
scottyroberts
“Meyers”
try harder
bonniegurney:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
The event was a wonderful learning experience! People were able to ask questions and they were answered. The speakers were incredible. You could network with everyone there. Scotty Roberts, Raini Roberts and Micah Hanks did a great job putting it on. I look forward to next year’s Symposium.
brettwolfe:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:30 am
I attended and I loved it. It wasn’t a place where people preach at you and say you can only see things their way. It was all about putting a lot of information out there and having people research stuff on their own. After reading most of the comments on here, I am very happy that you did not attend. Don’t bother coming next year either or there may be duct tape and a pillar in your future.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Chigau>> Bingo.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:28 am
I dunno, PZ. You said above, “This is the conference I was invited to attend, but didn’t bother.”
Was it an issue of not bothering, or was it something completely different? You were invited, personally, by me. I invited you to a debate and to also have an opportunity to present your research and views to a crowd not unwilling to listen and learn.
Your response to me seemed less the stuff of offhanded brandish of our “ridiculousness,” but more a quiet, limp cowardice. Your mumbled reply to me was, “Well, I don’t know… I’d be in the enemy camp, then, wouldn’t I?”
I lightheartedly responded to you that you would then be under the same conditions you seemed comfortable for me to be under at your debate.
I believe you are great with an audience, PZ. Your brand of dismissive Skepticism, however, is nothing short of revealing what you truly are: a grizzled Cynic. Skepticism allows for questions and seeks answers – it isn’t about simply denying that all other ways of thinking are silliness. Hard boiled cynicism, on the other hand, denies everything without question.
Again, I invite you to present your research at the next Paradigm Symposium, October 17-20, 2013. We can also have a debate, but if you feel you would do poorly in front of the opposite sort of audience of the sort you were quite comfortable having me face at your debate, then I can accommodate and help you slip out quietly under the radar. ;)
Cheers, PZ!
Scotty
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
PZ,
In another thread in which you gave your take on the debate of last July, you said that you “purchased” and gave my book a quick “speed read.”
First, thanks for buying my book. You have helped elevate it in numbers in a small way.
Second, your “speed read” obviously gave you some great,quick quotes, but missed the entire point of the book – as well as some very salient details. NEVER have I said I adhere to the “ancient alien” theory. As a matter of fact, I stated more than once in my book, that the jury was quite out, for me, on paleo-contact theory.
“The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim” was a book exploring comparative ancient mythologies of creation and “non-human” contact, the Hebrew religion’s Book of Genesis being the source point for the word “Nephilim.” I did not promote the Nephilim as anything but ancient mythology.
Never did I say, either, that I adhere to the notion that “ancient aliens” built the pyramids or monoliths of antiquity. And, further, while some adherents to the paleo-contact theory are proponents of that line of thinking, most presenters at the Paradigm Symposium were not, but are open to the theory and its research, despite being strong proponents of evolutionary doctrine.
Not a single one of them adhered to “creationism,” including me. So, if you picked that up from your speed read of my book, you missed some things.
As for the claim that there are over 600 ancient cultures and tribal tales of flood accounts, this is simply fact. Do your research. And making that claim has absolutely nothing to do with some sort of tacit racism, as you, Dr. Greg Laden and many of your sycophants suggest. The vast number of ancient flood accounts was something I explored in my book, enumerating several of them by culture – which spanned not just African and the “brown” peoples (as you put it), but into Celtic, Norse, Iberian, Asian, Indian and Native American cultures.
I look forward to opening more dialog with you, as this is how we learn beyond skepticism, brow-beating and arrogant acamedicians who have elevated their particular view of science to the lofty doctrinal/theological position of “surrogate religion.”
When you decry all other faiths and religions as “mindless ass pluckers,” and elevate your own scholarship and personal atheistic views above theirs, you, in a very real sense, have created the New Religion; the new standard; the new “god;’ the New Theology.
Do consider being part of the Paradigm Symposium next year. I am sure no one will treat you rudely or laugh you out of the house for your views. I have found that those who don’t have a handle on the universe and its workings, tend to be fairly open minded to god thinkers.
Cheers!
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Perhaps my last line of the last post was a bit Freudian… I meant to say “good thinkers,” Not “god thinkers.” ;)
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
http://www.intrepidmag.com/blog/paradigm-symposium-the-million-year-event/
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 28th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
snottyroberts,
You’re a pompous ass*. The fact that your ludicrously titled “Paradigm Symposium” (it would be hard to pack more pomposity into two words – I really must congratulate you on that) invited participants to take seriously the ludicrous piffle of von Daniken and Velikovsky, tells any rational person that its only possible value would be for amusement.
*In the British sense.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
So, Nick, what do you know about WHY we named it the “Paradigm Symposium…?”
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
And, Nick, now that you’ve declared me a “pompous, irrational ass,” please tell me more about what you know about me and the Paradigm Symposium…
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
what do YOU know about what a “paradigm” even is?
because man, does your symposium completely NOT resemble one.
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Was it an issue of not bothering, or was it something completely different?
funny, I read that as HE SNUBBED you.
deservedly so from the limited view you’ve given of yourself here so far.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
You think PZ Meyers (who’s that, by the way) will hold a private discussion with you? Highly unlikely. Do you have a point? I haven’t seen one other than your ego.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Well, with the god-like status to which you are elevating the vaunted PZ Meyers, I suppose I would have to do some obeisance of some sort that would make me worthy of a conversation.
I think, however, what Ichthyic and Nerd of Redhead illustrate very well is the ability to insult rather than dialog. But I wear my big boy pants, so I can handle it.
You ask me what MY point is, when I thought I made several. I have yet to see any of you engage here in anything substantive, unless this blog is to be a lesson in incivility and diminutive repartee as an avoidance tactic to honest dialog.
And Nerd, if I have a point to make, it would be that PZ is very comfortable when his audience is there to bolster his charm and wit before a crowd, but shies from (or “snubs”) debate in a crowd where he would have to stand ion his own and dialog fairly.
I also find it amusing that you have to come in and throw insults for him. I think he could do that pretty well all on his own.
Now, tell me, when PZ writes about me and my symposium, why is it left to you to attempt diminishment rather than engage in decent dialog. My hypothesis – which can be tested over and over again with somewhat of a scientific methodology – that you are incapable of substance, opting, instead, to pre-pubescebt pedagogy and the hurling of unsubstantiated insult to avoid having to make intelligent, polite conversation or dialog.
But I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me at all, its just fun to watch the substantiation of my hypothesis. Because never once have I seen anyone whom you collectively disagree with, get anything substantive from any of you, other than substantive diminutives.
But, then again, that is your tactic. More power to ya.
As for the meaning of “Paradigm” and the reason I used it in my symposium, I think you all aren’t quite as silly as you come off. What IS obvious, also, is that you have never bothered to ask before hurling insult – a trait of the small minded. But that doesn’t bother me, either. It merely, again, establishes my hypothesis.
Here’s to the arrogant power of anonymity.
Cheers!
Scotty
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Oh, and PZ, you are still invited to speak at Paradigm 2013. You will find that no one who disagrees with you would treat you anything less than gentlemanly and respectful.
I think you could hold your own very well – hell, you can even bring a crowd, if you’d like – and you will most probably find a very willing audience with an ear to hear what you have to say.
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Well, with the god-like status to which you are elevating the vaunted PZ Meyers
LOLwut?
and would you fucking at least get his name right, please. It’s bloody irritating.
It merely, again, establishes my hypothesis.
what a complete fuckwit you are.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
You have invited PZ Meyers. Don’t expect PZ Myers to show up loser.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Ichthyic
Yer just a nattering nabob of negativism, ain’cha?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
As long as you guys speak for PZ Myers (I get confused with all the Meyers, Meiers, Myers and Miers I know), I guess he wouldn’t need to answer me on his own, would he?
And I can hurl the “fuck-wads, fuck-nutz, fuckin’ douche bags, ass fucks and fucky McFuckerstons” just as well as you two micro-brains demonstrate, but I choose a little higher course of dialog when I’m not sitting at the local pub, drinking my Guinness.
Tell you what… on the day you guys graduate from middle school, come look me up. I’ll buy you a soda pop and we can discuss what its like to get laid.
Cheers!
Scotty
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Yes immature fuckwitted idjit, I did that forty years ago. You, like all your ideas, is too late to be relevant. Maybe if you actually obtained a degree and used it properly.
consciousness razor:
October 28th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
So that is the key to learning about Ancient Aliens™: drink soda pop and discuss what its [sic] like to get laid.
I’ve been doing it all wrong. :(
Why don’t they ever mention that on the History channel?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Thank you, Spiro Agnew. ;)
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Nerd of Redhead… just for the sake for mental gymnastics, please tell me which of “my ideas” are/is late coming to the table.
And I only ask because I contend that you actually know very little about me and/or my ideas.
And do tell me… what is “fuckwitted?” (I am assuming you don’t mean that I have a great sense of comic timing regarding the act of fucking.) And I am also curious to know how you think your pedantic diatribes add to any sort of constructive dialog… or are you simply incapable of having substantive conversations with someone who may hold differing views to yours?
Man-oh-man, your world must be pretty cloistered and boring… and by the looks of your heated epithets, probably celibate.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
consciousness razor >> you guys sure have a great way of twisting conversations. Again, I understand the tactic very well… twist the onversation enough and you never actually have to engage in anything substantive.
Do you all work for the Democratic Party?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
And let me understand you correctly, Nerd of Redhead… I am immature for making fun of YOUR immaturity? I started with pretty decent dialog which resulted in very little other than name calling and fuck-laced epithets from you guys.
And – just so I get this straight – for responding to you in like manner (and rather tongue-in-cheek) I am the one who was being immature…? *smirk*burgeoning*guffaw*
Ok. Just letting that one sink in…. ok, got it now.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Wow! You are just so clever!
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Who remembers this?
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/09/did-ancient-aliens-visit-the-earth-and-guide-human-evolution
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Wow stupid and politically abhorrent! So sad we missed that conference
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Chigau, there is so much that I forget. I think I should be grateful for that. I just skimmed over that thread and took a quick look at cl’s blog (Cl was the less than intelligent troll who stopped by for that thread. Seriously, check out the blog. *eyeroll*)
So many memories that I keep suppressed.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
You gotta admit, Janine and Ing, it was much more clever than “fuckwitted douchebag.” Wow, you are sure a humorless lot. You can dish it, but can’t take it in return. Says a lot for the efficaciousness of your skeptical/scientific stances – “not open for dialog with those we have deemed below us.”
You can hurl every epithet in the book but can’t handle a little politically based humor. Do you all realize how well you’ve derailed any of the original intent of this thread? Bravo.
Good thing I am not the timid, mealy-mouthed sort who cowers at such bullying. As I said earlier, I wear my bog boy pants and can handle my own – even with people with whom I disagree.
I would be willing to bet that you can only act the way you do because you can hide in the anonymity of the internet. Put on your web bravado, but you’d be hard pressed to NOT act with any sort of gentility and mutual respect in a public setting, and face-to-face dialog.
You guys sure have the handle on disseminating fact and honest research.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
@Scottyroberts
Going down the check list of wrong and assheaded ad homs and non sequitors?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Ing, just take a look at Scotty’s FaceBook page. Explains a lot. For favorite television, Faux News is among the listed.
Now I am wondering if Liberals are actually Lizard People.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Chigau >>
I remember that very well. I even commented on it in this thread. Was there something you wanted to say about it…?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Is that what that smell is?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Chigau, just refer to post #13 in this thread regarding the link you posted.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Janine, didn’t you know?!? Liberals and the royal families of Europe are Reptilians from the Draco Star System, living in cloned human skin disguises.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
@Bog boy
Look I literally have no interest in trying to debate with a hysterical moron who has abandoned all pretenses of reason. We’re not playing with the same rules much less the same deck so you might as well piss off.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
So, pointing out that an attempted joke is not funny is a sign that ?
What out, Rachel Maddow just might unhinge her jaw and swallow you whole.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
@52
It’s sad that that might not be a joke. I’m sure we’re part of a liberal science conspiracy, the Knights of Tipper, or the Inebriati
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Well terminal idiocy deserves only mocking.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Fucking offering for the Typo Monster.
Stupid monster does not have to work for any food, it just stays at my feet, waiting. And never too long.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
scottyroberts
The original intent of this thread was to make fun of you and your Meeting of the BigBoyPantses.
I think it’s working.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
@Chigau
That’s BOGboypantses
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Meeting of the BigBoyPantses.
LOL
I think it’s working.
yup. most indubitably.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I demand a debate between scottyroberts and Vox Day. I know it will make me stupid just to witness it but I would be so amused.
Why, yes my humor is rather warped.
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
again, LOL.
snottybob ends up brightening my day after all, albeit completely unintentionally.
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
I demand a debate between scottyroberts and Vox Day.
can’t we have a cagematch instead?
and then lose the key and turn out the lights?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Hey, now, Janine, I don’t just like FoxNews. I also like “Dances With Wolves,” “Football,” “Scrabble,” “Thomas Jefferson” and “Sword Fighting.” I think those all put together count as being fairly well-rounded.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
@Bog Boy Pants
I have to admit I am impressed: It’s no mean feat carrying peat within your seat
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Ichthyic, I don’t know who “Vox Day” is, but if we can add mud, I’m there.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Shit, I am now hearing “bog boy” as if Keith Moon were singing it.
BOG BO_OY!
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Can’t you just take off your pants?
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Thank you, Spiro Agnew. ;)
or the headless body of Agnew, anyway.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
It could be a “sword fight” between those two.
I will say nothing else about that.
*snort*
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
It looks like we are all getting our geek on.
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Ichthyic, I don’t know who “Vox Day” is, but if we can add mud, I’m there.
oh, no worries, with Vox there is always plenty of mud slung about.
we’ll set up the cage.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Wouldn’t be a fair fight, pretty sure Vox day would kick Bog Boy’s morass
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Shit, I forgot all about his Flaming Sword!
Dammit! Now I see his bad haircut!
So many suppressed memories!
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
“Sword Fighting.”
I bet Obama’s comment about decreased reliance on bayonets really chapped your soggy butt, eh?
Ichthyic:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Wouldn’t be a fair fight, pretty sure Vox day would kick Bog Boy’s morass
wouldn’t care, so long as nobody ever unlocked the cage.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Ichthic,
Not to take it to a serious note, but why would you want to see me “locked away” in a cage? Is it so there would be no one who thinks differently than you? Would it be to lock me away for my subversive views? Would be an inquisition type of thing that prevented me from speaking just because I did not align with your particular science or politic?
What is it that drives, seemingly, most of you here to prefer insult to dialog, crassness to respect, belittlement to conversation, name-calling to civility?
Is it because you disagree with me? And if so, can any of you state what it is you actually dislike about my views. Hell, can you even delineate what my views actually are?
or is it just a “Follower-of-PZ-Myers-Thing” to berate and belittle above substance and dialog?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Sorry, Ichthyic. I wasn’t deliberately misspelling your pseudonym.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Were we being uncivil, so sorry.
PLEASE, go fuck yourself
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Not that you’re actually being polite or civil.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Civility is what tone trolls hide behind to show their lack of honest evidenced argument. Just like you do…
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Oops. I like my single malt highland scotch peaty, not my pants. I’m with Janine… damned typo monster.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Scottyroberts, is it really that difficult to cut and paste a name that you cannot spell properly?
Also, is it really that fucking difficult for you to realize that you are being mocked. Or does it make it easier to think that Ichthyic, because you do not think like him, wants to see you harmed?
Contrary to your protests, you are not a well rounded person.
And the mocking will continue. Because, well, you know, we all have lizard brains.
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
scottyroberts @46
Yeah wtg Janine and Ing, you’ve completely derailed this important topic with your repeated quadruple- and quintupleposting. For shame.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
scottyboberts
Oh how sufistimacated. Could ancient astronauts have brewed the first malt liquor!?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
*whistles and stares blankly at the ceiling*
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Nerd of Redhead, I was waiting for that one. I would counter than incivility is what the insubstantive hide behind.
Something I’ve noticed in these types of forums… it does no good to call people on their incivility, because, mostly, it just prompts them to act even worse. So, for the most part, I tend to roll with it and try to exchange humor for tactless jibes.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Seriously though, the smell. Boggy you have to drain your quagmire
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Um Boggy Creek Creature you do realize that your jibes actually got more people who previously simply did not care to actively think you were a jackass and respond?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
And your linked evidence, not your mouthy OPINION, which can and will be dismissed without evidence, is found where?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
I chose to imagine Bog Boy Pants thusly
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Shit, I responded to the stupid political crack and was later directed to the “debate” between scottyroberts and PZ by chigau. Like I said, I forget so much, especially when it is stupid.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Ing,
I have no idea what ancient astronauts brewed or drank. I don’t adhere to the ancient astronaut theory.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Nerd of Redhead, my evidence for what, exactly…? That people under the guise of anonymity in public forums are generally less civil than they would be in a face-to-face meeting?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
@94
Be a good start
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Janine, refer to post #13 in this thread.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Yes we read 13. We all read frelling 13.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Seriously, Nerd, that’s the best you got?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Um you might want to give someone more than two minutes jackass
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
True enough!
Oh come on, guess.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Everyone knows ancient astronauts drank Tang
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Tang is ancient astronauts
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Ing
Who are you calling “ancient”?
(I’m not an astronaut but I drank Tang.)
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
*slaps forehead*
Tang! Of course! Sheesh. And NASA got the formula for Tang from the Roswell crash.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Formula? Do you have any idea how many aliens were in that ship? *slurp slurp slurp* we’re set for life.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
*metallic echoing sound*
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Ing,
There weren’t any aliens at all. They were crash test dummies from the early 1950s.
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Are you trying to say that Tang is powdered crash test dummies? Because that’s just ridiculous.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Oh c’mon,
guysgalsfolksfellow soclpuppets.scottyroberts Tang/Roswell jape was funny!
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Guys, its been fun, but I have to go clean up the pumpkin carving mess from my kids, and get the pre-pubescent 5th grader to bed.
Looking forward to more substantive dialog in the near future.
You can get hold of me anytime.
Cheers!
Scotty
(651) 468-8115
[email protected]
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
sock
no ‘l’
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Oh frell. PZ you might want to clean up 110 where Scotty was stupid enough to put his real e-mail and number?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
I thought you meant “cl”.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
He fucking left his phone number???
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
He totally fucking did!!!
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Janine
Possibly.
But then I wouldn’t have known what I meant.
Y’know what I mean?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
So, did ancient aliens kick start the civilizations that made the ancient aliens that kick started human civilization? Was there an ancient alien prime mover, the unmoved but moving prime ancient alien?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Last note: my phone number and email are all over the internet and have been for years with Intrepid Magazine and my other endeavors. I figure if i get crank calls, I can simply hang up.
It hasn’t been a problem in five years.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
@Janine
It’s tang all the way down
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
You are too stupid to be online
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
The best you have your hand on your mental penis.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Ing,
My number was public when I was the editor-in-chief of a magazine, as well as my own rag. It’s been public for the Paradigm Symposium and my illustration and design business for years.
Its a phone number.
It also lets people know that I am accessible. I don’t hide behind anonymity, nor do I eschew contact from anyone, albeit sometimes I deal with people offering up crazy ideas.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Crank magnet.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Nerd, at least my mental penis is exponentially larger than my other one.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
And back to sword fighting.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Janine,
Unless you see this as a gauntlet, I have not had a single crank call in all those years, despite some of the cranks who try to offer up weird shit.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Translation: I am shit at detecting prank calls.
A cursory glance at Google led me to multiple places where people are invited to post numbers for people to call and harass.
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Tang built the mass relays
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
@nms
Let’s not go near that berserk button of mine. Tang would be an improvement.
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
heh heh heh
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
I vaguely remember the President saying something about NASA not formulating Tang, ALL the aliens formulated it… or something like that…
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
@Bog Boy
Don’t you have a family you’re currently neglecting?
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
scottyroberts
Does the “pre-pubescent 5th grader” ever answer the phone?
Is the “pre-pubescent 5th grader” anonymous?
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Ing >> Nope. They are all in bed. My wife and I are just about to settle down to “The Walking Dead.”
Chigau >> My pre-pubescent 5th grader never answers my phone. But he IS anonymous.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
scottyroberts
You really are too stupid to be online.
scottyroberts:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Well, Ing, that phases me almost as little as being called “fuckwitted.” haha.
I’ve been working and developing and designing on the internet since 1996. I’ll be fine.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 28th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
FFS, I am at a serious moral cross roads here. When someone keeps insisting on eating the cat turd no matter how many times you try to smack them out of their hands, do you just let them?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Ing, some people make coffee out of that.
Civet cats, that is.
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Ing
I think we need to keep smacking.
scotty is not alone.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Poor missus as your mental one is minimicroscopic. After all, you are delusional, believing without evidence in everything.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 28th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Humanity is not alone.
*ancient aliens*
chigau (棒や石):
October 28th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Janine
I meant that scottyroberts is involving innocent bystanders in … whatever crusade he thinks he’s on.
nms:
October 28th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
I think that’s his personal cell phone number, not a home phone.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 12:21 am
nms #143
OK.
Still not ‘safe’.
Ichthyic:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:07 am
I’ve been working and developing and designing on the internet since 1996. I’ll be fine.
are you sure you didn’t help Al Gore invent it?
Ichthyic:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:07 am
…cause that was a new paradigm.
Ichthyic:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:09 am
sometimes I deal with people offering up crazy ideas.
how on earth can you tell?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:12 am
“After all, you are delusional, believing without evidence in everything.” ~ Nerd of Redhead
Now, now, Nerd, what is it I have stated that I “believe in?” I have said that there are topics and subjects that intrigue me, but placing my “belief in them” – that’s just simply not something I do.
I like these words from Richard Fyneman…
“…we should look to see what’s true and what may not be true, once you start doubting – which I think, to me, is a very fundamental part of my soul is to doubt and to ask – when you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe.
“You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. And then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, “Why we are here?” and what that question might mean. I might think about it a bit and then if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else.
“But I don’t have to know an answer, I don’t have to. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose – which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.”2
~ Richard Fyneman
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:15 am
Ichthyic,
Al Gore invented the internet long before 1996. I simply started building rudimentary websites in 1996.
Ichthyic:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:17 am
I like these words from Richard Fyneman…
who the hell is Richard Fyneman, you crazy dyslexic motherfucker?
perhaps you meant Richard Feynman?
…and his remarks were in response to the godbesotted, who he was convinced were little more than frightened children, clutching a security blanky.
You strike me in a similar fashion; instead of accepting that you don’t know, you’d rather actually substitute your inane fictional “paradigms” where the future is concerned.
bah.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:19 am
Regarding the “Paradigm Symposium:”
As I stated earlier – since that topic has come up in this thread several times – I used the word “paradigm” to describe what was happening in the ufological field. The paradigm has shifted, in that that field no longer is about lights in the sky and abductions that involve alien anal probes. It is more about looking into archaeology, anthropology, cosmology to see if there is any efficacy to the claims of paleo-contact.
The “paradigm” I speak of is within that field of study.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:23 am
Ichthyic,
Attribute my “dyslexic motherfuckedness” to my not yet being coffees-up. haha.
As to what FEYNman was talking about: I know precisely what his context was. It was about “belief.” My purpose in using that quote was in response to Nerd of Redhead, who charged that I would “believe anything without evidence.”
So, the quote was quite apropos and quite accurate in the way I used it.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:23 am
“coffeed-up”
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:33 am
I don’t speak English before coffee.
myeck waters:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:38 am
Have you considered, giving up coffee?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Then you don’t do anything other than worthless mental masturbation. Either you can evidence ideas or they are meaningless “vaporware”.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:48 am
And you speak gibberish after coffee.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Nerd of Redhead, are you truly that obtuse? You took me to task for believing in things that have no evidence. I replied that I never said I believed in them, but was intrigued by them. NOW you are taking me to task for not believing in them. Which is it you want to take me to task for?
Again, I ask YOU, what is it I have placed my belief in without evidence? Let’s stick to your direct question instead of you attempting to find any little rabbit trail you can to attempt to derail your asinine statement.
Are you able to stay within the thread you started? Or is it incumbent upon you to attempt to distract rather than be substantive?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:53 am
Nerd of Redhead… please quantify your “gibberish” remark. Unless, of course, its just a menas to insult rather than be substantive…
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:54 am
means*
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:55 am
“Masturbatory” connotes self-pleasuring. That sounds precisely like what you are doing, Nerd.
dingus:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:12 am
When is the last time any of you got some pussy/cock? You all are just a bunch of old, fat geeks/nerds! Get out there and away from your computers, go to a coffee shop, leaving the bitter skeptic bullshit at home. You need to find some happiness and leave the mean crochety disposition behind you. Please, go out and get laid, you over-bloated circle jerking ninnies!
How is that for substance?
I tried to be just like the skeptical, faithless, wanna be scientist, fat heads on this page.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:17 am
No, that is you, where you get nowhere in your thought processes beyond your pleasure of being an asshat. Me, I do real science.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 9:18 am
If you’re going to quote me, shit-for-brains, do it accurately: my term was simply “pompous ass”.
I know you invited the participants in your silly meeting to take the ludicrous piffle of von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, and I know you are a pompous ass because you called your silly meeting a “Paradigm Symposium”. That’s quite enough.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:23 am
Dang, blockquote borked in #165. Should be
Example, quantify means measure. I believe you meant qualify, which is explain. Which I just did. You spoke gibberish, not English in that sentence. It’s the old I recognize the words, but they don’t make sense in their present order.
Your ideas are gibberish. Show evidence they aren’t. We are waiting…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Ah, having followed your link, I know now you’re a complete scumbag as well, since you’re a fan of Faux News and Ronald Raygun.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 9:24 am
..oh, and the slaveowning hypocrite and rapist Jefferson.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 9:26 am
@ichthyic
Gee thanks for that jackass -_-
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:54 am
I cannot recall ever seeing the term paradigm used in way that is not pretentious.
And as for “shifting paradigm in the ufological field of research.”
Why not call it a meeting about the changes that have taken place in UFOolgy ? There is clearly serious academic study that can be done into such changes, but of course such study would be in the field of sociology. How groups, such as those interested in UFOs change over time might be quite interesting.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Nick Gotts, your words are vapid. I didn’t misquote you. You said I was a “pompous ass,” then further you referred to me as the opposite of “rational.”
I find that you have little substance.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:05 am
Matt Penfold, good thoughts.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Nerd of Redhead, whatever floats your boat. You have established yourself as being much more important.
I meant Quantify, not qualify. Take measure of my words and tell me where they are gibberish.
The people commenting in this blog are MASTERS of exchanging the substantive with the obtuse and ridiculous. You are people who major on the minor typos and nonsensical rabbit trails.
Where facts fail you, personal invective always suffices.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 10:13 am
@173
Wow sure as hell proving that pompous part was accurate huh?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:13 am
Nick Gotts, you are certainly welcome to your opinions on Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan and anything else.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:16 am
@174
Youbetchya, Ing.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Now, take some of the other people in here to task for their inanity.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 10:17 am
It’s not an opinion on Jefferson. It’s undeniable that his views ran contrary to his actions and he committed rape via exploiting said hypocrisy.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:20 am
@165
Nerd of Redhead,
AGAIN, what ideas of mine are you referring to? I have LOTS of ideas. Which ones are you calling “gibberish?”
I’d be happy to answer your question if you can simply – after several requests – tell me what the hell you really want to know. hahaha.
Don’t be so perpetually obtuse, man!
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:21 am
You’re either an ignoramus or a liar. When you put words within quotation marks, that indicates that you are quoting the exact words of the source – unless an ellipsis or clarification is specifically indicated within the quotation. Moreover, I did not in fact refer to you as “the opposite of rational”. I said:
So I’m clearly referring to those hearing or reading about your silly little meeting, and specifically, noting that any among them who are rational, would deduce that its only possible value was for amusement.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Ing,
Maybe we can discuss Jefferson sometime.
As for differing views on politics, only the threatened have to refer to those with differing opinons as “scumbags” and the like.
When you have nothing, personal invective is the best course… right?
Surely you are a better people that what you all seem to be in a public, anonymous forum. The lack of civility and mutual respect is appalling. And you see yourselves as being “better?” Perhaps you approach this all as fun and frolic, but what do you really do to advance ideas and mutual respect in seeking answers, when your only course seems to be insult and injurious types of behavior.
Of course, I will NOW be taken to task for saying any of that. Because that is what you all seem to do best: criticize, belittle, excoriate, insult and decry, all while maintaining that you hold some sort of fantastical “higher ground.”
And that is certainly not lost on all of those watching this thread.
Either step up to the table with respect, or back away, admitting that you have no intent of ever stepping outside the doctrines, theology and dictates of your surrogate religion.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Nick Gotts,
Thanks for the mini-lesson in the proper usage of quotation marks.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:31 am
Snottyroberts,
I notice you have no substantive response to my characterization either of Jefferson, or of the ludicrous drivel you invited people to take seriously at your silly little meeting. Since your “inspirational people” are a slaveowning hypocrite and rapist, and a racist liar who nearly got us all killed with his fuckwitted rhetoric; and your preferred TV channel is that home of racist liars, Faux News, I deduce that you are very probably a racist liar yourself.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:33 am
I don’t have to refer to you as a scumbag, but I like to tell the truth.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Respect for fallacious and refuted ideas? Where is your evidence to support your claims? Ideas and OPINION aren’t evidence. They are mental wankery without evidence to ground them in reality.
What religion? Quit lying to yourself, then quit lying to the world.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Scotty Robersts,
You talk about this ting called respect, but it is not clear you understand the concept. Däniken spoke at your “symposium”. Now unless you think he had anything worth saying, in which case you are treating your attendees as if they are idiots, he was there to be laughed at, which would not be very nice of you.
So which is it, was Däniken there to be laughed at, or did you think it was an excuse to con the gullible ?
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:36 am
That what we in a public anonymous forum a better people all seem to be like.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:38 am
While I’d love to chat some more, I have to go get some work done. I am in the midst of edits on my new book, The Secret History of the Reptilians: The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos.
Due back into my publisher by Wednesday.
You’ll all find this one very interesting (but I’m pretty sure you’ll have it pre-judged before you even know what its about).
Talk later, my friends!
Cheers!
Scotty
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Nerd of Redhead,
I am beginning to believe you really don’t understand plain English.
Tell me what MY claims are. You don’t even know what MY claims are, yet you take them to task.
Once more – slowly this time:
What. Claims. Of. Mine. Are. You. Referring. To?
I have asked this repeatedly, yet you never answer the question.
*face palms*
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:46 am
224 pages.
One page would be too long. One does not need much paper to write “No”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History-The-Reptilians-Pervasive/dp/1601632517
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:47 am
You are not my friend.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:48 am
How does anyone producing such drivel to cash in on the credulous get say we have a lack of respect.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Nick Goats… hahahahahahahahahaha. Dop you really take yourself seriously? What a diatribe of unmitigated distractionary blether.
If you want to open a thread on Thomas Jefferson and political viewpoints, go right ahead and invite me in. We can have a go.
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:49 am
I’m very disappointed that scottyroberts has spent this whole thread ineffectually defending himself and lecturing about civility rather than trying to advance any ideas.
The latter would have been far more entertaining.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 10:50 am
You know what’s very uncivil? Insisting I am not who I say I am or refusing to believe that my personality is genuine.
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:51 am
You haven’t really grasped this site, I take it.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:51 am
That you are to be taken seriously without evidence, and respected for being an evidenceless fuckwitted idjit. That you do claim.
The fact you don’t claim to believe in what you hold a conference for means you a blitherding idjit without any respect due them. Do keep up. You apparently are divorced from reality.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:52 am
Matt Penfold, are you asking why anyone should make money promoting their ideas? Seriously?
Go ask The Amazing Randi, Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer the same question.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:54 am
nms #193
If scotty offered his ideas here, for free, none of of would buy his snaky book.
and we are all planning on doing that.
Right?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Nerd of Redhair,
Careful. Your ignorance is showing.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 10:55 am
No he’s not
He says you make your living by disrespecting people’s intelligence and passing off psuedointellectualism as scholarly work (you’re selling a lemon) and then talk down to people about a lack of respect.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Chigau,
Tell that to anyone who writes a book. I am more than happy to discuss the topic.
All your statement reveals is a new way to criticize. Seriously. Enough already.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Pure projection. This is a thread about you and your silly little meeting, which is what I have been talking about. Come on, you might at least tell us whether you take the ludicrous drivel of von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, or are just using their fame to pull in the suckers.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Matt Penfold, are you asking why anyone should make money promoting their ideas? Seriously?
No, I not asking that. I am asking, given your ideas are figments of your imagination but you are not writing fiction, how you can demand respect.
As far as I am aware none of those has promoted the figments of their imagination as being real, and none of them are dishonest and unethical enough to con money from the gullible.
Now you know, and we know, that you cannot actually believe what you right is true. Please show us some respect in that regard, You con people and you can live with yourself. Be honest about that at least.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 10:59 am
I might point out that the “uncivility” here is an actual example of ad hom. You do not act in a certain way ergo you have nothing of value to say.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Whether they should do so depends on whether they have any ideas worth promoting. It is abundantly clear that you do not.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:00 am
I’d suggest a price check on Shermer :-p
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:01 am
teehee
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Why aren’t you, then? I am desperate for this thread to be illuminated by your thoughts about reptile aliens, and yet you deprive me.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:02 am
He happens to be the only one of those I have not read!
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:02 am
The only recent times I see paradigm used are when someone is trying to give credence to some sort of wackadoodle by claiming it’s just another way of knowing.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:05 am
@Rev. Bigdumbchimp
No no I used it way way way back when we were talking about hard/soft scifi and fantasy pointing out that the paradigm has changed so much from the dark ages that even supernatural things are often treated in fiction as following the empirical rules of science. IE the paradigm has shifted sufficiently.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:08 am
Back in the 90s it used to be used a lot in articles in the IT trade press, with talk of leveraging the paradigm. Since the articles were always long on conjecture and short on specifics, I always assumed it was code for “don’t bother reading this”.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:10 am
OT you know what would be awesome? A RPG game that had the mechanic of “paradigm shift” where players and enemies could shift and change the game mechanics of combat.
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:12 am
Two great tastes that don’t taste great together
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:14 am
@nms
I actually prefer magic a is magic a over dues ex machina
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:16 am
If you were all my supporters and sycophants, I would have stepped in and told you to shut the fuck up a long time ago.
I would have told you to embrace people who might not think the way we do in hopes of shedding light or giving them information.
I would have told you that the worst sort of support for my ideas would be to have you act as incredibly childish, untoward and uncivil as the bulk of the people in this thread have acted, and that insult and malicious behavior do not represent my ideals.
As I am sure is quite clear, I am not opposed to debate and dialog – hell, I can even engage in a good brawl now and again, but you guys are simply not out to learn anything about what I am all about. You already have me pegged and pigeon-holed in your own view of things.
I have deliberately not stated what I “believe” simply to see how far you’d take to berating and decrying me for something you do not know. You “believe” I am what you think I am, yet you break your own rules and hold to this without evidence or fact-in-hand.
You can take me to task for holding the Paradigm Symposium, but which of you was there? Which of you has knowledge of what went on? Which of you has anything but second and third handed evidence? Which of you has gaged the Paradigm Symposium other than by what you dislike about a couple of its speaker’s previous works?
None of you.
So your “belief” about what took place there is based on your belief about one or two of the 18 speakers who were present. That reveals bias, prejudice and ignorance, as well as faulty scholarship and dishonest research. Try to present a hypothesis or theory based only partially in personal opinion while ignoring all the rest of the facts, and see how far that hypothesis perpetuates.
I am happy to discuss anything you want to discuss. But dispense with the idiocy and move into decent behavior.
Really, you are like a bunch of unruly kids who’s moms never taught them how to act.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:16 am
You know, this is something I forgot about. It was used a lot in IT, still is in some instances.
My now ex-boss is/was one of those captain catchphrase guys. He used the “shift the paradigm” phrase. A lot.
Along with a list of about 60 other ones.
We’d go into a meeting and he’d want to do all the talking. All the talking meant uninterrupted paragraphs of strings of catchphrase after catchphrase.
I swear the people in the meeting must have thought we were complete morons.
He’s gone now, thankfully.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:23 am
NMS,
My thoughts on reptile aliens is that they do not exist. It’s hogwash and nonsense. They are a modern version of ancient mythology.
I take the likes of Zechariah Sitchin and David Icke to task in my book, as purveyors of mythology. Sitchin, in particular, based many of his views on faulty linguistics of ancient Sumerian texts. While he may have some great theories, he cannot substantiate them by anything factual, and his scholarship was completely faulty and sloppy.
That’s my simplistic answer. I can get a lot more detailed, if you’d like.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:23 am
I, for one, have no interest in discussing anything with someone who misuses such basic terms as “hypothesis” and “theory”.
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Ing
Well, sure, but I much prefer fictional worlds in which magic is unpredictable and inexplicable to ones in which it is thoroughly consistent and classified. If you can study the supernatural scientifically, then it’s hardly the supernatural any more. To my mind, it kind of kills the mood.
-
scottyroberts
Make up your mind already.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Poor Thomas Kuhn. Whether you agree with his approach or not (and it must be admitted he was not terribly clear about exactly what he meant by “paradigm”) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was a serious piece of scholarship. Now just about every pseudo-scientific crank and con artist babbles about “paradigms” in an attempt to impress.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Scotty Roberts,
And I was you, I would stop writing fiction and passing it off as being real. But then it seems when it comes to ethics, I have some and you don’t.
PZ Myers:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Scotty Roberts: Stop whining about how rudely you’re treated. It’s like chumming the water around here — we love to tear into our prey at the first sign of blood, and there you go, feeding our instincts.
Here’s the deal: Next time you have a “Paradigm Symposium”, I’ll go. I’ll even do a debate. I’ll let your crew try to persuade me. Just send me an invite when it’s going to happen.
Hey, you can even use my name in your advertising, in order to brag about how open-minded you are in inviting a skeptic.
nms:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Oh, yes please. Which faultly Sumerian linguistics specifically?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:28 am
No, it doesn’t. It indicates simple commonsense: a meeting at which ludicrous drivel is represented as worth listening to has been organized either by a fool, or by a con artist. Which are you?
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:31 am
I already asked him that. He ignored the question, so feel free to decide for yourself.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:33 am
PZ,
You are a gentleman and scholar. Don’t let that go to your head, though. ;)
Paradigm Symposium 2013 will be held October 178-20 at the Hilton Double Tree Park Place in St. Louis Park.
I will send you a formal invitation via email.
As to the blood in the water, it was my pleasure to stir the instincts.
Cheers!
Scotty
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Sorry for that typo… October 1`7-20, 2013. Damned fingers.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:34 am
Jesus… October 17-20.
There.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Matt Penfold,
I didn’t ignore, I simply didn’t see the question, or forgot about it while answering others.
ANSWER: I am neither a fool nor a con artist.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:41 am
You have to be one or the other. Why the lack of respect in failing to give a proper answer ?
It seems you are quite happy to demand respect, but see no reason to offer any. I reckon that puts you in the con-artist camp. You know you peddle bullshit, but it makes you money, so you don’t care.
dingus:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:44 am
scottyroberts stop writing to these fucktards. They are all anal retentive and need a good ass fucking and you are not the one to give it to them. These people are no better then the Inquistion and there is no way to win.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Ah the intellectual power house of “dingus”
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:46 am
The website for the “Paradigm Symposium” PZ linked to is hilarious. I particularly recommend the speaker’s blurb for “Dr” John Ward, the only speaker referred to as an “archaeologist”, or indeed as any kind of scientist or scholar. His “doctorate” appears to be a piece of paper from the “Knights Templar of Britannia” – or at least, if he has a real one, there is no reference to it, nor to any peer-reviewed publications. The only “Knights Templar of Britannia” known to Prof. Google are the Hereditary Knights Templar of Britannia, a rather obvious scheme for separating fools from their money.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:50 am
So “Dr” Ward is a fraud. Actually, is it not illegal in the UK to claim to have a doctorate if you in fact do not ?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I’m tending towards the same conclusion.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
October 29th, 2012 at 11:52 am
@Matt Penfold
I don’t know but it probably is illegal in the UK to claim that someone’s doctorate is fraudulent.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Well, you definitely do not fit in with the anti-sex brigade.
Yet an other person who cannot tell the difference between people who use harsh words and wield no political power with those who used torture and death to further a political goal.
We have not even tried to convert you yet.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:54 am
As I do with my magazine, Intrepid Mag, I do with the symposium. Its stuff I like and enjoy talking about. And I didn’t make a thin dime, so your postulations would be inaccurate.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Actually there is. Provide conclusive scientific evidence to back up all your ideas. Oh, that’s right, you want all ideas to be respected without having to provide that pesky evidence required fore respect…
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Google Scholar seems to have nothing by the John Ward in question. Which is a bit odd for an academic researcher.
Maybe Scotty could give us a list of papers authored by Ward.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Not as far as I know. Given the wide range of foreign institutions that claim to award doctorates, it would be tricky to decide where to draw the line. I think if you represent yourself as medically qualified when you are not, that is illegal; but most of the medically qualified people who call themselves “Dr.” don’t actually have a doctorate!
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
OK then, given you know what you peddle is bullshit, and you don’t get paid for it, that would make you a fool.
Why not just say so in the first place ?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Would a con artist answer any differently?
If you take von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, you’re a fool. If you are merely using their fame to pull in the suckers, you’re a con artist.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Matt Penfold,
Get inb contact with John. He’d be more than happy to converse with you, I’m sure.
He and his associate, Dr, Maria Nilsson, have lived in Luxor, Egypt for the last ten years, and have been cataloging sites in the western desert that have been never before cataloged, and they recently ended their first government sanctioned dig and cataloging expedition at Gebel el Silsila.
Dr. Maria Nilsson was also invited to speak at the Paradigm Symposium, but she could not due to the “controversial” nature of the event and her peer review status.
You can find them both through The Sirius Project… http://thesiriusproject-sp.blogspot.com
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I see the council on lead paint chip snacks has weighed in.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
I was not clear enough. I should have clarified that I thought it was illegal to claim to have a doctorate awarded by a UK institution when you didn’t. Same with a first degree.
Don’t think examples are prosecuted much, as it makes more sense to go after organisations that “awarded” such degrees.
Matt Penfold:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Is that a way of saying she has not done any peer-reviewed research ?
I looked at the Sirius Project website, but it clearly is not part of any academic institution, although it claims to be an institution and invites donations. The only trustees seen to be Ward and Nilsson, but an academic institution would have external trustees. In fact, trustees should never be involved in the day to day running of an academic institution they are a trustee of.
Nor could I find any info on where Ward got is PhD, or even a list of published papers.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Matt Penfold,
Dr, Nilsson is in the midst of peer review. And I do believe they have seven trustees.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Perhaps Dingus is engaging you in like manner as they see you responding to me. That’s just a guess on my part.
When you throw out the insults, you should be ready to accept them just as wholeheartedly as they are given. You aren’;t the only “scientifically/skeptically-minded” that can use the word “fuck” creatively as an insult. Sheesh.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
scottyroberts
What does “peer review” mean?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
More gibberish. If you want your ideas respected show us via links (don’t explain as your word is considered bullshit) to the evidence to back up your ideas. So far, nada, nothing, nil, zero, zip. Almost like you are playing a con-game on us. Which does deserve any and all insults directed your way.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Scottyroberts, I pointed out the problem with what dingus said.
Oh well.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Nerd of Redhead,
Did I just get lost in the repartee, or did you actually ask me any direct questions? What IS it you want to know? Spit it out, man!
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Nick of Redhead,
If my word is just “bullshit” to you, then you are free to stop talking to me.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
scottyroberts
What do you think “peer review” means?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Nick of Redhead?
*snort*
So, spit it out scottyroberts! Why are you defending a dingus who cannot tell the difference between harsh words and actual torture and death?
Or is that just a bit too fucking complex?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Chigau,
Peer Review is practically self-defining, give or take some details and definitions of “Peers” as pertaining to equal or greater/broader status in the reviewee’s field.
It doesn’t matter what I “think” peer review is. It is what it is and we both know what it is. Well, I am only certain that I know what it is. Do you…?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
groan
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
So, scottyroberts, have we used The Pear Of Anguish on you as dingus implied?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
He sure is good at evading, ain’t he.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
The same thing form my first post. The EVIDENCE to justify your inane ideas. Otherwise, all I see is you avoiding real evidential discussion by responding to how things are said, not is is actually being said and the evidence being asked for.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Janine,
I don’t think there were problems, per sé, with Dingus’ remarks – unless you are being overtly literal. Take the analogy for the spirit in which it was being offered, and you’ll see the person’s point.
I honestly doubt you were being compared literally to the historic Inquisition. But you probably already knew that.
Sometimes the points of detailed minutia people waste the time making here are so overtly pedantic as to range into the comical.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
The thing is, your use of the term doesn’t appear to make sense; and the fact that you refuse to define it further raises the suspicion that you don’t understand what it means.
*That’s how you indicate a clarification within a quotation.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Nice hand waving, dipshit.
He only compared us to murderous thugs but did not call us murderous thugs.
Scottyroberts, you are a slimy pile of shit.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I guess it helps you keep the illusion that you are the heretic in the Church Of Scientism.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Peer Review is practically self-defining, give or take some details and definitions of “Peers” as pertaining to equal or greater/broader status in the reviewee’s field. Nice evasion by an idjit that allows/requires for the peers to be as looney as the author of a nonsensical paper. If the author is an undegreed fuckwitted idjit writing nonsense, so should the reviewers also be idjits by this definition. Not the the degreed experts they are for truly scientific papers. Proving one again the con-man aspect of this exchange.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Dang, borking blockquotes from work today. First sentence in #267 is SR. The rest is my response.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
scottyroberts
What is a peer review “status”?
How can a person have one?
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Dick Goats (formerly KG),
My use of the term wasn’t incorrect. Keep in mind, we are chatting in an internet forum, not submitting documentation for peer review.
My use of the phrase, “she is in the midst of peer review,” (if that’s the phrase you’re talking about [and, by the way, this is the correct way to type a parenthetical within a parenthetical, for the record]) was meant to be a simplistic way of saying she has certain work and documentation of theory that is currently undergoing a peer review process, which is informal but wholly necessary for her work.
But thanks again for the grammar/punctuation lesson.
Now, would you like to dissect the way I match my colors and patterns when wearing a suit and tie…? Or perhaps tear apart my usage of the word illustrator in contrast to cartoonist? Or maybe you would find fault in calling myself ambidextrous only with the use of a lawn rake versus my inability to write in cursive with both my left and right hands… by all means, have at…
Then, maybe, you can take me to task for saying I am an historian when I have only studied Tudor and 18th dynasty history rather than Meso-American or Xiao dynasty?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Dick Goats?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
*gasp*
…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Chigau,
Are you suggesting an individual scientist, archaeologist, author or other researcher cannot undergo peer review for their work?
Unless you are separating work from worker, they are one in same.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Well, Janine, for being full of shit, at least I made you chuckle… ;)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
More on “Dr” John Ward. He has a page on a site called Academia.edu, which lists 55 books and 14 papers. however, few of the papers and none of the books I looked at are by Ward (he doesn’t claim they are, so possibly he simply doesn’t understand that it’s things you wrote you are supposed to list, not things you’ve read. Of the papers that are his, none appear to be from peer-reviewed journals or even conferences. His collaborator, Maria Nilsson, does appear to have a real doctorate – she’s apparently a postdoc at the University of Lund – but none of the papers listed under her name at Academia.edu appear to be with peer-reviewed journals.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
I am not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Janine,
Well, then that’s fine too. I highly suspected that would be your response, based on everything else you’ve said.
I figure if he can call me “snottyroberts,” he wouldn’t mind my distorting his name, either. :)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Let me put you out of your misery: “peer review”, at least when used by someone in the academic world, refers to the process by which a paper submitted to a journal or conference is sent by the editor to independent reviewers, who should be experts in the field, and who may recommend acceptance, rejection, or a request for revisions. No-one in the academic world would be likely to say that the author is under peer review, and I’ve no idea what “informal” peer review would mean, unless it’s just giving the paper to colleagues for comment before submitting it. There is no way that speaking at your silly little meeting should affect the process of peer review: to take such a thing into account when reviewing a paper would be a gross breach of academic ethics.
By the way, “KG” is a shortened form of “Knockgoats”, a pseudonym I used here and elsewhere for a while.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Hey, scottyroberts, would it be alright if I compared your words and actions to various thugs and mass murderers, because, well, it should be obvious that I am not actually saying that you are a thug and mass murderer.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Janine,
You could use whatever analogy you wanted. If my demeanor was worthy of that sort of comparison, then I suppose it would bear out as to whether it was a good or poor analogy.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
So, you also have a hard time telling the difference between harsh criticism and physical violence.
I cannot trust your judgment. Thank you for confirming that.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
What you seem to be missing, Janine, is that these sorts of dialogs can be whatever we choose them to be.
If you bring on an air of friendly communication, that’s what you’d get. If you are heavy-handed and insulting from the get go, you might create a completely different air about your communications.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Janine,
You go right ahead and distort to your heart’s content.
If you do not recognize illustrative analogy from direct comparison – especially in light of the hostility your forum is famous for – then I seriously doubt your ability to be discerning on any topic. Unless, of course, you are merely book read, but completely socially inept.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Why, yes, if I were nice to the bullshit that you are spouting, it would be obvious that I am not like The Inquisition.
Slimy pile of shit.
(Whee! I am on my way, riding the crest of a wave of mutilation!)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Also, done with fuckface.
Have fun with this, PZ. I do not envy you.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Well, then I suppose “slimy pile of shit” ought to be taken to task, as well. Because it certainly cannot be literal. You are incorporating a comparative analogy, correct? You are a bundle of contradiction, Janine.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Janine,
Again, I ask, what bullshit am I spouting. What exactly are you taking me to task over?
I realize you’ve now checked out, but it would be nioce to know what you believe I am espousing that you call “bullshit” on.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Why would we be interested in friendly communication with someone who is either a fool or a con artist?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
QFT
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Dick Goats and Nerd of Redead,
There’s your out.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
I vote con-artist.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
The reason I’ve stuck to this thread for so many post is because, like you, I don’t care for bullshit, either. And you are all such a line-up of bullshitters – with a few rare exceptions that entailed actual questions – that all you can focus on is the way I type or the definition of a word or phrase.
As to questions about substance, there is one that I remember distinctly, and without looking back, I can’t remember who exactly posed it, but it was in regard to my giving an example of Zechariah Sitchin’s misuse and misinterpretation of ancient Sumerian language.
Here is a quick answer on that question, directly from the new book…
…despite his mistranslations and abused usages of ancient text, Sitchin did create an intriguing fictional account of the descent of extraterrestrial beings to the earth, housing the Sumerian mythology in updated, vernacular narrative. A prime example is when he forced the word, Nephilim, to mean “people of the firey rockets.” Sitchin, at best, simply mistranslated the word, ignoring – or misunderstanding – the Aramaic usage blended with biblical Hebrew. According to Hebrew mythology, the Nephilim were not the ones who “came down” from anywhere. They were the descendents, the offspring, of those who actually did come down, namely, the Watchers – the “Sons of God,” the bene ha ’elohim [ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים ] of Genesis chapter six.
At worst, Sitchin deliberately ignored linguistics and fabricated meanings in order to substantiate his personal theories. But it is easy to understand how he may have extrapolated word definition from the combination of language and pictographs, as many of the carvings and reliefs from ancient Sumer depict their gods as descending in winged or bowl-like craft.
2) INSERT IMAGE: AnnunakiSpacecraft.jpg
CAPTION:
1st Millennium seal showing “descending Annunaki.” Pictured is a worshipper and a fish-garbed sage before a stylized tree with a crescent moon and the descending “winged disk” set in the sky above it. Behind this group is another plant-form with a radiant star and the Star-Cluster (Pleiades cluster) above. In the background is the dragon of Marduk with Marduk’s spear and Nabu’s standard upon its back.
But the bigger issue is that Sitchin, in desiring to update the mythology and bring it into a more relevant understanding of ancient astronaut theory, simply did not do his homework. He, rather, like much of the theoretical metaphysicists of our age, stated that things were so, based solely on his (mis)interpretation of language, and his continual forcing of the square peg into the round hole. Its like grasping to the farthest possible meaning of a word, the broadest associative definition, and utilizing that obscure definition as the rock solid basis for your hypothesis. That can only end in disastrous interpretation and ultimately faulty conclusions.
When Sitchin refers to the Nephilim as the “people of the firey rockets,” he has gone far out of his way and deep into a misunderstanding of the Sumerian language in order to establish his hypothesis. His argument for “ancient rockets” and “firey space flight” is constructed completely on two ancient Sumerian words, “MU” and “ME,”6 which are the same words as the Akkadian “shamu,” and the Hebrew “shem.” Continuing in his argument to establish the ancient space craft theory, he goes on to contend that the Tower of Babel account in Genesis, in which the people wanted to make for themselves a “shem,” is actually describing the construction of a flying craft or rocket of some sort. In his book, The Twelfth Planet, Sitchin defines the Sumerian word MU as meaning “an oval shaped, conical object,” as well as “that which rises straight.”
The problem is that Mr. Sitchin merely defines the word, but offers up no linguistic etymology to define it within the framework of Sumerian language. He simply states the meaning and continues on building his hypothesis. However, one must note that the ancient Sumerians created their own dictionary,7 and it contains the word MU! The entry in the ancient Sumerian dictionary has the word MU being symonymous with the Akkadian word “shamu,” meaning “heaven, part of the sky, (sometimes) rain from the sky.” This is what the word means according to ancient scribes, who make no mention of flying craft or firey rocket ships. It is a simple descriptive noun for the sky. The Sumerian word ME is used for the same meaning, as part of the heavens.
And that’s just the linguistics. Zechariah Sitchin represents, to me, a man who had a deep-set interest in discovering who we are and where we came from. His research into ancient Mesopotamian culture to look for ancient answers is admirable, while all at once incomplete in scholarship, yet wholly complete in faulty linguistics and far-fetched assertions.
* * *
That’s only a part of the chapter, and since the book is not yet published, I cannot post much more. But that is where I find Sitchin’s work completely flawed.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Every one of the speakers at snottyroberts’ silly little meeting appears to be a fully paid-up crank – either his claims of open-mindedness are dishonest, or every non-crank invited gave the same response as PZ.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
A barefaced lie. Every one of the speakers at your silly little meeting is a bullshitter, as you are yourself.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Dick Goats, I disagree.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
The reason I’ve stuck to this thread for so many post is because, like you, I don’t care for bullshit, either. Then why are you bullshitting, and not presenting real evidence, with every post? That is what con-men, liars, and bullshitters do. Avoid real scientific evidence at all costs. If you and those you give a forum to can’t provide the scientific evidence, and can’t shut the fuck up, they an you are by definitiion liars, bullshitters, and con-men. If the Foo shits, wear it.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
scottyroberts,
Are you familiar with Harry Frankfurt’s essay, “On Bullshit”? It is Frankfurt’s contention that we have become a nation of bullshitters, and that bullshit is in some ways worse than lying, because it is harder to correct.
By providing a venue where fantasy can masquerade as scientific research, you have provided a forum for bullshit, and now those of us who are scientists will be saddled with the messy clean up.
Some of the vitriol directed your way is the buildup of years of living in a culture where bullshit is prized over truth–where climate change or the moon landing can be denied at will, while the lack of evidence for aliens is ascribed to consiracy. Not all of this is your fault. However, you are not making things better.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
DAng, another borked blockquote. First sentence #295 is SR.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
As you have said yourself in one of the few honest statements you’ve made:
So apart from the publicity for your silly little meeting – which reveals that the speakers were an egregious collection of cranks – there’s been nothing else to go on until your recent comment on Sitchin.
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Most browsers have a ‘find on this page function’.
Usually control-f or Ctrl-f.
This allows you to ‘find’ an actual comment rather than “remember[ing] distinctly”.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
i accept that. Well stated. My intention was to put on a symposium that presented ideas, and had some presenters who dissented from those ideas.
Next year we are trying to hone in on some more speakers who will offer up more scientific views mixed in with a few who offer up the more outlandish ideas – or are at least viewed that way.
I appreciate your words.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
OK, so pick any one of the speakers at your silly little meeting, and demonstrate that they have produced worthwhile and original research in the area of “paleo-contact”.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Would you all be willing to offer up your credentials?
Not that I doubt you are scientists, but for my own information, it’d be nice to know that what appears like bullshitting to me, is just what was stated by a_ray_in_dilbert_space above – years of scientists having to deal with bullshitters.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
So, you accept that:
Now, how do you excuse doing so?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Gee, where is the hard core skeptics who show the bullshit your cranks present? Otherwise you lie by not offering true solid scientific skepticism. But if real hard-core skeptics are present, your cranks will vanish. But, you really don’t want that, as you want to give them a forum, so you only want a poor skeptic to make the cranks look good. Typical con-man approach.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
snottyroberts,
I use my real name here, and it’s not a common one; I usually appear as N.M. Gotts or Nicholas Gotts on my publications; finding some won’t be hard.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Dick Goats,
I think they all had “worthwhile and original research.” Does it mean that they all have a corner on the “truth?” No. It means I found their research intruiging and invited them to speak.
The guys from H2′s Ancient Aliens were fun to have a the symposium, and offered up their various research, albeit far outside the mainstream. These were von Daniken, Tsoukalos, Noory, Moulton Howe (who I think is even far fringe of the far fringe).
One of the funniest moments for me was, while during the panel discussion, hearing someone like von Daniken – who is considered by mainstream science as a bullshitter – whisper to Dr. John Ward at the panel discussion, “She’s full of fucking bullshit!” (speaking of Moulton Howe). Its funny to me, simply because as I heard that, I was thinking, “Well, Erich, many people think the same of your work, too.”
Laird Scranton spoke of his research on the Dogon and his book that points out some of the vindication of Velikovsky’s theories. He was considered the “Scientist who shall not be named,” but even Einstein was in the midst of validating some of his theories when he died. It was interesting stuff. Reading Scranton’s book, The Velikovsky Heresies, would certainly clear up any notion that Velikovsky was a complete crackpot.
Dr. John Ward spoke on ancient Egyptian symbolism. He, personally, finds the entire ancient alien theory pretty whacky. He made quite the joke out of sarcastically saying, “Oh. Levitation. Of course that’s how they did it.” He was actually the hit of the event, what with his dissenting views from many of the others.
There were several other authors, including Marie D. Jones, Larry Flaxman, Anthony F. Sanchez, Nick Redfern, Paul Von Ward, Micah Hanks and others, all with varying views of the alien theory and conspiracies, Hanks also being a “futurist.”
If you want to see what these people are about, I have some easy bios of each one of them over at http://www.paradigmsymposium.com Just click on their photos to see the bios.
Overall, we presented a very friendly atmosphere, and invited people to think, rather than absorb. In my own lecture, I encouraged people to not take anything they hear at the symposium at face value, but to do the research, ask the questions and seek the answers for themselves. Never did I excoriate science, but I did take what I call “Big ‘S’” skeptics to task.
To say that any of these people had insincere research would be a misnomer. To say they were all accurate would be a hideous inaccuracy. To say they offered up food for thought and fodder for research would be spot on.
And THAT is precisely why I wanted to have someone like PZ present. While I don’t agree with him on every point, I love his candor and what will be, I am sure, forthright presenting of fact.
But also, I like what Carl Sagan said in the introduction to his book, “The Demon Haunted World.” He said that his parents did a wonderful thing for him in both instilling the necessity of the scientific method, while at the same time expressing the need for a sense of wonder.
That’s what I wanted as a goal at this symposium.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Nerd of Redhead,
By your words, I consider you less of a skeptic and more of a hardboiled cynic. There’s a huge difference.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Must go round up the family for dinner.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Thanks, Nick, I appreciate that.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Serious questions…. have you found that taking a scientific approach has led to a deeper skepticism? It seems that there exists this tacit atheism with scientific thinking… is this a truism across the board? Does Science genuinely eschew “religion” and “faith?”
Do you view “God” as non-existent or as an unprovable quantity? Do you think there is any room for ancient alien theory – or at the least paleo-contact theory.
Do these things fly completely in the face of what you know scientifically, or is there room to speculate and research – and is there a good scientific means to go about this kind of thing?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
snottyroberts,
I asked you to demonstrate that any of them had done original and worthwhile research, not assert it.
It’s a simple matter of fact – he is a bullshitter, who has never produced anything of any value whatsoever, but has made a great deal of money from his racist pseudoscience.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Repost with correct blockquoting:
snottyroberts,
I asked you to demonstrate that any of them had done original and worthwhile research, not assert it.
It’s a simple matter of fact – he is a bullshitter, who has never produced anything of any value whatsoever, but has made a great deal of money from his racist pseudoscience.
Of course he was a complete crackpot, and the claim about Einstein is preposterous nonsense. here is the Einstein-Velikovsky correspondence – from a crackpot source. Einstein is evidently trying to be kind, but gives no hint whatever of taking Velikovsky’s fantasies about astronomical matters seriously. Einstein, of course, was not an expert in near eastern history, but those who are equally dismiss his fantasies about that.
“Dr” John Ward is a fraud: he does not have a doctorate and has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or conference. His page at the symposium is full of absurd drivel about the Knights Templar, dowsing, “alternative” medicine based on ancient Egyptian ideas, and other crackpottery.
I have; as I’ve already said, from their bios it is clear that every one of them is a crank with absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
The trouble is, to do that productively, they would actually have to have the relevant expert knowledge, and an understanding of what research actually involves.
You quite evidently haven’t the faintest idea what science is; the whole silly little meeting was an insult to science.
No, it would be complete bullshit.
Sagan would have regarded you and your silly little meeting with contempt.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
That’s another barefaced lie. Velikovsky was in no sense of the word a scientist, nor was he ever regarded as such by those who saw through his bullshit.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
As does any scientist, skeptic, and rational person. Only a liar gives other liar and bullshitters a forum, and simply says “exchange of ideas” or similar nonsense. It’s the evidence that is most important, and the evidence says your guests/speakers are cranks not be believed. There is no evidence backing them up.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Well, the Forum has spoken.
Thanks to Nick for answering my question about his credentials.
If any of you would like to address my last set of questions, I’d be happy to see what you have to say.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Yep, there is no deity, no holy book, no tithes, no nothing. Deities are ignored since there is no evidence for any. Faith is required to believe when there isn’t evidence. Science is all about evidence. So no faith is required, just conclusions based on evidence. But then if you knew anything about science, nobody would need to tell you the obvious, which you could find in the Wiki articles.
God is evidenceless, hence the null hypothesis is non-existence. Subject to change with solid and conclusive evidence for one, like an eternally burning bush. Nothing less will do. The ancient alien theory lacks evidence like a deity. Ergo, it is bullshit until say a crashed spaceship is found. Otherwise, just woo, woo, woo.
There is no science there. Any discoveries will be accidental. There is nothing in old myths to substantiate anything or not have a more parsimonious explanation. Being an extraordinary claim, the wrecked spaceship type evidence is required. Solid, physical, and no other explanation. Until then, woo, woo, woo.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
October 29th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
scottyroberts,
I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’m not sure you have either.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Scottyroberts,
I am a PhD physicist working in a very applied field–radiation effects in semiconductors. My PhD was in experimental particle physics.
As to my attitudes about religion and gods:
I don’t believe that we even know what we mean when we say “god”, other than some guarantor that the Universe gives a flying fuck about our existence. As it manifestly does not care, is utterly indifferent to us, in fact, I see no reason to posit unnecessary entities just to assuage my existential insecurities. Now, that could make me either an agnostic or an atheist.
However, I also believe that as Voltaire said, “If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit attrocities.” It is absurd to believe in that for which there is no evidence, that which is not necessary to explain our experience. And absurd beliefs multiply. Believe in God? Well why not believe the soul–some transcendent entity that “makes us human”? And from there, why not posit a soul that enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and leads to ultimate attrocities–like the idea of “legitimate rape” or rape and pregnancy as God’s will. The attrocity follows the absurdity as surely as day follows night.
For this reason, I believe it is important that our beliefs be, as much as possible, evidence based, and at the very least, falsifiable. It is the only way I see that our belief structure can grow.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Scotty Roberts: “have you found that taking a scientific approach has led to a deeper skepticism? It seems that there exists this tacit atheism with scientific thinking… is this a truism across the board?”
Nick Gotts: “I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’m not sure you have either.”
Perhaps a simpler way to pose this question would be to ask if you belief science and atheism go hand-in-hand. Since there is no proof of a god, does that eliminate one from the equation? Further, does scientific thinking demand an atheistic approach.
But this has really been answered in some of the other questions.
Thanks, Nick.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Scotty,
Belief in science and atheism in my case arise from the same tendency–the desire to understand the Universe around me. Science facilitates the process. Belief in deities impedes that understanding.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
That is probably the most cogent, eloquent answer I have ever seen on that particular question. Thank you for taking the time to write that out.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Yes. Until you show conclusive evidence that your imaginary deity really exists. The null hypothesis is and will remain non-existence. Can’t you read and understand plain American English?
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Scotty Roberts,
I think it is important to distinguish between the scientific method and the beliefs of scientists. Yes, some scientists are Christian…and Hindu, and Muslim and Zorastrian…
Deities can play no role in the scientific method, though. If a deity can place a thumb on the balance, then empiricism would always be suspect, and the theories based on it misleading. If a scientist starts to imagine a deity actively involved in the Universe, he can dismiss any undesired result as “a miracle” and get whatever answer he wants (e.g. that “God wouldn’t allow us to kill ourselves via climate change). God is a cosmic divide-by-zero error.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Nerd of Redhead,
With all due respect, what the fuck is your issue, dude? In plain English, when did I say anything about a personal adherence to an imaginary deity?
You have social issues, dude.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
In my book releasing in Fenruary, I encourage readers to “step outside the box” of religion and faith to see the comparatives in religious mythologies.
While my book is not about “science,” it is an examination of myth and religion building. And while I tell people that it is not my job to dissuade them from their personal faiths, they would have to separate themselves from a particular faith in order to gain a clearer understanding of what I was writing about.
In a way, that is similar to what you say must be a prerequisite to scientific research – you can’t let faith dictate the outcome. The outcome of the research is what it is.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
As I say, quite tongue-in-cheek when i lecture… quoting that great sage, Indiana Jones: “Archaeology is not the search for ‘truth,’ it is the search for fact.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
You do to. What the fuck is this all about anyway, other than your stupidity? All this talk about science can be found in the Wiki article, or you shutting the fuck up and actually listening.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 29th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Yet you are letting your faith in ancient myths being anything other than pure myth dictate your inability to understand science.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
A brief message to me today from Bob Blaskiewicz of the Skeptical Inquirer, regarding the Paradigm Symposium…
“I had a BLAST. I can’t believe this is my job, honestly.
“Yes, there was some hooey, but there was also community and sincerity, and it got me thinking about the types of public relations work that academics should be doing.
“There seemed to be a lot of common themes among the speakers — distrust of the establishment, etc., that scholars should be taking seriously. I was thinking that there really needed to be someone to stand up and set forward a path for how alternative researchers can enter the mainstream.
“I thought of writing up something about that for my blog, but I’m not sure it would reach the intended audience there.”
Bob Blaskiewicz is also a regular blog contributor at http://skepticalhumanities.com
chigau (棒や石):
October 29th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I took several Comparative Religions courses as an undergrad.
They were moderately interesting and not at all difficult.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Chigau,
I found the similarity in religious mythologies very intriguing. One culture borrows from the other and builds off the previous.
scottyroberts:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
Nerd of Redhead,
Ah, Wikipedia. That bastion of higher learning and factual information.
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith:
October 29th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Aaaaah, buzzwords.
When I was still in chemistry, “nanotech” was one.
I went to a conference once where you had a hard time finding a talk or poster that didn’t have that damn word on it.
It didn’t mean a damn thing then, and I suspect it’s still meaningless in the materials / chemistry world now. The things people call nanotech were simply things they called other, more significant names before.
Just to try to extract funding with the latest fashionable word everybody uses and think is cool and sciencey-sounding without actually knowing what it means.
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith:
October 29th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Neither. Pondering on the existence “God” is just as pointless as pondering on the existence of invisible unicorns, leprechauns or this new invisible, undectectable creature I just made up who lives in the truck of my car that if it could speak would have a voice like that of SpongeBob SquarePants. I call it HBlhergh.
There are many different definitions for god.
Those who make it a bit too corporeal and capable of influencing the physical universe, i.e., detectable, have already been proven wrong. Repeatedly and resoundingly. To no avail.
The others – deists, who rob their gods of all meaningful way to interact with the universe, have defined a meaningless and pointless creature. The universe is the same whether it is in it or not, and therefore it is the height of useless endeavor to speculate about it.
There is no difference between god or any other delusion that might pop into someone’s head on a fine evening LSD trip.
Without proper evidence ?
No.
Why should there be ? Should the existence of HBlhergh be carefully studied by serious people with more significant and relevant problems to work on ?
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 12:59 am
scottyroberts
I took those courses in the 19070s.
I expect your book will have nothing new.
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 2:30 am
chigau,
Perhaps.
Ichthyic:
October 30th, 2012 at 3:14 am
I think snotty has set up his symposium right here, in River City…
Ichthyic:
October 30th, 2012 at 3:16 am
no need, the work has already been done, sucker.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:04 am
Compared to anything you write, yes.
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:26 am
Nerd of Redhead,
Good morning, my friend!
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Y’know, Ichthyic… that’s not a bad idea…
PZ Myers:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:03 am
How’s the new chew toy working out for everyone? Not too tiresome, I hope?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:10 am
Very tiresome.
If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? That’s your problem in dealing with us. Honesty is required. You being honest with yourself comes first.
PZ Myers:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:42 am
Well, I’m not buying you a new chew toy until you’ve completely masticated and mangled this one. They’re expensive and hard to come by!
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:50 am
PZ Myers: “Well, I’m not buying you a new chew toy until you’ve completely masticated and mangled this one. They’re expensive and hard to come by!”
Hahahaha! I’ll take that as a compliment, PZ. Thanks for letting me be here.
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Nerd of RedDead,
Are you suggesting that I am lying when I say “Good morning, my friend?” Hahahaha.
chigau (棒や石):
October 30th, 2012 at 9:02 am
Careful PZ.
You’ll be ‘debating’ him in person next year.
Get your shots.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:13 am
SR, why ar you still posting lying drivel?
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:51 am
Nerd of RedDead,
Why are you still tooting that tinny horn?
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 9:54 am
I think you will all be pleasantly surprised. PZ and I will debate and get along just fine.
I don’t bite, so his “shots” will only need to be for contagions carried on the air and atmosphere of the Paradigm Symposium – which is ultimately respectful and overtly friendly and sincere.
You may not agree with everything presented, but we are decent folk.
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:44 am
So, Nerd of Redhead,
What do you do? What part of the sciences are you engaged in? What are your credentials, if I may ask – politely and with due respect?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
October 30th, 2012 at 10:51 am
A few tiresome things going on.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 30th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Yawn, still talking to itself like it has something to say.
1) What did you hope to accomplish?
2) Are you getting anywhere toward that goal?
3) If not, why are you still here?
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Nerd of DeadHead asks:
Yawn, still talking to itself like it has something to say.
1) What did you hope to accomplish?
Getting YOU to answer any of MY questions, or at the very least clarify what it is you THINK you know about me. Which you have so far avoided.
2) Are you getting anywhere toward that goal?
So far, nothing but language and demeanor that would have him labeled as a “bully” if I were gay. Which I’m not… not that there’s anything wrong with that…
3) If not, why are you still here?
For the healing waters.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 30th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
An appropriate answer.
scottyroberts:
October 30th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
To an appropriate fellow.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 31st, 2012 at 9:20 am
Of course lurkers, if SR was interested in a real discussion, it would be saying “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the evidence to back it up.” But then, since it doesn’t believe in anything, it should have nothing say. But it says it anyway…
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 10:04 am
Nerd of Deadhead,
By the title of the thread, I didn’t realize I was here to defend anything and present links.
I originally responded, here, to talk about the Paradigm Symposium. Most of what ensued from that point resembled nothing remotely close to constructive dialog from the members of this community. In fact, most of it was deconstructive in nature.
But I ain’t whinin’ or complainin’, I’m just sayin’.
As for your inane diatribes of vapid vitriol, you still have never stated what it is you take issue with me over – other than to misstate by assumption what it is you think I believe and or advocate.
You, sir, are a prime example of what you decry in others. You spout off as if you know something before you hold any shard of evidence in your hands. You speak to me from a vacuous limbo, charged only with what you *think* you know. You’re the little boy running alongside the parade, flag in hand, unaware of its significance or history, as its just a toy that everyone else is waving in the air so why shouldn’t you, too, before you drop it to the ground in exchange for the next piece of sugar-coated something.
You scree at me about the inaccuracies and ignorance of my beliefs, then in the next breath ask me what it is I believe. If you didn’t know in the first place, how can you decry me for them in advance? That’s just pure and simple dumbass.
Your inability to ever, once delineate what it is over which you take issue with me – oh, except for the times you grasped at something out of the ether, thinking that was what I stood for, but you were mistaken – reveals in you a band wagon mentality that has deep trouble thinking on its own. Now, THAT’S pretty damned ign’rnt.
Of course, you will now say something akin to, “It speaks again…” then add your blithering idiot, explative-ridden nonsense. But in reality that simply reveals your inability to discourse. You’re a cop-out, a remedial, a flunky in the class of intelligent discussion.
But I digress.
What the hell do you want to know, Nerd? Is it that hard for you to articulate? And, no, I am not going to post lengthy statements of belief and links to back up what I believe. What an exercise in ridiculousness. If you don’t already know, why don’t YOU go do the research? It ain’t that hard to find out what I believe and where I stand on issues.
But that’s oh so much more difficult than simply attempting to deconstruct me out of ignorance, isn’t it…?
You and the young earth creationists have a lot in common, Nerd… espousing idiotic claims without any real knowledge.
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 10:16 am
But, for the record, I believe there might be a God, but I’m not so sure anymore.
I believe the universe is an intricate place, and we are only just beginning to understand the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
I believe the idea of paleo-contact is intriguing and not outside the realm of possibility, but nowhere near the point of evidentiary provability. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. There are plenty of scientists out there to cover all the bases. Reducing it to a level of nonsensical waste of time is, I believe, nonsensical and arrogant.
I believe there need to be bridges built between academia and alternative researchers.
I believe in single malt highland scotch, not as a tool of inebriation, but as a repast to be shared with fellow hob-nobbers and fireside bantering pedagogues.
I believe that when you cross a dyslexic theologian with a philosophical insomniac, you end up with a guy who stays awake all night pondering whether there is or is not a Dog.
I believe that’s a start.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 31st, 2012 at 10:28 am
So you admit that there is no evidence for palaeo-contact? Good news. For a while, as a teen, I started reading about palaeo-contact and, after about six months, I realized that every single theory amounted to, basically, the same thing: I cannot imagine how these primitive (and usually brown) people could possibly have created x therefore it must be aliens. Which, at the age of about 16, came across as incredibly racist.
So, with, as you admit, no evidence to back up any of these theories, and lots of evidence to show that the Nazca lines were created by indigenous peoples, that the pyramids of Giza were built by the Egyptians, etc, why keep alive the idea that those black/brown/yellow people were obviously too dumb/ignorant/stupid/non-white to have done anything amazing?
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:20 am
Ogvorbis,
Most of the theorists I know in the ancient alien field are quick to admit that they do ascribe to the brand of thinking that professes mankind did not have the ingenuity to build those structures on their own WITHOUT outside “alien” assistance.
There are some of them who WILL go so far as to say that examination of structures and tools needed to perform such tasks *may* imply greater technology than we attribute to them. But it doesn’t fall only to the brown, yellow and non-white races. They also include in that mix the Norse, Celts and Indo-Europeans and their megalithic structures.
What I see most of them focusing on is the interpretation of images, carvings, reliefs and the like that fall outside a certain cultures normal depictions of similar things. Sure, they extralate a helluva lot of speculative data to establish their claims, but I think they may be on to something worth further exploration.
Even the rock star ancient alienist, Giorgio Tsoukalos (and his hair) have said directly to me that his view of ancient alien contact lies more on the level of viewing them as explorers in, what he calls, “nuts and bolts space craft,” as opposed to some beneficent supreme alien intelligence sent here to educate humanity.
I can adhere to the possibility of “paleo-contact,” under those terms, what with what we know of the exponential numbers of billions of galaxies, etc. The big question for me is that if the universe evolves at an equal rate, would anyone anywhere else out there have sufficient technology to make such explorative endeavors?
It is all so speculative as to be difficult to believe. But the notion that we are alone in the inverse is something i don’t adhere to, but i have to put limitations on where I think it crosses-over into science fiction. Yet, I am open to hearing more about the research and open to seeing it accepted as a viable field of study.
After all, most of we know scientifically, today, began as an idea – many times flying in the face of the “scientific” nomenclature of the day, and many more times facing the consequence of being burned at the stake by religious hierarchies.
I put all of this stuff into the realm of “things that interest and intrigue me.” And I would like to see bridges built with acamedicians to test the newer theories and/or notions and “evidences” uncovered. of course, to do this properly, it would have to be entered into without bias and pre-established notions. Do the things used as the basis for ancient alien theory/notion demand closer archaeological considerations, or are they immediately lumped into old school trains of thought and established ways of viewing things, never given the time to explore other theories?
So, I think there is some efficacy in researching, as long as it is kept out of the realm of woo woo.
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:42 am
Ogvorbis,
SORRY… the opening line of my response to you, should have read:
“Most of the theorists I know in the ancient alien field are quick to admit that they do NOTascribe to the brand of thinking that professes mankind did not have the ingenuity to build those structures on their own WITHOUT outside “alien” assistance.”
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:50 am
Sorry for my typos, today.
extralate = extrapolate
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 31st, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Then why were you here, if not to defend your ideas and present data to convince real scientists you have something? Who gave a shit about your idiotic conference other than to laugh at it?
The dialog was constructive based on the fact you had to present evidence and defend your ideas. You didn’t do either, and without making claims to be discussed, there was nothing to discuss. This is you hiding from the real scientists. So we mocked your improper response and bullshit ideas that you had nothing to present or defend.
Gee, what a load of I am right until I am proven wrong. But that is ass-backwards as to how science is done, where you are wrong until you provide the right evidence you are right. Which we were waiting for. And got nothing but mouth from you for demanding evidence.
Gee, I think as a 40 year practicing scientist and a 30 year practicing skeptic I understand a lying bullshitter when such bullshit and attitude is presented.
Why should it even be considered without a shred of evidence available? As a skeptic I’ve seen the “evidence” *snicker* for the concept. Nothing but speculation and mental wanking. That is unscientific thinking. That is irrational, wishful, and presuppositional thinking. Evidence comes first.
A start for what? Personally, what I see a pseudoscientific wanker trying to pretend it has a serious scientific idea even though it admits it has no evidence. But science isn’t about just ideas, unless those ideas can shown to be right or have better power to explain solid evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis, which is no alien astronauts, wins. Pseudoscientific folks think the wacky ideas are more important than the evidence. You appear to be in that camp. as shown by:
Oh, the brave heretic. Except you are wrong. The ideas the best explained the evidence won, and they were properly evidenced to be accepted. Without evidence, you lose. You admit you have no evidence. All you have is presuppositional cranks, liars, and bullshitters. And you are one of them, if you support them. Welcome to science.
Sastra:
October 31st, 2012 at 12:53 pm
scottyroberts #362 wrote:
My understanding is that experts in the relevant fields dismiss the claims of the ancient alien hypothesis because it’s unnecessary: the more you know of the topic, the less “extraordinary” the discovery or issue, and the less one needs to invoke a highly extraordinary assumption. What you are calling bias and preconception, then, is what others would call understanding the all the relevant details.
I’ll admit (and apologize) that I haven’t read most of the comments here. I thought the thread had died several days ago. So what exactly do you think requires that we need to assume ancient aliens? Aside, of course, from a natural desire to be an interesting and intriguing person who’s not afraid to think outside the box?
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Shasta said:
“So what exactly do you think requires that we need to assume ancient aliens? Aside, of course, from a natural desire to be an interesting and intriguing person who’s not afraid to think outside the box?”
I don’t think anyone needs to assume ancient aliens for anything. But if the serious question arises – not simply the fanciful scifi fan – is it worth research?
scottyroberts:
October 31st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Nerd of DeadHead,
Let’s meet for a beer and talk about it. Beer’s on me.
Sastra:
October 31st, 2012 at 1:47 pm
scottyroberts #367 wrot:
I think you’re simply rephrasing my question.
When, then, is the serious question arising? When is “ancient aliens” the most parsimonious and explanatory assumption?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
October 31st, 2012 at 1:55 pm
When someone without any experience in the field does not understand how ‘primitive’ peoples could have done something. ‘Ancient aliens’ is to archaeology what ‘irreducible complexity’ is to evolution. An argument from ignorance.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 31st, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Fuckwitted idjit, where is the crashed spaceship. Without that level of evidence, your idea is nothing but bullshit…and you know that. So, why are you going on about something without evidence requiring it to be seriously considered? Only presupposition and fuckwittery on your part…
Why would I want to waste my time talking to a fuckwitted idjit? Not happening, and you would know that if you had even a quarter of a functioning mind.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
October 31st, 2012 at 10:45 pm
I recognize this as a classical missionary tactic of trying to befriend the person most critical of them. Pathetic attempt by an abject loser to not admit they are defeated by the intellectual argument. Shutting the fuck up is your best option. But then, liars and bullshitters, who have no honesty and integrity, keep showing their losership by such inane activities.
chigau (棒や石):
October 31st, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Nerd
You may be missing an opportunity.
“Beer’s on me.” can have more than one meaning.
Amphiox:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Well, it is more parsimonious than “god”.
But that’s about it.
Amphiox:
October 31st, 2012 at 11:27 pm
To be serious the question would be accompanied by a piece of confirmed spaceship wreckage with radioisotypic signature demonstrating origin of manufacture outside of the solar system and/or a body/fossil with biochemical composition demonstrating nonterrestrial abiogenetic origin, such as the genetic material not being DNA or RNA, proteins made of amino acids other than the 20 used by life on earth, or a substantially different genetic code for those amino acids.
Absent such evidence, the question isn’t serious.
chigau (棒や石):
November 1st, 2012 at 12:41 am
Why does “paleo-contact” hafta be about space-aliens as opposed to leprechauns?
vaiyt:
November 1st, 2012 at 3:17 am
I’m going to page Nerd here for a bit.
You’re the one making claims, you provide the evidence. Until then, we are under no obligation to take your arguments seriously.
A lot of evidenceless things are “possible”, but honest people call them sci-fi, not science.
Sorry, no evidence, no dice. That’s how big man science works, and if you children want to play, you have to follow the rule.
The bridge is there. It’s called “actually bringing some evidence to the table instead of arguments from ignorance, bullshit and pointless speculation”. That’s all “alternate” researches need to do in order to be taken seriously.
Let me spell it to you.
“I’m not racist! I think aliens built Stonehenge too! But you see, Europeans actually outgrew needing aliens way back in the Stone Age, while the stupid Meso-Americans kept depending on them well into the 14th century!”
He doesn’t have evidence for either of these conjectures, so they’re equally irrelevant.
If you want to make science instead of sci-fi, FIRST you collect some evidence that aliens were here, THEN you start speculating on their origins (and THEN you try to find evidence of that). Otherwise, you’re doing it bass-ackwards.
Careful, do not open your mind so much that your brains fall off.
Take your Galileo gambit and shove it, jackass. You don’t get to compare those cranks to people who actually did the hard work to explain things that actually happen.
Those “ideas” won out because they explained the evidence better. Evidence is precisely what the woo-meisters you welcome lack.
We’re waiting on that “evidence”…
Ah, the “no bias” canard. Which in woo lingo means “accepting what we assert at face value”. Don’t question too hard, or else you’re a closed-minded dogmatist.
Things that don’t breach the basic requirement of falsifying the null hypothesis don’t need to be considered by serious scientists. They have better things to do with their time.
Why are you accepting woo woo on the pretense of being “open-minded”, then?
scottyroberts:
November 1st, 2012 at 8:16 am
Nerd of DeadHead said:
“I recognize this as a classical missionary tactic of trying to befriend the person most critical of them. Pathetic attempt by an abject loser to not admit they are defeated by the intellectual argument. Shutting the fuck up is your best option. But then, liars and bullshitters, who have no honesty and integrity, keep showing their losership by such inane activities.”
Nerd,
Wow. I don’t know how you do it, Nerd, but you keep stabbing me right to the heart.
*smirk*
You sure hold yourself and your criticisms in pretty high esteem. You are by far, NOT the most critical person I have ever encountered. I’ve dealt with your types long ago when I was working with middle and high school kids.
So, don’t hurt yourself over there while stroking yourself so hard.
You might want to consider that I my have invited you to a beer because when face-to-face, most people like you who are unnecessarily foul and abrasive behind the virtual anonymity of typing in an internet forum, drop the bravado and start acting as if their mama taught them something about life.
There is also the the element of guys like you knowing that if you ever talked like that to someone’s face, you would end up having the other person look you in the eye and say, “What the fuck did you just call me, asshole?” And the outcome would probably be far less pleasant than stroking yourself behind your computer screen for your smarmy, middle school vocabulary and demeanor.
I’m not saying I’d punch you in the face or anything – even though in some settings, your actions would have ended you up in that sort of dilemma long ago, rightfully so. But the anonymity of the internet forum allows you to talk and act in such ways that would be frowned upon in a face-to-face setting. And I would guess that stripped of the virtual anonymity of the internet, you’re a pussy cat, and genuine conversation could actually ensue.
I guess 40 years as a “scientist” means you’re at least 55-65 years old. I would think someone with as much life and respectable career under their belt would have learned long ago how to talk to someone with whom you simply disagree. You must’ve been bullied by kids or something, and you now have found the outlet for expressing your long internalized anxieties and angst.
Did your mama not teach you how to act, Nerd? Did you not get enough teat as an infant?
Suffice it to say, Nerd, that my offer had nothing to do with the missionary position that your brain immediately rushed to. It had to do with finding a modicum standard for civility. Distort that all you like, but in doing so you merely continue to reaffirm my point.
And something I have wondered… it seems that you and most of you consider yourselves Progressives and Liberals. I thought progressive liberals were tolerant and peaceful. seeking conversations across the aisle and all of us “just getting along.” Your actions, Nerd – and those of some of the others here in this forum – has thrown that modality right out the window.
So, pardon the over-long post. I could have said it as simply as: “Shut the fuck up, Nerd.” But I didn’t.
scottyroberts:
November 1st, 2012 at 9:20 am
Hey Vaiyt,
Let me respond as best I can…
I’m going to page Nerd here for a bit. You’re the one making claims, you provide the evidence. Until then, we are under no obligation to take your arguments seriously.
I really don’t think I’ve made any claims, Vaiyt. I have said that I am intrigued by ideas. Nerd continues to ask me to back up my claims. I continue to ask him, “What claims have I made?” And it goes round and round and round.
The only real claim I have made is that I do not adhere to the ancient alien theory – or notion. Does it intrigue me and interest me? Sure. But it would require much more evidence.
A lot of evidenceless things are “possible”, but honest people call them sci-fi, not science.
I would agree. I’ve never referred to the study of ancient aliens a “science.”
Sorry, no evidence, no dice. That’s how big man science works, and if you children want to play, you have to follow the rule.
I think you establish here just how “religious” science has become. Its a controversy over who has all the right answers and the right way to find them – and it is as emotionally ridden as talking politics or religion. If you don’t think so, just scroll back and tell me how much vitriol is needed to express something that does not hold the same sort of emotion as arguing a religious cause.
I agree with you 100% on the “no evidence” rule, but “big man science” needs to also start admitting that it’s made of itself a surrogate for religion, complete with its own theology, doctrine and dogma, that if you fall outside, you are excommunicate.
The bridge is there. It’s called “actually bringing some evidence to the table instead of arguments from ignorance, bullshit and pointless speculation”. That’s all “alternate” researches need to do in order to be taken seriously.
The bridge is there, but you guys seem to stand as the troll beneath it. What have you determined – of the evidence ancient alienists say exist – is not evidentiary?
I am not an ancient alien theorist, so I do not present any sort of evidence on their part. But my understanding is that they seem to think they have plenty of evidence to substantiate at least some serious research ought to be done. It seems to me that ‘science” (for lack of a better general term) is the one stonewalling.
Name for me all the claims made by ancient alien researchers, then show me links and evidence that counters all their claims. I think you would find that an impossible task, because from what I understand, there is so much new information that “scientists” won’t even consider, because it falls outside what the already believe they have established beyond a shadow of a doubt. End of story.
Is that real science, or is that academia simply calling itself “so much better?’
I think this is where the bridge has not been constructed.
Let me spell it to you.
“I’m not racist! I think aliens built Stonehenge too! But you see, Europeans actually outgrew needing aliens way back in the Stone Age, while the stupid Meso-Americans kept depending on them well into the 14th century!”
Who are you quoting here…? Certainly not me or anyone I know.
If THAT pseudo-quotation is an example of what science think ancient alienists believe, I think they have proven their inability to properly deduce or stand on solid evidence. If that is what you think ancient alien theory advocates, then you do not know much about the topic you decry.
He doesn’t have evidence for either of these conjectures, so they’re equally irrelevant.
He would claim differently, and also assert that science simply has no interest based on decades-old notions and information.
I would ask you, do YOU know what the current claims are, and if you don’t, why would already deny they are worth your attention? I think it’s because to do so would be inviolate of the religion of science. And don’t take me to task for that, I am just reaffirming my believe that the scientific community is as religious as a church, and everyone outside the double doors is simply wrong and going to science-hell.
If you want to make science instead of sci-fi, FIRST you collect some evidence that aliens were here, THEN you start speculating on their origins (and THEN you try to find evidence of that). Otherwise, you’re doing it bass-ackwards.
Wholehearted agreement with you, there.
Careful, do not open your mind so much that your brains fall off.
Good advice.
Take your Galileo gambit and shove it, jackass. You don’t get to compare those cranks to people who actually did the hard work to explain things that actually happen.
Those “ideas” won out because they explained the evidence better. Evidence is precisely what the woo-meisters you welcome lack.
But how long did it take for that evidence to be “explained better?” It wasn’t overnight.
We’re waiting on that “evidence”…
Me too.
Ah, the “no bias” canard. Which in woo lingo means “accepting what we assert at face value”. Don’t question too hard, or else you’re a closed-minded dogmatist.
See, this is where I think you err greatly. It is no “canard.” I don’t think anyone is asking to be accepted at “face value.”
I think both sides need to have a “no bias” standard. If you enter into the research with an already established idea, you filter all arguments through that bias. It works both ways.
Tell me you don;’t already have a bias established on this issue. I think you are so close to your bias, you cannot see it. So much so that you already have your established responses, “Ah, the ‘no bias’ canard.”
Things that don’t breach the basic requirement of falsifying the null hypothesis don’t need to be considered by serious scientists. They have better things to do with their time.
I think the scientific community needs to stop setting itself up as the standard. Let me explain what I mean… it seems that the scientific community sits at the table, having established itself as the watch dog at the gate, so to speak. And all those with ideas that fall outside the accepted scientific community, need to “form a queue to the left and wait until you are called upon to see if we will give you audience.” Further, “Oh, and your ‘evidence,’ we’ve already disproven and disavowed that, so don’t even bother.”
How do you suggest that gap be bridged?
Why are you accepting woo woo on the pretense of being “open-minded”, then?
As I have already stated, i don’t “accept” the woo, but I think there is room to explore the notion. I don’t deny the notion simply because it does not fit into what I think we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
scottyroberts:
November 1st, 2012 at 9:22 am
Chigau,
Why does “paleo-contact” hafta be about space-aliens as opposed to leprechauns?
Because we already know that leprechauns are Irish.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 1st, 2012 at 12:41 pm
No, it just shows how you don’t like your “intriguing” ideas challenged for reality. Then you hide behind “I don’t believe that”. We both know it is nothing but your being duplicitous and lying. I only have a problem with your lack of proper response. Either show the evidence to demontrate there is something to the “intriguing” ideas that explains the evidence, or shut the fuck up about it. But then, honesty and integrity are required for such a response. And you lack that, and blame response you provoke by your duplicity on those responding to you. Tsk, take responsibility for your actions.
Fallacious presuppposition on your part. Just like all your bullshit. Nothing of substance except what you want to hear. Actually, we can be quite forceful in experssing ourselves. Why do you have trouble with that? Oh, that’s right, you want to pretend to be civil, even if you aren’t.
Claim presented without evidence. Hence *POOF* dismissed for utter fuckwittery. Either prove this claim or shut the fuck up about it. That would show your ability to understand where evidence needs to be presented. You also don’t understand the difference between new ideas that are solidly backed by evidence, which get accepted (hot blooded dinosaur theory for example), and those without evidence that are idiocy like your ancient astronaut stupidity. And science treats them differently. The fact that you can’t see that shows why you should not be listened to, and why you lie and bullshit about this.
This isn’t how science is done. Show us the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up their claims. You know, journals found in the scientific libraries of institutuions of higher learning world-wide with name like Nature and Science. That is what is need by those making the claim. Show us your evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Again, unevidence assertion *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. Typical lies told by woomeisters world wide, when they have no evidence. Science is open minded, but not so open our brains fall out, like yours has.
Woo has no room to explore, as it is empty and evidenceless. For example, show me the dose response curve for a homeopathic drug. Likewise, show me memory the “homeopathic” water has by putting in an nmr and checking to see if anything other than one peak is seen due to the memory of a substance being there. Evidence makes the diffence, and only after conclusive evidence should woo be considered.
scottyroberts:
November 1st, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Nerd of DeadHead,
You said: “No, it just shows how you don’t like your “intriguing” ideas challenged for reality. Then you hide behind “I don’t believe that”. We both know it is nothing but your being duplicitous and lying. I only have a problem with your lack of proper response. Either show the evidence to demontrate there is something to the “intriguing” ideas that explains the evidence, or shut the fuck up about it. But then, honesty and integrity are required for such a response. And you lack that, and blame response you provoke by your duplicity on those responding to you. Tsk, take responsibility for your actions.”
Let me use the Michael Shermer/Big ‘S’ style of responses to your statements:
No it isn’t. Prove it.
No I don’t. Demonstrate where I’ve done that.
No we don’t. Your extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
Why are you asking me to back up somebody else’s claims? All I said was that they were intriguing ideas. Are you asking me to substantiate why I feel they are intriguing ideas?
All you do, Nerd, is throw out charges, but you never show me any evidence to back up your claims.
Nerd said: “Claim presented without evidence. Hence *POOF* dismissed for utter fuckwittery.
For the um-teenth time, Nerd, what claim did I present?
Either prove this claim or shut the fuck up about it.
What claim was that, again?
The claim you are responding to above is when I said the scientific community is like a religion, in that it has its set of dogmas, doctrines and, yes, theology. What proof would you like for that?
In your case I would say it goes far beyond a religious sort of attitude and more into caterwauling little girl – no offense to little girls of the world.
That would show your ability to understand where evidence needs to be presented. You also don’t understand the difference between new ideas that are solidly backed by evidence, which get accepted (hot blooded dinosaur theory for example), and those without evidence that are idiocy like your ancient astronaut stupidity.
What makes this “MY” ancient astronaut stupidity? When did I claim it? (never mind… you won’t answer that question, anyway. Evidence shows that every time I’ve asked you to tell me what claims I have made, you never do.)
And science treats them differently. The fact that you can’t see that shows why you should not be listened to, and why you lie and bullshit about this.”
Demonstrate where in this thread I have proven that I do not understand that.
Fallacious presuppposition on your part. Just like all your bullshit. Nothing of substance except what you want to hear. Actually, we can be quite forceful in experssing ourselves. Why do you have trouble with that? Oh, that’s right, you want to pretend to be civil, even if you aren’t.
I think I’ve been pretty dang civil. Where it become difficult is when you continue to take me to task over and over and over and over again, when the things you take me to task for are never actually claims that I have made.
And when I ask you to clearly revisit your statements and clarify what you say I have claimed, you ignore the point. This is where I contend that you dialog like the people you decry: you ignore facts to continue spouting your brand of the truth.
How scientific is that?
This isn’t how science is done.
Are you suggesting that science is done like this forum demonstrates?
Show us the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up their claims. You know, journals found in the scientific libraries of institutuions of higher learning world-wide with name like Nature and Science. That is what is need by those making the claim. Show us your evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Why are you telling me to shut up about it? Its not my claim.
Why are you continually asking me to show research for things I have never laid claim to?
And on what basis do you call me a liar? Show me evidence of my lies.
Now, if you have nothing new to add other than to remain on the same tired, repeating track of taking me to task for things I do not believe or claim – and me asking you to tell me what it is I have claimed, etc, ad infinitum, then simply consider our last exchange, because you are simply wasting my time, now.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 1st, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Simple. Ideas per se can be are bullshit. Evidence makes them more. Without evidence, you bullshit ideas don’t make “intriguing”. They are flat and lifeless. Welcome to science.
NO EVIDENCE. What part of this don’t you understand. It explains nothing either. That makes it stupid.
See this comment in toto.
You make many claims. Including science is dogmatic and “religious”. Put up or shut the fuck up.
I show where you are wrong in your definitions and thinking about science. You don’t ever show evidence to back your claims, including your claim you make no claims. But anybody reading this thread sees you making claims.
Science is put up the evidence to back up your claims or shut the fuck up. Science isn’t an idea debating society like you are pretending it is.
Then shut the fuck up about those things you never lay claim to or find “intriguing”, which is laying a claim.
All those claims you make but pretend you don’t. Many claims are implied, but they are there. Where is your evidence that science is a religion? That was a distinct claim you have made repeatedly without presenting evidence. So, put up or shut the fuck up on that claim.
You were wasting our time thinking you weren’t wasting yours. You haven’t said anything of interest, just the typical vaguries of the woo infested trying like hell not to have to justify their statements. And trying like hell to control the “dialog”. But that didn’t happen here, did it? You haven’t said anything for a skeptic or scientist to do anything other than dismiss you as a woo infested fuckwitted idjit. Which requires more than “intriguing” ideas, it requires real evidence and a spine to back up ideas.
scottyroberts:
November 1st, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Nerd of DeadHead,
I have concluded that you are completely obtuse.
vaiyt:
November 1st, 2012 at 8:32 pm
You make the claim that people like Velikovsky and von Däniken are worthy of consideration, for once.
Yet, you’re happy to give tacit approval to woo-peddlers who have no decent evidence to speak of. Making you a fool.
Sorry. I forget that woo-infested nincompoops like you see no difference between science and sci-fi, and think speculation divorced from the real world has the same weight as truth.
Oh, you think you have a better way to find out about things than science? Science works. No other method so far has proven to be capable of reliably find out things about the world like science. “Pulling things out of your ass”, which is the method preferred by hacks like Von Däniken and Tsoukalos, certainly doesn’t.
Oh, and by the way, you said this
earlier on. Looks like it didn’t take long for the mask to break.
Saying this when you spend the entire rest of your oeuvre trying to smear the scientific method, is the scientific equivalent of “I’m not racist but…”, and almost as stupid.
What is the doctrine? What is the dogma? Spit it out.
“Make testable claims based on evidence or GTFO” is not dogma. It’s a method. A method that works reliably.
Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence. Without some positive evidence that there were actual aliens on Earth, you don’t have any business trying to discover how many of them can dance on a pin.
I would play the world’s smallest violin for the plight of von Däniken, Tsoukalos and Velikovsky, but I don’t think they even deserve that.
Yeah, and so say the people who believe in Bigfoot, fake moon landings and 9/11 conspiracies.
There’s no bridge to build between science and woo. They’re mutually incompatible. Woo with evidence and method is just regular science, and science that allows itself to accept extraordinary claims without proper evidence is woo.
It’s the underlying assumption, the unfortunate implications of trying to shoehorn aliens into the gaps in our knowledge of historical practices. Ancient Alienists would never propose the Duomo was the work of aliens; one of the earliest proponents did make that claim about the fucking Amazonas Theater.
He can assert all he fucking wants, that doesn’t make it true.
I don’t care.
Because they need some Thor-damn positive evidence. Otherwise, they’re just posturing.
Don’t try to read my mind, you’re not psychic.
What’s that about claiming to not believe anything? You sure made your mind up about science. And this
is a bare-faced lie.
At least there WAS evidence.
You say you don’t, but your entire shtick so far has been to say woo-peddlers should be considered to have equal value as real science because you say they do.
The unbiased stance is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is no aliens, because it doesn’t add extra entities that are unaccounted for – until someone presents positive evidence of aliens.
I certainly do have biases. I have a bias against bullshit. I have a bias against evidenceless claims. That’s all UFOlogy has produced so far.
The “no bias” canard consists on presenting us as partial because we refuse to accept woo as equivalent to reality, and then setting yourself up as “reasonable” in comparison. Take your Golden Mean and shove it, because one side is clearly wrong and it’s not science.
Not this “other ways of knowing” bullshit again. You want to be a standard? It’s simple. All you have to do is: produce accurate knowledge reliably. Science is the standard because IT WORKS, and no other method so far has got even close to its track record. It gave us modern technology, including the computer you type on; it let us look into the depths of the Earth and the Universe, cure disease, understand our own minds in ways we’ve never dreamed of. What have ancient alienists given us? A bunch of conspiracy theories, conjecture that never helped us explain anything, with a side order of racism.
Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!
Sure, you can believe you’re speaking truth to power when you tell me scientists just should accept bullshit to be as valid as their work, but I’m not going to entertain your delusions of being a brave maverick.
Is it hard to breach the scientific consensus? No shit. Creationists complain about that all the time.
It has been done before, though. Alienists are welcome to try. *snicker* But they don’t, they want to be accepted now, before they got anything substantive to back up their claims.
Also, this
is definitely a lie.
BTFE.
For someone who claims to not believe in woo, you make a good job of strawmanning its opponents.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 1st, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Yawn, fuckwit can’t stick the flounce. What else will it lie and bullshit about lurkers. It can’t show evidence for its ideas, it can’t show science is a religion, but it can’t shut the fuck up dear lurkers. Those who have honesty and integrity, like all scientists in their professional writing, will either put up the evidence, either from duplicatable experiments they ran, or by third party citations to the peer reviewed literature. And from poor Scotty, anything resembling a link to evidence? No. So how does on determine he isn’t lying and bullshitting? One can’t, so the null hypothesis becomes he is lying until third party evidence shows otherwise….
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:23 am
liar
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:52 am
Chigau,
Precisely. Comparing Nerd to the little girls of the world would be an offense to them.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:05 am
Vaiyt,
And this is where its a problem. You want to take me to task for giving an audience to people woith whom you find non-credible. To that I say, “So what?”
I am also giving PZ and audience, next time, as well as others that more people will have a problem with.
As for calling me a liar, please demonstrate one instance where I have lied about anything. Unless you’re using it the same way we see it tossed about in the presidential campaign – you can make the claim without substance, then say it enough and it will hopefully catch on.
Nerd of DeadHead,
Backing someone else’s claims…? Not my job. You are obtuse in the sense that you have to ignore what I do say to continue to assert your opinion.
And you still haven’t answered my question as to what you bring to the table. You seem to be avoiding that one, but I’m not sure why. You said you’ve been a scientist for 40 years… what is your area of specialty and what do you do?
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:07 am
Pardon this morning’s typos. Just coffee-ing up.
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:12 am
scottyroberts, I guess one day you could become as Art Bell.
(There’s money to be made!)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:12 am
It is. Why are you afraid to even try? Maybe you recognize how scientifically empty those claims are. Then you need to shut the fuck up about the ideas being “intriguing”, as they are bullshit.
Notice dear lurkers, it thinks it has something to say. That will only happen when it says “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the evidence to back it up”. Otherwise, it keeps showing the world the vapidity and inanity of its ideas.
feralboy12:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:40 am
How exactly has SCIENCE prevented Von Däniken from, you know, doing his own research? The guy has had roughly four decades, and presumably a pile of money from his crappy books, to produce something other than an argument that these more primitive societies couldn’t have produced the works that have been found. What’s he got? What is it you want science to do, other than apparently accept the notion that aliens have visited earth without anything solid to base that idea on?
For crying out loud–if there was actual, positive evidence that aliens had visited in the past, like an artifact or something that couldn’t be explained in a more mundane way, you really don’t think scientists all over the world would be lining up for their piece of the fame and fortune that would await real discoveries? Do you really think scientists are so attached to their “dogma” that they wouldn’t jump at the chance to make one of the great discoveries in history?
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:03 am
feralboy12,
You make a very good point/points. I have asked the very same questions. One would think that with over 70 million of his original book in print, von Daniken would have had a few bucks to throw into scientific research. But i really don’t know enough about what he’s done – if anything – in that area to talk about it.
Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed, but I am not asking that science accept anything carté blanche. I know so little about the ancient alien theory/notion, that I am not even sure why science has labeled it so much anathema.
I want to know more about the intricacies of the claims being made, so I can make intelligent decisions about it. I have always been intrigued by it, but never had reason to take the time to study it in-depth. Some of the “evidences” they show seem credible, as in archaeological relics re-interpreted against other relics, tooling, styles and art of the same period from the same culture.
What I have found is that there is a lot of conjecture, speculation and comparative statements being made from ancient alien theorists. I have never had the time nor the will of effort to look deeply into the scientific community’s problems with the theory/notion, mostly because it has always seemed to me that there have been efforts made by AA theorists to debunk their own claims.
I have generally seen the scientific community as one that will decry anything it cannot quantify within it’s own established structure – which I believe is a huge mistake. What I see more of from the scientific community is taking non-atheists to task for believing things, rather than finding ways to pull those people over “to the light.” Cqll them liars, bullshitters and asshats before showing what you’ve got to offer that’s better.
It becomes – for many outside either box – an observation of arrogance versus sincerity. And while the scientific community may bristle at that notion, its what people see. And as much as they are turned off by know-it-all fundamentalist preachers, they view the scientific community in the very same light. They both say they have the truth and hold all the facts in hand. But, to them, who is really right?
That is why you have seen the rise of scientists, such as Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and the like. They are looking for ways to make science inviting and interesting to people. I have yet to see either of them call someone a “fuckwit” because they might disagree with someone else’s notion or theory. And they win people over to their thinking, as opposed to building walls by projecting a know-it-all arrogance.
There is something to psychology and the way you present your case. And unless you plan to remain cloistered, the scientific community needs to find ways to build bridges for people who want to know more. Otherwise they will lose them to the ones who know how to interact with people.
And if the scientific community is weary of presenting their best foot forward, they lose the public relations game of winning minds.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:05 am
Bullshit. You keep expecting other people to do work for you. You either do it yourself or shut the fuck up. You being handfed information is egotism run rampant.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:11 am
Nerd of DeadHead said:
“Why are you afraid to even try?”
I’m not afraid to try, Nerd, I just don’t know enough about it make any case for or against it. This is what I have been saying all along: I haven’t made any claims, I am just intrigued by the notion.
Conversely, I have asked you several times to tell me why your pedagogic remarks and insults should be held in any esteem by me. You have failed to impress me that your approach is anything short of anonymous internet teenage miscreant braying.
There are times where you sound as if there might be a glimmer of an actual person with intelligence behind your rants, but you shut it down pretty quickly.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:14 am
Nerd,
I have never asked anyone to any work for me. Did I…?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:17 am
They have their best foot forward. Everything is backed with solid and conclusive evidence. Why do you want to dilute what works? Because science makes you look like a demented ignorant fool?
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:22 am
[meta]
scottyroberts retorts to Nerd:
So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated.
(Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:44 am
Yes, it is implied every time you want science to look at your “intriguing” ideas. That is somebody else doing work you ask for. That is why you are a liar and bullsitter. You make implicit claims on other peoples time and effort. Stop doing that. Keep everything internal to you, no problem. Which means you shut the fuck up and do all your own research….
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:08 am
Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed
*headdesk*
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:34 am
Ner of DeadHead said: “So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated. (Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)”
If that’s what you choose to believe.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 am
Ichtyic said:
Scotty: ‘Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed…’
*headdesk*
I knew when I typed that phrase that someone would copy it without relaying the entire context and make a predictable comment such as yours. ;)
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 am
Nerd of DeadHead said: “Yes, it is implied every time you want science to look at your “intriguing” ideas. That is somebody else doing work you ask for. That is why you are a liar and bullsitter. You make implicit claims on other peoples time and effort. Stop doing that. Keep everything internal to you, no problem. Which means you shut the fuck up and do all your own research….”
You sure have a way of pulling out precisely what you want me to be saying in order to fit your argumentative criticism, then commenting on it.
Still wondering if you are ever going to answer my question on what it is YOU’VE done in the scientific community for the last 40 years…
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:44 am
Sorry Nerd, I misattributed a quote to you, when it was actually John Morales. Pardon the unintentional error.
John Morales said: “So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated. (Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)”
You are making a broad, brash assumption with this comment, John. Where did you glean from my words that I wish to remain uneducated?
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:58 am
Here is a project of mine where I DO make solid claims as to the existence of faeries and sword wielding Irish rabbits…
http://www.tamohare.com
vaiyt:
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:40 pm
For instance, you have claimed that you didn’t “excoriate science”, while proceeding to do exactly that.
You claimed you didn’t have any particular claims yourself, which is a lie, since you do make several claims, for example:
1) Scientists should give credit to Ancient Aliens woo
2) Science today is like a religion
3) The Ancient Alienists aren’t accepted because the scientific community is made up of closed-minded dogmatists
4) The credibility of the speakers in your event is not your department
Is that enough?
It’s not anathema. It’s simply bullshit. People like us who like real science, react with anger because we regret the undue attention those bullshitters get, and regret that many people – like you – confuse them for real scientists.
AND YET, YOU THINK YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO PAINT THEM AS CLOSED-MINDED DOGMATIST ZEALOTS.
Fucking dishonest piece of shit.
Tell you what. Some people just don’t want to hear facts. They want to be coddled. They want to hear pretty things that make them feel good. It’s to that feeling that bullshitters appeal. Of course they sound more attractive. There’s no way truth can compete with lies on the PR game, because truth doesn’t change to make people feel more comfortable.
Bullshitters need to be taken to task because they want to appear like real scientists, and drag the credibility of real science down as a result. When Michio Kaku refuses to call Deepak Chopra on his nonsense, he lets Chopra piggyback his woo woo on science. In the long run, that has the effect of making it look like scientists accept taking-it-out-of-your-ass-ism as a valid reserarch method.
Fuck them, and fuck you for being another woo-enabler with the mouth full of cotton.
There, I swore. Feel free to ignore my whole fucking post if you want, I don’t care.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Vaiyt,
It is obvious that you are going to see me the way you have already pigeon-holed me, because most of what you infer and attribute to the intention of my words is NOT what I said.
You said:
You claimed you didn’t have any particular claims yourself, which is a lie, since you do make several claims…
I stated time and again that I did not make any claims as to the ancient alien theory being true. I asserted that I do not lay claim to the ancient alien theory, but only find it intriguing enough to consider the possibility. I stated outright that there exists no evidence that I have personally researched to claim that the theory/notion is true.
1) Scientists should give credit to Ancient Aliens woo
I didn’t say that. I ASKED if the scientific community should see the notion as explorable. I did NOT say you should accept their ideas carté blanch.
2) Science today is like a religion
I absolutely DID compare the scientific community – more aptly what I refer to as the “Big ‘S’ Skeptics within that community, to the same sorts who populate religious communities, in that they have an established doctrine that they adhere to – and it isn’t simply one of seeking only facts and evidence. That is most certainly NOT a lie on my part, it is how I see the scientific community, especially in light of the kinds of reactions even stating the desire to see bridges built is reacted to in this forum.
And you have to admit, even the scientific community has to apply “faith” – call it educated guesses based on hypothesis – for many of the theories they hold as true and factual.
3) The Ancient Alienists aren’t accepted because the scientific community is made up of closed-minded dogmatists
I did NOT say that. I said that the AA’s notions/theories are primarily rejected by the scientific community, offhand, without consideration. That is the same sort of thing I see the Baptists engaging in when they decry the Hindus. It is a Fundamentalism of a different sort, and BOTH sides of the AA argument need to drop the fundamentalism, because not everyone who thinks there might be something to the AA notion is a woo-driven idiot.
4) The credibility of the speakers in your event is not your department
I never said that. I said that in “ain’t my job” to prove what the AA community purports. And that I admittedly had not dug into any of it deeply enough to either make a clim as to its veracity of to call it bullshit. You obviously have… right?
Tell you what. Some people just don’t want to hear facts. They want to be coddled. They want to hear pretty things that make them feel good.
Well, tell YOU what… that isn’t me you are talking about. All you would have to do is see anything I have written about and published to know that I prefer facts to assertions. Srtill doesn’t mean I am not intrigued by it.
There, I swore. Feel free to ignore my whole fucking post if you want, I don’t care.
Swearing’s fuckin’ fine in my fuckin’ book. Its simply that you tend to emotively personalize, which is the first earmark of having had doctrine or theology tread upon.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Janine,
Glad you’re still reading.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:26 pm
For example?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Scotty actually providing evidence and defending it? *snicker*
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Simply referring to this hogwash as a “theory” is a lie: “theory” has a specific meaning in science, as has already been pointed out to you, and speculation pulled out of your arse does not conform to that meaning.
No, we don’t, because it’s another lie. I note that you give no examples; that’s because you can’t.
Yes, they are. You’re a good example.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“That which is asserted without can be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens. Which means almost everything Scotty says can *POOF* be dismissed out of hand. The difference between woo and science is EVIDENCE. Your word isn’t evidence Scotty…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:47 pm
snottyroberts,
No it doesn’t, because this is a barefaced lie.
If you know so little about it, how do you have the cheek to smear scientists as closed-minded for not taking it seriously? It’s because there isn’t a particle of evidence for it, and its proponents are either obvious con artist, such as von Daniken, or sad crackpots such as Velikovsky.
If he had done or funded any real research, wouldn’t he have talked about it at your silly little meeting?
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:53 pm
scottyroberts:
Here (my emphasis): “I want to know more about the intricacies of the claims being made, so I can make intelligent decisions about it. ”
So intriguing as to make your admittedly ignorant self spruik its intrigue, but not so much as to give you reason to study it so as not to remain ignorant.
(Because then what your ignorance perceives as an intriguing mystery might be revealed to be wishful thinking in the cold light of knowledge)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I have a vague recollection of reading von Daniken forty years ago. I wasn’t intrigued, just disgusted with the lack of evidence, and vague, vague connections to myths. It started me on the road to being a skeptic…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:01 pm
That’s because they present no evidence. Look, try to get this through the concrete: scientists are busy people – they don’t have the time or the inclination to listen to evidence-free speculation. If your “ancient alien” chums want to be taken seriously by scientists, they must present credible evidence.
More lies. All “ancient alienists” need to do is to present their evidence in the form of a paper submitted to an appropriate journal, and it will be considered. That’s what everyone has to do if they want “the scientific community” to give them “audience”. Why do you keep lying, snottyroberts?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Scotty, this is what a scientist means by evidence. This a paper by Lenski, et al., showing the mutations necessary for a strain of e-coli to be able to metabolize citrate instead of glucose. It details the mutations, and their significance.
Your AA fuckwits need to present a similar level of solid and conclusive physical evidence in a comparable journal. Cite that paper…
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Let me ask you all this question…
I have no way of testing it on my own, because I am not a scientist with a lab, nor do I have access to materials even if i did have a lab.
But I have read that there is absolutely no DNA linkage between the individual fossilized stages representing the ascendency of man from lowest order of primate (would that be austioppithicus [SP]?) to modern man.
Now, before you leap into hyper gear and bombast at me for saying there is no evolution – which I am NOT saying – does this little fact of no evidentiary linkage between what have been identified as “stages” in human evolution, cast that theory into the speculative mode?
What say you, oh great, learned scientists…?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:01 pm
I am not a scientist. I am an historian. But I say, “There are shitloads of books, for everyone from the interested layman to the student to the professional, available used and new, which show that your #420 is a pile of shit.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:03 pm
scottyroberts #420
Are you drunk?
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
scottyroberts:
I’m not a great, learned scientist, but I say that you apparently understand fossilisation about as well as you understand evolutionary theory and genomic theory.
(Hint: The genome and DNA are not interchangeable terms any more than are houses and bricks)
–
PS Using your ignorance to try to show science is not omniscient is no way to buttress your “intriguing” speculations, you know.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Nope, there is DNA linkage and a large amount of common DNA. Why do you keep lying to yourself, then lie to us? We know better. The DNA evidence shows humans and primates are closely related, with the great apes being even closer, and the chimpanzees being our closest relatives. As would be expected from the fossil record. Where is your evidence otherwise? Cite your source, or shut the fuck up as a liar and bullshitter should….
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:09 pm
No. Period, end of story. The DNA record confirms the evolutionary linkages. Where the fuck is your mind? It isn’t working on any evidence whatsoever. And you next attempt, either link to your source, or don’t present it. Without a link it will be dismissed as fuckwittery, and you as a fuckwitted liar and bullshitter.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Oh, and Scotty, a couple of chimpanzee chromosomes have fused head to head to make human chromosome 2. Don’t bullshit us. We, unlike you, have evidence to prove what a fool you are.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:15 pm
scottyroberts:
You claim to have read this. Where did you read it? What publication? Who wrote it? When was it written?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Links will stop your OPINION from being dismissed *POOF* without evidence. Why are you so afraid to evidence your claims? Maybe you do know what a liar and bullshitter you really are, and the only way to avoid it is to pretend ignorance? And if you are that ignorant, why are you even bothering us? You should be in your basement, wearing your tin foil hat, sucking your thumb….
feralboy12:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:23 pm
And I ASKED what exactly it was that you wanted the scientific community to do.
Archaeologists dig through ancient sites, collecting and cataloging artifacts. Historians peruse written records. Astronomers search the heavens for signs of life. Anthropologists reconstruct the ways ancient peoples lived.
What, you think scientists look at sites of ancient civilizations and just say, “ah, buncha old crap, just toss it?”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Scotty, you can either copypasta the URL for your link on a separate line, or you can use the method I used above for embedding the link in a description, using <a href = “url of the link”>description of link</a>. Not hard, but it is required for you to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you demonstrate you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter.
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
you people are wasting your time with this dolt.
you can’t explain what is wrong with his approach so that he will understand it.
there’s just too much fucking ignorance.
He’s done a great job of clarifying why nobody with half a brain would want to go to his “paradigm symposium” though.
pathetic wanker will just keep wanking.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 pm
I agree my fishy friend. Scotty can’t see he is in over his head; his ego gets in the way. But I have been posting the last day or so for the lurkers. They need to know the depths of Scotty’s dishonesty and fuckwittery, despite his innocuous sounding prose. I think the lurkers are beginning to understand the depths of his lying, and not to trust anything it says.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:53 pm
There ya go, Nerd, if you can’t dialog with civility, just call ‘em liars.
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:56 pm
There ya go, Nerd, if you can’t dialog with civility, just call ‘em liars.
Hey, snottybobs:
Quantum Quantum!
Quantum quanta Quantum?
Quantum QUANTUM!
quantum.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Ichthyic
Quantum quantum quanta?
Quantorum scottyquant!
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:04 pm
And if you can’t put up the links, or shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity, complain about tone….Liar and bullshitter.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:09 pm
And dear lurkers, if Scotty wasn’t a liar and bullshitter the links would have appeared in his last post, as I did tell him how to do such in two ways in my #430. Evidently real evidence and presenting it to convince people is beyond the abilities of poor Scotty. Who has nothing but evidenceless OPINION, the bane of the woomeisters….
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Quantorum scottyquant!
Ha! exactly.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:17 pm
The problem with you guys is that you believe anyone who makes the claim that there is room to explore ancient alien theory – or *notions* – are somehow unintelligent, liars (about anything you want to squeeze into that vapid accusation), mentally deficient or lacking in any sort of archaeological, cosmological, historical or anthropological experience or knowledge.
Ancient alien theorists have simply made alternative suggestions, which are not excluded by the archaeological or anthropological evidence, based on the premise that the pool of evidence of history and archaeology (which is an imprecise science) allows for other than standard interpretation of the elite intelligentsia.
When you all get all apoplectic and obtusely degrading, I don’t think it has anything to do with you wanting to warn people that they are being mislead by ancient alien theorists – otherwise you’d incorporate better methodology, beyond telling people they are wrong simply because you are scientists and they are not.
I believe your vitriol and anger demonstrates that you are upset with the notion that ancient alien theory is making people re-evaluate certain…. uh oh, wait for it… “paradigms,” and people like you are all about trying to pretend that we should not do that. People should not question the standard line, but rather toe it.
Talking about ancient alien theory – or notions, or suppositions, or questions – is not the same as claiming it is so. It is merely asking questions, and the arrogance on this board far outweighs anything you can attempt to twist into being a “lie” from me.
But I stay to converse. The reason we haven’t gotten very far or deep into discussion is that I spend 90% of my time backtracking to correct misquotes you have made of things I have said, rather than engage me oin any real discussion of the topic – well, other than to ask a question about my claims than take me to task when i remind you that I never made the claim in the first place.
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Nerd of DeadHead,
Have you considered that I haven’t responded to your questions and requests, deliberately, simply for the fact that you repeatedly misquote me to make your argument fit, AND you have ignored each request I have made of you?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Scottyroberts
Is the any credible evidence at all anywhere for the ancient alien theory?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Citation, not your fuckwittted OPINION, needed. Your OPINION is dismissed as fuckwitery.
Citation need, or *POOF* dismissed as abject fuckwittery. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE.
Which without evidence, is irrelevant, and you know that. So *POOF* OPINION dismissed as fuckwittery.
What discussion of the topic if you don’t present evidence to back up your claims? So *POOF* OPINION dismissed as fuckwittery.
What are you really saying? I have no evidence, but want my unevidenced OPINION to be taken seriously. Hitchens has your number. Your OPINION is dismissed as irrelevant.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:26 pm
The = there
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:30 pm
scottyroberts
Provide a citation.
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:31 pm
well, glad we cleared that up. I was afraid you were incapable of learning anything.
minor correction though: that’s YOUR problem, not ours.
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:32 pm
…and quantum.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Notice lurkers poor Scotty has be pushed into position that his script is unable to deal with. That of having to actually provide evidence to back up its claims, which can no longer be vague, and must perforce be specific, and which can and will be refuted by real evidence. Also notice it can’t shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do. So everything it tries to claim at this point is subjected to extreme skepticism. Which, of course, without solid scientific evidence will be rejected. Its OPINION is dead in the water. It must back up its OPINION with a link to the peer reviewed scientific literature.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 pm
AND QUANTUM…
feralboy12:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 pm
And again: are these “suggestions” supported by any evidence? I can sit here all day and make alternative suggestions: time travelers, magic bunnies, Greek gods, Captain Kirk, eddies in the space-time continuum…not excluded by the evidence.
Dude, a theory requires positive evidence in support of it. Start with a hypothesis that makes testable predictions. Acquire data. If your predictions come out right, you might have a theory with explanatory power.
All you’ve done here is go “whoa, maybe it’s aliens.” Give us evidence, or punt already.
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 pm
The problem with you is you fail to see that there is no credible case being put forth, but merely facile speculation.
Does it intrigue you to consider that the gods of Olympus were real before the magic went away?
(After all, this alternative suggestion is not excluded by the archaeological or anthropological evidence)
Leaving aside your hopeful (though cute) idea that playing with you is an act of apoplexy and the amusing admission that obtuseness suffices to degrade your claims, what part of Nerd’s quotation (“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”) was confusing to you? :)
You do realise the old is a fallacious appeal, no?
(Also, you seriously imagine empiricism is a paradigm worthy of re-evaluation?
Then make a compelling case for it, because your current one (that in your ignorance, you find the concept appealing) is risible and invites the derision you’re enjoying here)
Niven (unlike the loons who intrigue you) didn’t pretend his story-telling was a plausible conjecture worthy of scientific investigation.
(Why did the magic go away?)
What’s to discuss, other than that you feel aggrieved that your nonsensical claims about wishful speculations aren’t taken seriously?
–
I was most amused when you imagined Bob Blaskiewicz’s missive to you was some sort of paean, when really it was what is euphemistically referred to as faint praise.
(heh)
scottyroberts:
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
That’s the problem… there really is NOT any solid evidence. But, there is existing evidence which has been brought to question and needs reevaluation.
The fallacy with your community is that you hold anyone who questions the current archaeology as somehow dimwitted or liars – because that’s what ancient alienists are, simply liars, not researchers and questioners… right? The label of “liar” really doesn’t even fit the argument.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:15 pm
scottyroberts
Provide a citation.
Ichthyic:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:15 pm
you don’t even understand what the word fallacy means.
hint:
It doesn’t mean quantum.
get lost, loser.
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:16 pm
scottyroberts:
But you wrote above they don’t question the archaeology, but rather its interpretation.
What do you imagine is the utility of speculative interpretations that can’t be falsified and (at best don’t provide additional explanatory power to the known evidence?
You have reversed cause and effect and thus imagine it’s a fallacious inference; it’s because they imagine that unfounded speculation is research that they’re either dimwitted or liars*, not the other way around.
–
* Or deluded.
(Or are you not open to this particular shift in your paradigm? :) )
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:17 pm
No, it has been solidly refuted, as any person of honesty and integrity would acknowledge. Why can’t you?
Considering the lack of evidence (where are your links to said evidence), yes, liar is the best description. Why can’t you acknowledge the lack of evidence, and your need to shut the fuck up because of that? Yes, your lying and bullshitting.
Rutee Katreya:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 pm
There is no amount of questioning of evidence that makes “Ancient Aliens helped brown and black people (but not white people)” a logical conclusion, because there is no evidence that aliens exist at all, let alone that they built us structures.
chigau (棒や石):
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 pm
If you want to see a real archaeological controversy, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas
[Wikipedia is just your starting point. Follow their links.]
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Rutee, strictly speaking, there certainly is evidence (indirect as it may be) that aliens probably exist, by the principle of mediocrity, the ubiquity of physical laws, and the phenomenal extent of the known universe.
(Though you’re right if you limit your claim to these speculative aliens having travelled to Earth and interacted with humans)
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Oh, dear.
The quantum is leaking.
But I do like the how “quantum fallacy” sounds.
As a band name maybe ?
John Morales:
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:45 pm
[OT - addendum to #458]
Actually, back in my salad days the existence of extra-solar planets had much the same scientific status as the existence of alien life now does.
(Goes to show how much technology has advanced, that we can actually image them!)
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:30 am
you don’t even understand what the word fallacy means.
Ichtyic,
Sure I do, and if used in the right context, you could buy one at Fantasy Gifts for yourself.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:33 am
Chigau,
Oh yeah! Wiki! Now I see how you get all your great sciency shit.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:35 am
Nerd of DeadHead,
So, what field of science are you in, again…?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:38 am
Rutee,
What decade are you in? And what ancient alienist are you talking with?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:44 am
Since you are all asking me for things that would take hours to answer in a forum like this, take a look at this response by Philip Coppens to the “Ancient Aliens Debunked” documentary.
He makes some excellent points addressing some of your specific questions.
http://www.philipcoppens.com/aaq_art5.html
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:59 am
scottyroberts:
Really?
Then you should have no need to take hours to cut and paste but two of these specific questions and the alleged excellent points that address them in the document to which you have linked, since both are available electronically.
(Care to try?)
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:07 am
John Morales,
I have no problem with that, at all, John. But not tonight. I know its only 2am, but I’m hittin’ the hay…
vaiyt:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:03 am
You do seem very interested in defending the credibility of the Ancient Alienists, to the point of smearing the scientific community and the scientific method… even though you admit to have little knowledge of either their “research” or the scientists’ objections. On that point, you’re not technically a liar, just arrogant and suspiciously defensive.
There was no “if” in your assertions. You weren’t asking about anything, you started out in full accusation mode, deploring the scientific community for dismissing the Ancient Alien claims. I quote:
“I think you establish here just how “religious” science has become. Its a controversy over who has all the right answers and the right way to find them – and it is as emotionally ridden as talking politics or religion.”
“‘big man science’ needs to also start admitting that it’s made of itself a surrogate for religion, complete with its own theology, doctrine and dogma, that if you fall outside, you are excommunicate.”
“I am just reaffirming my believe that the scientific community is as religious as a church, and everyone outside the double doors is simply wrong and going to science-hell.”
“it seems that the scientific community sits at the table, having established itself as the watch dog at the gate, so to speak. And all those with ideas that fall outside the accepted scientific community, need to ‘form a queue to the left and wait until you are called upon to see if we will give you audience.’”
“I am not even sure why science has labeled it so much anathema.”
These are not the words of someone who’s asking questions. Fucking liar.
And when you didn’t like our response (which is “IF and WHEN they present positive evidence for aliens”), you dismissed the whole of science as “just like religion”.
Bald assertion without evidence. What is the doctrine? I’ve asked this before.
See, you ARE asking us to take the Ancient Alienists’ claims at face value. You want the scientific community to pretend their reality-free ruminations are valid hypotheses without due evidence.
Put this in your head, genius: science does not need to build bridges with woo. There’s nothing woo can offer to science. There’s nothing the likes of Tsoukalos and von Däniken can offer to our understanding of history until they produce positive evidence that aliens were on Earth.
Such as?
You did. Refer to my quotes of you as shown above. Fucking liar.
And you’re doing it again.
“…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” – Richard Dawkins
Take your Golden Mean and shove it even harder where the sun doesn’t shine.
Rutee Katreya:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:51 am
2010s, and the fool Ancient Alienist that showed up on Pharyngula.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:43 am
I see Scotty still isn’t getting it. Science only needs to take an idea seriously when there is evidence to back it up. Woo like AA will never be taken seriously until that crashed spaceship is found. Until then, science will rightly ignore such woo.
I also notice Scotty doesn’t talk about him funding anything. Typical passive-aggressive woomeister, investigate what I want you to using your time, money, and reputation. Can’t put his money and time where his mouth is. When funding to look at woo came available from the Center for Alternative Medicine, what it has consistently shown is that the scientist were right, much to the chagrin of Sen. Harkin, who was sure the opposite would happen. Alternative medicine is almost totally bullshit, no better than Placebo.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:57 am
scottyroberts:
The bit about human evolution and DNA. You claim to have read it. Where did you read it? Who wrote it? What are the authors qualifications (especially as this author is making incredible claims)? Basically, I’m asking you for an annotated citation for your claim that DNA and fossil evidence do not agree in the field of palaeoanthropology.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:06 am
I made an error here: AFAIK, Velikovsky’s crackpottery did not include ancient aliens: his approach was to assume that all the ancient Jewish myths (flood, Red Sea parting, sun standing still etc.) were reports of actual events, then make up shit to “explain” how they could have happened if planets zipped around the solar system as if in a game of cosmic pool.
You’re so fucking ignorant you don’t know:
1) That “lowest order of primate” makes no sense: evolution is not a progress from “lower” to “higher”, but a process of adaptation to local environments.
2) That if you mean “primates most distantly related to Homo sapiens that would be, according to the best current evidence, the Strepsirrhini (lemurs and lorises).
3) The name of the genus considered to be ancestral to Homo: Australopithecus.
4) That all living primates share large amounts of their genome, with the closest to Homo sapiens being chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, with over 95% overlap), followed in order by gorillas, orang-utans, gibbons, old world monkeys and new world monkeys.
Not only that, you’re so fucking lazy you can’t be bothered to look these things up – they’re not fucking secrets concealed by the guild of scientists, you don’t even have to consult peer-reviewed journals, all this information is freely available on this thing called the internet.
Tell me, snottyroberts, why the fuck should we take someone as ignorant and lazy as you seriously, or treat you with anything but contempt?
Gregory Greenwood:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:26 am
You do realise that Prometheus isn’t a documentary, right scottyroberts?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:31 am
Then take those hours or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not woomeisting.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:34 am
I did. It presents zero evidence of any “paleo-contact”, just a few entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims of “anomalies”. I’ve never seen the documentary to which it is a response, although if it’s true that it was made by a Christian fundamentalist, it is indeed likely to be full of errors. So what? What is required for “paleo-contact” to be taken seriously is positive evidence: remains of aliens or of what cannot be human technology – and no, crystal skulls of unknown provenance, about the acquisition of which their “discoverer” lied, are no such thing, nor are heavy stones in elevated positions. The fact that we don’t know exactly how or when an artefact was created is not evidence that aliens did it. In the case of heavy stones, of course, they don’t have to be lifted vertically, as Coppens apparently thinks: hauling them up earth ramps, then digging away the support and sliding them into position, is the obvious alternative.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:37 am
Indeed: you’ve already spent hours on this thread. Why, in all that time, have you not presented a single piece of evidence supporting your claim that science should take paleo-contact seriously?
Answer: because you don’t have any.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:22 am
Nick Gotts said:
Indeed: you’ve already spent hours on this thread. Why, in all that time, have you not presented a single piece of evidence supporting your claim that science should take paleo-contact seriously?
Answer: because you don’t have any.
I would have disagree with you, Nick.
By writing at this board, I am not writing to “Science.” I am writing to “you guys,” a handful of fairly abrasive people used to being abrasive. As PZ hi’self put it – you have your “chew toys.” Certainly an indicator of how you treat people, historically speaking.
I don’t really care about that for MY sake. I can handle the business. And I think I have at least shown that I don’t go away crying in the corner for being called a name or having my delicate, flower-like feelings hurt.
I am pretty sure the handful of people here do not represent the whole of the scientific community, otherwise you do a pretty bad job of it and don’t do much for your community’s public relations. Unless all scientists are simply asses.
And Nick, do you know why you haven’t had much “presented” to you? Because it took this long to wade through all your guys’ bullshit. Again, something which has left me unscathed, but educated. It gave me the opportunity to see what “real scientists” are like and how gracious they are toward people with whom they disagree. And, here, all along I thought it was just a stereotype. Live and learn.
There isn’t a single thing I could present to you here that you wouldn’t look, first, for ways to tear to shreds. There isn’t a single respected person’s opinion I could present that wouldn’t have you attempting to discredit that person for one thing or another. It’s a political game.
And I get that. I do the same thing to ghost hunters – save for the personal demeaning.
I will gather up the information that I know is available from the research of good people and bring it in here over the next couple of days, and let’s see what you think of some of the material presented.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:25 am
Nerd of DeadHead,
“Then take those hours or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not woomeisting.”
What is it you do in the scientific community, exactly, Nerd? Other than pretend you are a scientist so you can criticize with the big boys…?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:30 am
Gregory Greenwood said: “You do realise that Prometheus isn’t a documentary, right scottyroberts?”
You are correct, sir! Prometheus is a production studio in L.A.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:37 am
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:39 am
Dick of Goats,
You said: “Not only that, you’re so fucking lazy you can’t be bothered to look these things up – they’re not fucking secrets concealed by the guild of scientists, you don’t even have to consult peer-reviewed journals, all this information is freely available on this thing called the internet.
Tell me, snottyroberts, why the fuck should we take someone as ignorant and lazy as you seriously, or treat you with anything but contempt?”
Are you really that obtuse? I am not writing some sort of thesis here, Dick, I am in a fucking chat room, typing up quick answers to quick chatroom questions.
This is what I have said all along, you guys must be really hungry for blood if all it takes is a typo or an off-the-top-of-my-head remark or an incorrect characterization made for the sake of brevity to send you into red-faced tizzies.
Jesus, man! Calm the fuck down and don’t pop so many blood vessels. Again, this ain’t a doctrinal thesis I am writing here, it’s a fucking chatroom discussion.
Now watch… you’ll take me to task for referring to this as a “chatroom” instead of a “forum.” Don’t blow out a testicle, this time…
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:43 am
Dick of Gopats,
“You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even get through a comment without contradicting yourself.”
You are pretty socially inept, aren’t you. This is an example of what you guys capitalize on.
One is a statement of how I perceive you. The other is sarcasm. Sarcasm occasionally can seem as if it is a contradictory statement.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:43 am
Dick of goats,
Note the quotation marks around “real scientists.”
chigau (棒や石):
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:51 am
scottyroberts has used “calm down”.
That’s often the signal for end-of-troll, isn’t it?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:54 am
Dick of Goats,
This is the bullshit you guys throw out there, then take people to task for responding to it. But if they don’t respond to it, you take them to task for not responding and being too weak to handle your onslaughts. If they do respond, you then take them to task for taking the time to respond to your bullshit onslaughts without addressing your “real questions” buried in the steamy center of your bullshit. And you do all this while running your gauntlet of bullshit. Then you claim that the other guy is full of bullshit and a liar.
I think you have pretty much presented unflinching evidence that you are all social fucks.
I completely understand your strategy, mostly because I’m impervious to what I know is bullshit. So why not try dropping the bullshit for a while, and a real discussion/dialog can take place.
Pull your pocket protectors out of your asses and maybe your pursed lips will relax.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 am
chigau (棒や石),
No, that’s me trying to help Dick of Goats not blow out the blood vessels in his neck.
chigau (棒や石):
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:57 am
That is one nasty hangover you got there, scotty.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:59 am
As for Philip Coppens’ article…
His piece, written as a reply to the “Ancient Aliens Debunked” documentary, wasn’t a treatise. He presented his counter-arguments to a guy who based his documentary on counter-arguments.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 am
chigau (棒や石),
I wish. My opportunities to drink enough to result in a hangover are equally proportionate to the number of children I have under the age of five. ;)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:05 am
Scotty, liar and bullshitter, who the fuck are you to criticize real working scientists? And try to change how science is done? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:07 am
Wrong again liar and bullshitter, we do a good job of presenting the attitude of scientists to fuckwitted idjits like yourself, who don’t do science, and don’t understand how it is done.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:09 am
Wrong again liar and bullshitter. This is you spreading lies and bullshit, and us calling you on lies and bullshit. And you never presenting evidence to back up your implicit claims. Which confirms your liar and bullshitter status.
feralboy12:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:12 am
We’re not looking for arguments, scotty. We’re looking for evidence.
Maybe you could beam somebody up, or something.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:13 am
You keep making claims (ancient aliens, the philosophy of science, anthropology) and then refusing to back up your claims with any references at all.
And this is a comment thread on a blog, not a chatroom discussion.
But other than all that, Scotty, you are right on the money.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:18 am
snottyroberts,
Liar. You have been asked repeatedly to present evidence for your claim that the “ancient aliens” crowd should be taken seriously.
We’re people who call bullshit, bullshit and liars, liars. mostly, it’s bullshitting liars like you who have a problem with that.
You have nothing of any interest or relevance to say, or you’d have said it already. You’re simply a lazy, ignorant, bullshitting liar.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:20 am
Here’s an example of Scotty’s duplicity good lurkers. Notice how he keeps trying to get me to define what type of scientist I am. The duplicity and hypocrisy comes from the fact he doesn’t define his credentials to have a discussion on science and how it is done. Until he does so, I see no point in defining my credentials.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:25 am
What evidence?
Brought to question by whom?
Under what guidelines is it questionable?
First, fallacy, I don’t think it means what you appear to think it means.
I haven’t called you a dimwit or a liar. That’s mostly Nerd. He does that to the point of pain.
However just because something is questioned doesn’t mean they are valid questions. There needs to be some scientifically supported reason for questioning. I could come out and question germ theory but without some valid science to back that up but I’d be a crank and rightly called one.
So what questions are being asked and why are they being asked>
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:32 am
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
Hence: “I think the fallacy (incorrect argumentation; rhetoric; lack of logic) with your community is that you hold anyone who questions the current archaeology as somehow dimwitted or liars…”
The fallacy being
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:33 am
opps…
The fallacy being fairly evidence.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:36 am
Ah, incoherence.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 am
You categorized many here wrongly.
But anyway, that’s not the most important part of my comment.
Please answer the questions I’ve asked.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 am
What evidence?
Brought to question by whom?
Under what guidelines is it questionable?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 am
Rev. BidDumpChimp siad: “…just because something is questioned doesn’t mean they are valid questions.”
I agree to a point. Sometimes I ask questions that just may shatter the old adage that “there are no stupid questions.” But I ask because I want to know something. But that does not mean my question necessitates a change in the argument. It might just mean I need to study more. But that doesn’t render the question invalid.
For instance, I may ask, “Why does this artifact not match any of the others in style, tooling or design that matches any other design in this culture’s known archaeological relics?” Is that an invalid question? No. I want to know why and what we know about why it’s different.
I think that’s a valid question.
There needs to be some scientifically supported reason for questioning. I could come out and question germ theory but without some valid science to back that up but I’d be a crank and rightly called one.”
Agreed. On that point.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:44 am
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
Questions don’t need to be scientifically supported. However, presuppositions, speculations and answers DO.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:46 am
… further, you need to gage the sincerity of the person asking the question. Are they seeking good answers from the people who should be able to direct them well, or are they asking to simply cause trouble and stir the pot?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:47 am
sigh
There need to be reasons for the questions beyond flight of fancy.
So please answer my questions.
What evidence?
Brought to question by whom?
Under what guidelines is it questionable?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:51 am
scottyroberts,
Here’s how you introduced Coppens’ screed:
I looked. He doesn’t. Now you say:
So what was the point of linking to it? It doesn’t address the main point being made by many of us here – that in order to be taken seriously, ancient alienists need some real evidence rather than facile speculation – at all; it addresses errors allegedly made in a documentary that I doubt many of us have seen, and certainly none of us have any responsibility for.
But clearly, since it’s the only attempt you’ve made to respond to the points made here, it’s the best you’ve got.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:52 am
scottyroberts:
So you agree that in order to make an extraordinary claim, one must have evidence. This is good. If one claims that ancient aliens visited the earth and helped build Stonehenge, this is an extraordinary claim. So when you make the claim that there are things in the archaeological record that raise the question of ancient aliens, you actually need some evidence to back up that claim (and yes, despite your repeated denials, you have made that claim. repeatedly.). So where is the evidence to support your claim?
Earlier, you stated that you had read that the DNA evidence and the fossil evidence regarding palaeoanthropology do not line up. Going with the same theme, you agree that to come out and question established theory you need valid science to back it up, I ask again: Who wrote that? What publication? What are the credentials of the person who made that claim?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:52 am
I’m trying to understand what is out there that give any credence to the Ancient Alien theory. What archaeological artifacts and sites are you questioning and why do those questions point you to the Ancient Alien theory instead of some other answer to the questions you have?
When you hear hoof beats, why do you think Unicorn instead of horse or even Zebra?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:53 am
And in your case, of course, the answer is abundantly clear: the latter.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:55 am
please excuse the multitude of grammatical mistakes and typos. I’m commenting in the middle of a number of other things.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:56 am
That is all you are doing. And you know that. Questions per se aren’t important. The answers and evidence to back up those answers are important. Which is why you were never in this discussion. Your questions have been answered years ago, but you don’t like the answers, so you repeat those questions ad nauseum, but the evidence based answers won’t change.
vaiyt:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:11 am
My, you’re a smarmy tool, aren’t you? I can almost picture you tut-tutting to your computer screen.
Tell me, why the fuck do we have to be “gracious” to people who peddle bullshit and try to pretend they’re doing real science? Respect is fucking earned, you don’t get to saunter here and demand we give respect to woomeisters, lie, make baseless accusations about the scientific community, then claim the moral high ground.
For someone who claims to not know much, you sure have made up your mind.
We already told you what would make us (and the scientific community) change our minds: positive evidence for the presence of aliens on Earth.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:13 am
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
Was my archaeological reference not the right kind of question?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 am
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
If you want me to post my actual questions, let me gather them up and put them here.
I was posting a loose hypothetical based on a piece of (Aztec/Mayan?) sculpture that resembled a turtle, but did not have the same characteristics nor tooling style as other turtles sculpted during the same period by the same culture.
I’ll get some specifics together over the weekend and lay ‘em on ya.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 am
Nope. Forget the questions, look at the evidence. And keep in mind simple explanations first.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:19 am
Nerd of DeadHead said:
“That is all you are doing. And you know that. Questions per se aren’t important. The answers and evidence to back up those answers are important. Which is why you were never in this discussion. Your questions have been answered years ago, but you don’t like the answers, so you repeat those questions ad nauseum, but the evidence based answers won’t change.”
So, Nerd, what are your credentials and what have you been doing for the last 40 years as a scientist… or is that you simply pretending in order to fit in with your cronies?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 am
Vaiyt said:
“My, you’re a smarmy tool, aren’t you? I can almost picture you tut-tutting to your computer screen.”
I didn’t start out that way when I first came here.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:22 am
scottyroberts,
I take it you mean this question:
It’s not an invalid type of question, but it’s not a specific question at all. What artifact? What is its provenance? What sort of mismatch? How extensive are the relics of this culture? Who says it is a mismatch, and are they experts on that culture? What other possible explanations are there (including, of course, mere idiosyncrasy on the part of the maker(s) of the artifact), and how have they been excluded?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:23 am
Which is probably irrelevant if one considers trading occurring with other tribes/cultures, even those a long ways away. Copper from the Keweenaw has been found in artifacts made in Mexico. The copper made it to Mexico via trade or alien astronauts? Simple explanation first. Only after that has been rigorously excluded can more exotic explanations come into play. That is called parsimony.
anteprepro:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:23 am
Yeah. That’s how science works. That’s how debate works. The stuff that can’t be torn to shreds is the stuff that deserves to stay. The stuff that can easily ripped apart is either incapable of being trusted or needs to be restructured and presented again when it is a little more solid. Going from “weird humanoids and weird vehicles” depicted in artifacts, and “magical stuff that sounds like futuristic technology” described in ancient script, to “Techologically advanced aliens have visited us in our history and had a large role in human biological and social development” is one of the things that deserves to be torn to be shreds. It is not logical. There is not a sufficient basis in evidence. It is pretty much indistinguishable from believers who say “well, a lot of cultures have beliefs about supernatural entities, ergo Christian God is real”.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 am
Ogvorbis said:
“So you agree that in order to make an extraordinary claim, one must have evidence. This is good. If one claims that ancient aliens visited the earth and helped build Stonehenge, this is an extraordinary claim. So when you make the claim that there are things in the archaeological record that raise the question of ancient aliens, you actually need some evidence to back up that claim (and yes, despite your repeated denials, you have made that claim. repeatedly.). So where is the evidence to support your claim?”
Ogvorbis, I am not sure how this keeps getting lost in the mix, but I have never made these claims. I am being taken to task for finding intriguing questions with those who HAVE.
I do not make any claim that aliens helped build Stonehenge – or the pyramids or Punta Punku or any other edifice or monolithic structure.
vaiyt:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 am
Therein lies the big trick of Ancient Alienists.
When you have a question like that about your data, what do you, as a scientist, do?
1) You make a hypothesis, which contains an opinion on what may have caused that artifact, and what’s also true if you’re right.
2) Then you go back to the data and test the limits of your hypothesis.
3)If your predictions confirm themselves and there isn’t a less complicated explanation, you’re on to something.
4)From there, you start thinking of the ramifications.
See 2)? There’s the AA rabbit in the top hat. They get up to 1), that is, they see something and make an hypothesis about aliens making it. Then they jump straight to 4). They’re trying to figure out how many angels can dance on a pin before they even find out if angels exist.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
I didn’t start out that way when I first came here. – scottyroberts
Oh yes you did, you shameless liar. This is from your second comment:
Not only shameless, but extremely stupid: do you really think people can’t go back to the start of the thread and look at what you said?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
What are your credentials to question how science is done? Put up yours, or shut the fuck up about mine.
anteprepro:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
A culture with multiple artistic styles and sculpting methods, where alternative methods were less popular and thus less represented in surviving artifacts? IMPOSSIBLE IT WAS ALIENS.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:28 am
And implicit in that is the claim you agree with the conclusions.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:28 am
No, that is the way science (and history, for that matter) work. When a palaeontologist interprets a new fossil and declares that it is a new genus and species, other palaeontologists with the same specialty will take a look at the evidence and will either agree with the description or disagree. Disagreeing, in the scientific context, can look an awful lot like tearing it to shreds.
You have made the claim that there is enough out there to warrant spending scarce time and money investigating the question of ancient aliens. And any evidence you offered most likely will be torn to shreds as, unless you have something never before presented in print, it has already been torn to shreds by scientists who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.
Just because Erich von Däniken does not understand how primitive peoples could possibly have done ‘X’ does not mean that there are not archaeologists out there who not only think they know how the primitive peoples did ‘X’, they have presented evidence showing how it was done and have published both the evidence for how they did it and some ideas as to why they did it. Just because Erich von Däniken does not understand the Mayan or Aztec written language does not mean that the odd-shaped gods and kings and soldiers are wearing space helmets and it does not mean that the flowing lines and flowers are rocket exhausts. And just because Erich von Däniken does not understand the cultural and religious significance of blood sacrifice among the Aztec does not mean that the images of hearts being ripped out of chests are heart transplants. The entire ancient aliens hypotheosis is based on a pedestal of argument from ignorance with a leavening of racism and myopic cultural superiority. And we know this because science actually works. And when science is working, an unsupported hypotheosis will get torn to shreds. With relish.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:32 am
Bullshit. You are making the claim that the people advancing this shit have a point and that the scientific community should spend time and money investigating ancient aliens. You cannot weasel out of this one. You have been supporting the claim from the moment you showed up on this thread.
Though it could be a fake such as some of the surgery carvings.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:36 am
Notice lurkers, how Scotty keeps changing the subject, in order to avoid presenting any evidence, except for an irrelevant artifact discussion. No evidence that science hasn’t considered his ideas. Just that he doesn’t like the answers that science has. Typical tactic of creobots and woomeisters, anything to avoid having to commit themselves.
anteprepro:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 am
You’ve not only found this transparent bullshit intriguing, but also entertained at as a possibility. Even if you don’t specifically subscribe to it, you give it far more credibility than it deserves.
That too. Didn’t mean to give the impression that my non-alien explanation was an actual explanation. Just a more mundane explanation than leaping to the conclusion that there is a strange style of artifact, ergo alien influence.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:47 am
Has Scotty ever answered this repeatedly asked question? Evading answering such simple questions do bring his whole truthfulness into question…
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:52 am
I was not trying to call you out or play gotcha. I was merely pointing out that some of the evidence used in Chariots of the Gods turned out to be faked. I think the rest was arguing from ignorance and arguing from racism.
Nope. He has ignored the subject ever since he brought it up. He has refused to respond to any of the comments asking him to elucidate.
Into question? I think we are far beyond that.
anteprepro:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:24 am
The thing I love about Ancient Alien-ers is their complete inability to think that myths might just be myths. That fiction might be fictional. That humans are imaginative creatures with fallacious minds who make shit up for fun and profit. They reject the possibility, and do so by turning old myths into new myths. They just change the genre from fantasy into sci-fi.
No worries, I didn’t take it as that.
Amphiox:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:35 am
Political game?
No. That’s how real science works.
When a scientist presents a new finding, on anything, the first thing all other scientists who learn about it do is try to tear it to shreds. They will do this first privately on their own. Those who try and believe they have failed may come out publicly in support of the new finding. Those who try and think they have succeeded will come out publicly against the new finding. Scientists on both sides of the debate will then proceed to gather more evidence and conduct more experiments, until a consensus, which the majority find that they cannot tear apart, is reached.
Those who stoop to calling the process of real science a “political game” are those who have a dishonest agenda and do not like having the verdict of reality interfering with that.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 12:01 pm
If a scientist is asked what evidence makes general relativity a theory that should to be taken seriously they could point to the the perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational redshift, and the Hulse-Taylor binary system.
If a scientist is asked what evidence makes quantum mechanics a theory that should to be taken seriously they could point to the photoelectric effect, emission spectrum of hydrogen and black-body radiation.
If a scientist is asked what evidence makes Darwinian evolution a theory that should to be taken seriously they could point to various fossils, DNA sequencing, comparative anatomy and geographical distribution of organisms.
All these theories make fantastical claims: energy/mass bends spacetime, light/electrons display both wave and particle properties, and life evolves by natural selection. Why scientists take them seriously is because of EVIDENCE. Multiple lines means a theory should be taken even more seriously.
Now, scotty, imagine the following scenario:
A person organizes a ‘Metaphysical Seminar’ discussing the ‘theory’ that the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t brought on by African Americans organizing a campaign of civil disobedience, but was orchestrated by leprechauns riding unicorns. The person shows up here and whines about mainstream historians and the rude tone of the commenters. When pressed for any evidence for unicorn-riding leprechauns being responsible for the social movement none is presented, despite many requests. Should such a person be taken seriously?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Why does this point you to Ancient aliens instead of some more rational options?
Unicorns instead of horses or even zebras.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:37 pm
I’ll believe it when I see it. But of course this should have come before your diatribes about how closed-minded scientists are.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Please include the author, the author’s qualifications as they relate to the question at hand, the title, and the year. Makes it much easier to see if you actually have anything useful or if you are wooshitting us.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:00 pm
If you are interested, Open Minds out of Arizona highlighted the Paradigm Symposium in their recent show. The segment on the Paradigm Symposium starts at 12:30 into the video.
http://youtu.be/qRUqCrIN5YI
Enjoy…
Scotty
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Ogvorbis said:
“Please include the author, the author’s qualifications as they relate to the question at hand, the title, and the year. Makes it much easier to see if you actually have anything useful or if you are wooshitting us.”
Oh yeah, better watch out for woos hitting, deceitful ways. Hahaha.
So, are you sure you covered everything in your list for me? Should I get their favorite color…? Shoe or bra size…?
I do have just a little professional savvy.
Nick Gotts said:
I’ll believe it when I see it. But of course this should have come before your diatribes about how closed-minded scientists are.”
Nick, as I said earlier, I didn’t come in here to present a dissertation. It’s a fuckin’ chatroom, dude.
And don’t talk to me about diatribes. Please. If you guys can talk without mutual respect and common politeness, I can be verbose.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
Sez: “Why does this point you to Ancient aliens instead of some more rational options? Unicorns instead of horses or even zebras.”
Doc,
I didn’t say that I thought it was evidence of an extraterrestrial contact. But I would ask you, why is that such an implausible notion?
Rutee Katreya:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Nick, as I said earlier, I didn’t come in here to present a dissertation. It’s a fuckin’ chatroom, dude.
But you were entirely prepared to call us all ‘closed minded’ and whine about how Ancient Aliens aren’t taken seriously enough without actually giving reasons why such fool racism and rank jackassery should be taken seriously.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Nope, none whatsoever. Which is why we have to remind you of how science is done.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Why would be be a plausible notion, except for delusional thinking? The evidence doesn’t fit your idea. No evidence fits your idea. Which makes your idea fuckwittery.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Open minds, meaning woo, woo, woo is accepted unskeptically. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of your scientific prowess. Which doesn’t exist.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Nerd of RedHead,
So, what is it you bring to the scientific community? You claimed to have been a scientist for 40 years… what is your area of specialty and what do you do in that field?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
But why is it? You haven’t come back with anything yet so I’ll wait but I’m interested to know what is pointing you in that direction?
What about looking for Morlocks instead? Morlocks could have carved those artifacts.
There has to be something leading you in the direction of Ancient Aliens to feel the need to look there instead of pursuing more rational and likely paths, right?
Or is there something you are going to show my that says “Ok these are not typical to the location and time frame but this [insert datapoint] points me to possibly being made by extraterrestrials. And I know this because we have evidence of it at [insert other archaeological site or artifact].
Just coming up with some idea that it might be aliens without anything pointing that way is fanciful thinking.
Unless you can show me something that answers that.
If you can, I’m sitting here ready to consider it.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Scotty, I’ll ask my question again:
A person organizes a ‘Metaphysical Seminar’ discussing the ‘theory’ that the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t brought on by African Americans organizing a campaign of civil disobedience, but was orchestrated by leprechauns riding unicorns. The person shows up here and whines about mainstream historians and the rude tone of the commenters. When pressed for any evidence for unicorn-riding leprechauns being responsible for the social movement none is presented, despite many requests. Should such a person be taken seriously?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Nerd of DIckHead,
“Why would be be a plausible notion, except for delusional thinking? The evidence doesn’t fit your idea. No evidence fits your idea. Which makes your idea fuckwittery.”
What makes it delusional?
You keep asking me questions and hurling insults, but you’ve never answered mine… why should i take you credibly? What are YOUR credentials? How do I know you are lying about having spent 40 years in the field of science, as you claimed? You’re just another anonymous guy on the internet.
What experience do you bring to the table (for the 12th time)?
Rutee Katreya:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:46 pm
That it lacks evidence, for a start. For another that it’s grossly counterindicated at most construction sites.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:46 pm
you answer first, as it is irrelevant to my teaching you how science operates. We know your specialty. Woo, woo, woo, with the mind falling out of your head.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
What scientific experience to you bring to the table woomeister?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:48 pm
No.
You haven’t shown it so far. I mean, for fuck’s sake, dude, I’m a fucking historian and I have a clue about evidence in the scientific field.
No. It is a comment thread under a post on PZ Myers’ blog.
Because everything you have mentioned, and everything that your heroes have mentioned, can either be explained without invoking magic aliens or has been shown to be a fraud.
You keep doing this. Again and again. You claim that we should take whatever you believe as truth with no evidence and then act all hurt that we ask the same of you. You keep asking Nerd whether xe has the qualifications to be a scientist but you have said absolutely zero about your bonafides. Why should we give you anything when you have refused to show anything?
Er, you think ancient aliens, with absolutely no evidence, is a valid hypotheosis.
Again, demanding of others what you refuse to do. This is getting tedious.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:48 pm
LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE IMAGINARY DEITIES, LEPRECHAUNS, PIXIES, AND UNICORNS.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
I misread this topic upon getting on line as the Paragon Symposium.
Now I’m imagining next year’s Paragon Symposium: Red, Blue or Green? round table talk
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:05 pm
I like posies. They’re pretty. Not sure about a symposy, but I’m always game.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Lurkers, what Scotty is trying to do with its repeated attempts to find out my credentials (Scotty, try reading the Pharyngula history, you will find enough) is to get me used to 1) obeying it, and 2) taking it for an authority. All woomeisters, creobots, and godbots use this tactic. Which is why I’m not playing his game. He will answer us first, making it a real discussion.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:13 pm
I’d go 7 to 2 against.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:14 pm
firstapproximation said,
“Scotty, I’ll ask my question again:
A person organizes a ‘Metaphysical Seminar’ discussing the ‘theory’ that the Civil Rights Movement wasn’t brought on by African Americans organizing a campaign of civil disobedience, but was orchestrated by leprechauns riding unicorns. The person shows up here and whines about mainstream historians and the rude tone of the commenters. When pressed for any evidence for unicorn-riding leprechauns being responsible for the social movement none is presented, despite many requests. Should such a person be taken seriously?”
Sorry, I didn’t see your question – at least I don’t recognize your moniker.
My answer: Absolutely not.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:15 pm
You keep saying this, but it’s not true: it’s a comment thread on a blog. Specifically, a blog where everyone is expected to support their claims about the world with evidence, bullshit is called out as bullshit, and liars are called liars. Lying, and spouting bullshit without evidence, are regarded as rude here, while no-one gives a shit whether you swear or throw insults, as long as you steer clear of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or fat-shaming terminology.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
“LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE IMAGINARY DEITIES, LEPRECHAUNS, PIXIES, AND UNICORNS.”
What about faeries? Did you omit them because you privately believe they exist?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Indeed; and the parallel with your silly little meeting is exact.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Admittedly an incomplete list, but you seem to understand the point. No conclusive evidence, your idea gets no consideration.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Nick Gotts,
“…as long as you steer clear of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist or fat-shaming terminology.”
I am glad to see you have set some standards.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Why do you take no notice of the other standards listed in the same comment?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Hell, Nerd, at this point even inconclusive evidence would be an improvement.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Now you mention it, I think Nerd would do well to drop the “conclusive” from his standard demand from theists and wooists.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Then you should understand why we don’t take you seriously.
vaiyt:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:31 pm
@62:
*peeks in*
Any positive evidence of aliens yet?
No?
Call me when there is.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:32 pm
We’ll miss you
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Funny.
This is pretty much how the original undead thread (Now the lounge) got started.
Call it the primordial ooze.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Well, in fairness. The two in that thread were actually presenting bullshit “evidence”. Something they could be nailed down on.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Scotty Roberts asks wrt extraterrestrials:
“But I would ask you, why is that such an implausible notion?”
Where to start. Let’s say we start with space. Have you noticed is big? And empty? And really, really inhospitable.
To get to a planet capable of supporting life, you would have to travel hundreds if not thousands of light years. The emptiness of space means that you would have to bring with you everything you and your progeny (because you certainly won’t get there in one generation) would need–food, water, fuel, etc. Your journey will take hundreds of years… except you won’t survive it. Galactic cosmic rays will have killed you within a few years, obliterating your DNA.
What’s that? You want to shield yourself from the cosmic rays. A layer of Aluminum 13 cm thick will bring down fluxes by a factor of 2, and it’s diminishing returns from there. The highest energy cosmic rays have energies approaching a 100-mph fastball. And the more weight you carry for shielding, the slower you go, and the longer you will be exposed to the flux of radiation.
Warp drive? Sorry. A fantasy. You can only go faster than the speed of light if you have an imaginary rest mass, according to the Theory of Relativity, one of the most thoroughly validated theories we have. There is less than zero evidence that anything in our Universe can travel faster than light.
In short, such ideas are best left to bad science fiction.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Point.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:50 pm
So you are saying they have evolved? or, rather, the tactics hae evolved?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Ogvorbis,
You are grossly misstating what I have said. You are also attributing to me things I have not claimed nor maintained.
My question is why do YOU keep doing that?
And as for asking for credentials, That was directed to Nerd of RedHead. Others here have graciously informed me of their credentials… and I only asked just so I had an idea of who was behind the curtain.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Not just the complete lack of convincing evidence, as others have noted, but the fact that if there had been such contact (rather than, for example, just observation from orbit) we would expect there to be copious evidence. The claim is often made that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, but that claim is not in general true: if we have good reason to expect that presence would have produced certain types of evidence, then its absence is indeed evidence of absence. In the current case, the claims of “paleo-contact” invariably involve considerable interaction between humans and aliens, who teach them skills andor construct monuments for them, and must therefore have been around for some time: we would therefore expect to see abundant and undeniable evidence of what would necessarily be their highly advanced technology – far in advance of our own – in the form of everyday items that were lost or broken. It should be found routinely in archaeological digs, and for that matter just turn up when fields are ploughed or the foundations of buildings are laid, just as the pottery sherds and coins of ancient cultures do. Of course you can invent scenarios where the aliens took all the clear evidence away, or ensured that it was all biodegradable, but since ex hypothesi they were quite willing to interfere in human history and show off their technical prowess to the natives, why would they bother? You have to assume not just paleo-contact, but paleo-contact followed by a cessation of contact (again, why?) and a thorough, highly successful and completely unexplained effort to remove the evidence of such contact.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Nick Gotts,
Why do you take no notice of the other standards listed in the same comment?
I did.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:02 pm
scotty:
So, are you now claiming that “you think ancient aliens, with absolutely no evidence, is a valid hypotheosis” is not an accurate assessment of your position? If so, what the fuck has all this been about? You have claimed things, and then disclaimed them, so many times we have no idea what you are even arguing.
What are your credentials? How much do you know of archaeology or (since you brought it up (unless you are going to deny this also)) palaeoanthropology? Do you really have the tools and the knowledge to claim that the orthodoxy of modern archaeology is wrong?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Why do you keep acting like a jerk and ignoring the one thing that will get you respect. Real evidence, not just OPINION. Your evidenceless OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:05 pm
That was me who asked that question.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Why did you ignore the other standards that are listed?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Damn tenses. Hates them, I do.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Why did you ignore the other standards that were listed?
chigau (棒や石):
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:07 pm
hypothesis
theory
fallacy
peer review
chatroom
.
What do the above terms have in common?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:10 pm
scottyroberts:
That was hardly meant to be a comprehensive list of all the imaginary creatures humanity has created. Thus far, there is no evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life-so any claims of “look at this idea for ancient aliens” is insufficient to justify wasting limited resources exploring it.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
chigau @84:
Rebecca Watson?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Ogvorbis,
“evidence, is a valid hypotheosis” is not an accurate assessment of your position? If so, what the fuck has all this been about? You have claimed things, and then disclaimed them, so many times we have no idea what you are even arguing.
I never claimed I adhered to the ancient alienism. I said I was intrigued by it. You may have missed that because you weren’t in on the earlier posts, but i must’ve said it at least half a dozen times.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Which is an implicit claim of believing it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be intrigued by it. Logic 101, you fail it.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:23 pm
@nerd
Ugh no. I am actually interested incryptoid and saucer bullshit. Your logic is wrong
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Okay, what do you mean?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Maybe this will help move this along to more conversation or end of subject….
We all know there is no evidence that proves non-human entities visited us from other places in the universe in our primordial past. None whatsoever. Zip. Nada.
Due to that fact, I have never, EVER claimed that ancient alienis visited humanity in its primordial past. Never.
I have said that I have been intrigued by some of the questions raised about archaeological finds and historical accounts. But NEVER have I said that the only valid substitute argument would then be “ancient aliens.”
I have only ever said that ancient alienists have asked some of these questions, and I would take a couple of days and compile some of those so I can present them in a cogent fashion.
* * *
As for MY Background, since I have been asked a couple of times, now…
I went to a small bible college and then on to theological seminary with work toward my Masters with a focus on history. Never completed my degree. That was back in 1983. I had huge questions issues with church politics and methodology – not to mention theology and doctrine – and you could consider me fairly agnostic for the last 15 years or so.
I spent the next 25 years as an art director and creative director in advertising in Detroit and the Twin Cities. I am currently a illustrator and designer. You can see my work at my personal website:
http://www.scottalanroberts.com
For New Page Books, I have written:
1) The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim – an exploration into Hebrew creation and flood mythologies as it corresponds to other ancient cultures and religions. (HINT: The Nephilim weren’t aliens)
2) I contributed to an anthology entitled, Lost Civilizations and Secrets of the Past, in which I wrote about ancient city builders of the Mesopotamian city of Uruk (CLUE: it wasn’t aliens)
3) To be released Feb. 2013 – The Secret History of the Reptilians: The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent Throughout Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos – an exploration of religion building and comparative cultural mythologies surrounding the serpent figure. (SPOILER: there aren’t any Reptilians from outer space)
With Morgan James Publishing – Author and Illustrator of The Rollicking dventures of Tam O’Hare (2007) Anthropomorphized story set in Ireland, Scotland and England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots. (INSIDE SCOOP: “Racoons. Never could handle a blade”) http://www.tamohare.com
I am the former editor-in-chief of SyFy’s Ghost Hunters official publication, TAPS ParaMagazine. Suffice it to say I left that outfit for very good reasons.
I currently publish Intrepid Magazine, a journal eclectically focused on politics, science, unexplained phenomena, ufology and weird theories. http://www.intrepidmag.com
I am the father of five kids and I love my life.
That’s it.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:54 pm
scottyroberts:
You also wrote that “I said that the AA’s notions/theories are primarily rejected by the scientific community, offhand, without consideration.”
If you consider they merit scientific investigation, in what sense do you not consider them plausible?
–
PS You also wrote “I have no problem with that, at all, John.” in response to my retort “Then you should have no need to take hours to cut and paste but two of these specific questions and the alleged excellent points that address them in the document to which you have linked, since both are available electronically” after you made this claim: “Since you are all asking me for things that would take hours to answer in a forum like this, take a look at this response by Philip Coppens to the “Ancient Aliens Debunked” documentary.”
(Perhaps you could redeem some personal credibility by actually substantiating one of your explicit, specific personal claims, especially after you’ve stated you have no problem with so doing and admit it would not be an onerous effort)
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 5:59 pm
@nerd
The 0phenomina both of the urban legends and the way they change and develop in historical context is interesting to me
Nepenthe:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Isn’t there some sort of rule where any poster making more than a fifth of the posts in a thread is told to go sit in the corner until they can behave?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:05 pm
And now scottyroberts is cutting out a portion of my quote and arguing against that. Fucking liar and bullshitter.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:07 pm
PZ has not been around much the past few days. The last version of the lounge when over the 1000 comment mark.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:12 pm
What you’re intrigued by is purely subjective, and no-one can gainsay you. However you have also repeatedly made it clear that you think scientists should research the ancient alienists’ claims, that the failure to do so means that science is a religion, that the ancient alienists have done worthwhile research, that there should be bridges between academics and “alternative researchers”. Those are the claims you are making, and have completely failed to supply any evidence for whatsoever.
Here are some extracts from one comment from you, about your silly little meeting:
So you claim von Daniken, the fraud “Dr” John Ward, and all the other crackpots at your meeting, all had “worthwhile and original research”. What you have not done is provide any evidence of that whatsoever.
So you claim Einstein was “in the midst of validating” some of Velikovsky’s “theories” (which of course are not theories). This claim is simply a lie. You also claim Velikovsky was considered the “Scientist who shall not be named”. That’s also a lie: Velikovsky was not a scientist in any sense of the word, and was never considered to be such by scientists.
So you claim Velikovsky was not a complete crackpot. He was.
I did, and I urge others to do so: con artists andor crackpots all.
So, you have made numerous claims, many of them obviously false, and for none of those which I list here have you provided any evidence.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Whoops… I didn’t realize that happened Ogvobis. It look as if the first line was omitted when I copied and pasted and I didn’t realize it.
A copy and paste human error doesn’t make me a liar of any sort. Especially when all people have to do is scroll back a few posts to see what I inadvertently cut.
You seriously can’t be that sensitive about it, as everyone here grabs bits and pieces of other people’s quotes to make comment.
So, accpet this as my formal apology for inadvertently cutting and pasting only the bulk of what you said, omitting accidentally, the first several words.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Scotty learned well from his bible college and fox news
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:40 pm
True, we all do. However, to mangle a quote, make it look as though I am a blithering idiot, and claim that I am not reading what you have written based on the mangled quote is not honest.
You have, repeatedly, claimed that the bizarre ideas of these frauds and hucksters are worth investigation by ‘real’ scientists. Which, to most people (including me, but I, as you have pointed out, have trouble reading anything you have written), implies that you support this theory or why else would you be insisting that others spend time and money investigating something for which there is no evidence?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:52 pm
scottyroberts:
Yes, you have.
Each time, it’s been pointed out to you that without sufficient evidence to support the existence of aliens, intrigue is not enough to justify asking scientists to explore ancient aliens.
So you think this is interesting. Great.
So some Woo Woo writers think this is interesting. Great.
Where is the evidence?
When I was younger Time Life’s “Mysteries of the Unknown” “encyclopedia” series was captivating to me. I loved notions like crop circles by way of aliens or psychokensis. As I got older, I learned there was insufficient evidence to justify mind over matter, aliens playing tricks on farmers or pretty much anything else that series speculated about.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Books About UFOs
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Ogbovis said (in full):
“True, we all do. However, to mangle a quote, make it look as though I am a blithering idiot, and claim that I am not reading what you have written based on the mangled quote is not honest.
You have, repeatedly, claimed that the bizarre ideas of these frauds and hucksters are worth investigation by ‘real’ scientists. Which, to most people (including me, but I, as you have pointed out, have trouble reading anything you have written), implies that you support this theory or why else would you be insisting that others spend time and money investigating something for which there is no evidence?”
It would be dishonest were it intentional. Don’t be a jackass about what is tantamount to a typo, man.
If it is that difficult a thing for the scientific community to engage in, then I think these folks will probably continue to do what they are doing, and that is to do it for themselves.
“Frauds and hucksters” are pretty strong descriptors for people who are probably just “true believers” in what they purport. I think they would all like to see some cooperation with the scientific community to either validate or nullify their claims.
If there are those within the scientific community who would rather just call them hucksters than work in that capacity, I can certainly understand your point. But I have always seen cooperation as better thing than drawing dividing lines – even if the outcome is not favorable for either one or the other party.
Deductions based on implications are not facts. You are so strong on pointing out facts with hardcore evidence, simply apply that here, too.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Ing said:
“Scotty learned well from his bible college and fox news”
What would that be, Ing…?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:08 pm
scottyroberts:
Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish? Please be specific.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:08 pm
No they don’t. There is ample response and their response to evidence is always to come up with a reason to ignore it. At some level this is a common human reaction but science is meant to address this cognitive bias…this is what separates science from pseudoscience and it is not a fault of science to no longer waste time on bullshit regardless of how sincerely believed.
Psionics was a valid hypothesis in the early 20th century, it is no longer. It is stupid and wasteful to continue to recheck and recheck and recheck things based on hypotheses that were already debunked. Fruit from the poison tree.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
You intentionally are vague and leave wiggle room, never fully committing to anything so you can justify back tracking and scolding people for misreading you. Honest people state their case and make it, you do not. You argue and constantly shift your case based on how the tide is turning. You try to avoid ‘losing’ so much you don’t say anything. Your style of dialogue is intentionally and painfully protean, which is why people are frustrated with talking to you. It took hundreds of frelling comments to get you to actually START.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Engage in what? Saying AA is drivel, not a problem for the scientific community, and call you a woomeister and huckster for trying to promote the idea? Icing on the cake. The difficulty is one you have. You have no evidence. That makes your case and desire that science do something as irrelevant. What new real discoveries that can only be explained by AA has been found since the original dismissal of the failed idea by science? There is your problem, and you must bring that evidence to attention of science via the proper means. Which is publishing in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Short of that, science can and will ignore your insipid efforts to gets its attention. So, cite those papers, or shut the fuck up.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Ogvorbis said:
“Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish? Please be specific.”
I originally came to to respond to PZ’s original question about the Paradigm Symposium. That was it.
What you see in the last several hundred posts ensued almost immediately. I was hailed a shitbag and a liar before I even got started. And that was on the basis of who I had speaking at my symposium, not over anything I claimed.
And that’s why it’s taken so long to get here.
I have stated over and over again what I do and do not claim. I have hedged my words in order to play close or far away from anything. I have not altered my stance on anything. Most of what my posts have been is answering people’s statement made on their pure speculation of what they think I am as opposed to what I said I am.
At first, I was simply going to see how long it took for people to realize that they were making assertions based on no evidence or knowledge. Scientists do it too.
Now, I am wholly willing to provide what I believe to be substance to answer your questions, but as I have said – it’s gonna be a couple days before I even get to it.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Clarification on my typo… I have NOT hedged my words….
PZ Myers:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Scottyroberts is still dragging this out?
Jeez. It’s not about typos, or reading out of context, or making an error of interpretation. I read your damn book — it’s bugfucking nuts.
Better be careful. I won’t argue with you, because I’ve got a more potent weapon: I’ll just quote you some more.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:26 pm
People have frelling cited what you said dumbass. Like I said, Fox News bullshit.
Jessa:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:29 pm
I bet that scottyroberts’s kids love that their father is so open-minded.
“What did you say, Dad? The lamp in the living room is lying in pieces on the floor? Well, sure, one of us could have broken it. But maybe an invisible bear came in, knocked over the lamp, and left. Don’t you find that explanation intriguing? You really should keep your mind open to the possible existence of lamp-knocking-over invisible bears before you go punishing us.”
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:52 pm
UH whoops.
Seems you’ve been putting up a bit of a charade here Scotty.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Since Scott seems so reluctant to state what he does believe I’ll follow PZ’s lead and quote him:
The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM: The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins, Chapter 6
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:58 pm
So, scotty, my statement earlier that “Er, you think ancient aliens, with absolutely no evidence, is a valid hypotheosis”, which you claim completely misrepresents your position? And you have an entire book that you wrote about alien watchers?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Bizarre Love Triangle
Every time I see you falling
I get down on my knees and pray
I’m waiting for that final moment
You’ll say the words that I can’t say
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Well DUH, that was obvious from its first inane post. The bullshit was there for everybody to see.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
That would be fun.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:07 pm
I don’t know what’s taking Scott so long to gather evidence since he has an entire chapter about aliens visiting acient peoples in his own fucking book:
The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM: The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins, Chapter 6
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:11 pm
with their small mouths, big heads and large exaggerated eyes complimenting shrunken or non-existant noses many ancient alien theorists question whether the anime school girl could be a depiction of the aliens known to modern times as grays.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Nerd, not every issues is a nail.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:16 pm
re: Noah’s flood
The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM: The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins, Chapter 5
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Ing, I think this was the first gray that I can recall seeing.
Not a school girl.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:23 pm
@Janine
How do you know it’s not a school girl. Have an open mind
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:28 pm
I watched that show over forty years ago. Prince Planet was not a school girl.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:31 pm
@Janine
Prince PLanet is just your religion
SC (Salty Current), OM:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Whatever destiny was theirs, they fulfilled it. Their time had come, and in their passing, they passed their light on to another world. A balance was struck, and perhaps one day, humanity will light the way for another world.
Amphiox:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:34 pm
But undoubted very grey!
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:42 pm
An other gray from the same time period.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Ogborvis,
“So, scotty, my statement earlier that “Er, you think ancient aliens, with absolutely no evidence, is a valid hypotheosis”, which you claim completely misrepresents your position? And you have an entire book that you wrote about alien watchers?”
The book isn’t about “alien” watchers. It’s about the Watchers/Sons of God (Genesis 6) as seen through Hebrew mythology.
PZ,
I did state in that book that I had not yet thrown out the baby with the bathwater when it came to my faith struggles. And there’s a lot more in that book than that single passage you quoted regarding what I had to say about my personal faith.
My follow-up to the Nephilim, deals with this issue even harder than the first book.
I have never stated I am a non-believer in God, but I certainly have morphed since my seminary days.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Space Pope
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:01 pm
firstapproximation,
In a couple of paragraphs have you completely laid out the entire intention of the book?
It’s interesting because of the reviews on Amazon, I had these two stand out:
1) One guy took me to task for promoting the Ancient Alien theory and completely disregarding God and trashing the bible.
2) The next guy said I completely trashed the Ancient Alien theory and preached Jesus Christ.
I made a statement that I was presenting two sides, albeit from a man who had undergone some deep changes of faith, and was still struggling with it. That was written nearly a year-and0-a-half ago.
I haven’t remained stagnant in that time.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:05 pm
scottyroberts, I suppose we could consider you equally as fairly agnostic about God as about extra-dimensional Watchers, fallen angels and ancient aliens.
<snicker>
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:06 pm
*Snicker* the self-deception is still there.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Jessa said,
“I bet that scottyroberts’s kids love that their father is so open-minded.
“What did you say, Dad? The lamp in the living room is lying in pieces on the floor? Well, sure, one of us could have broken it. But maybe an invisible bear came in, knocked over the lamp, and left. Don’t you find that explanation intriguing? You really should keep your mind open to the possible existence of lamp-knocking-over invisible bears before you go punishing us.””
Jessa, having a lamp knocked over and deciphering ancient cultural mythologies inclusive of translation of cuneiform, Hebrew and Aramaic are not quite apples to apples.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:07 pm
scottyroberts:
The ineluctable implication is that, at that time, you were stagnant.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
I could come right out and say I’ve become a practical atheist, but that would not be true. I would say that over the last two years of research into ancient cultures, my struggle with my former faith has been a tough one. And it isn’t simply two years… it has been a culmination of nearly two decades of of thinking.
I stated somewhere in these posts that I consider myself an agnostic. I’ll stick by that, despite what I wrote a year-and-a-half ago while still sifting through it.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:11 pm
John Morales said:
“The ineluctable implication is that, at that time, you were stagnant.”
That is probably not far from the heart of it, John.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:15 pm
John Morales said:
scottyroberts, I suppose we could consider you equally as fairly agnostic about God as about extra-dimensional Watchers, fallen angels and ancient aliens. *snicker*”
I think that’s a fair statement, John.
For me, The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim was me trying to figure out what the story was all about. That’s why I stated the ancient alien as well as other points-of-view.
I came right out and said in the book, “I do not adhere to the ancient alien theory, but I am going to present there version of these events.” Well, that isn’t a direct quote, but I am sure it will be easy to find.
Nepenthe:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Was this the result of alien biological experimentation?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Nepenthe said:
“Was this the result of alien biological experimentation?”
No. It was the product of thinking.
Nepenthe:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Just checking.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Scotty, your faith in the imaginary deity isn’t what I was talking about…
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:26 pm
The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim: The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins is even CRAZIER than the title suggests! Oh lordy, lordy….
_ _ _
So you either lied then or you lied here:
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:41 pm
firstapproximation quotes thus:
I have a problem with that speculation — why didn’t they become bonobos?
(A clear manifestation of anthropocentrism)
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:25 pm
firstapproximation,
Had it occurred to you that I am writing within the context of that story?
Such as this example…
“Oannes was not merely a figment of the imagination, he was the half-man, half-fiash god in the flesh, rising out of the Persian Gulf every night. And it wasn’t to eat the flesh off the young children, it was, in fact, to teach them about civilization.”
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:31 pm
At some point someone should bring up the first rule of holes.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:33 pm
John Morales said:
firstapproximation quotes thus:
… wanting to be one of them and experience the lustful, sensual, steamy, flesh-on-flesh experience of sexual contact.
I have a problem with that speculation — why didn’t they become bonobos?
(A clear manifestation of anthropocentrism)
Because that would be inconsistent with the mythology. The ancient Hebrew mythologies were exacty that, anthropocentric.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Rev. BigDumbChimp said:
“At some point someone should bring up the first rule of holes.”
Oh, you’re not in THAT deep.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:36 pm
scottyroberts:
Has it occurred to you that the context of that story is ludicrous?
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:42 pm
scottyroberts:
So, you’re basically claiming that you’re but presenting ancient Hebrew mythology.
(Please tell me you don’t consider these claims in your book other than storytelling!)
chigau (棒や石):
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:45 pm
scottyroberts
Which artifacts are so anomalous that Aliens are the only remaining explanation?
[a citation would be nice]
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Oh yeah how could anyone get confused
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Says the Black Knight
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Ah, so you’re a con artist whose material is so embarrassingly bad you can’t even pretend to believe it?
From the fuckin’ book description at Amazon:
How are book sales by the way, L.Ron?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:08 pm
But you were in over your head with your first post…
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:12 pm
WRONG not since Vol 2 of Runaways IIRC
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:19 pm
John Morales said:
“So, you’re basically claiming that you’re but presenting ancient Hebrew mythology.
(Please tell me you don’t consider these claims in your book other than storytelling!).”
John, I state overtly in my books that I view the Genesis stories as simply the Hebrew mythological version of events as they understood them from their own religious point-of-view.
In the new book, I show the parallels between the Hebrew bible and older stories from the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures.
Here is a brief clip from the introduction to the new book, which isn’t at all inconsistent with what I’ve said on this thread…
“I am told that people want to know precisely where you stand on an issue when you present it in a book such as this. What you will find from me is someone who straddles the fence between science and faith, mythology and archaeology, legend and history. They all work together to bring us a clearer understanding of what exists out there. You simply cannot have one without the other, and this is the fallacy at the foundation of discarding one for the other, because, as I have contended time and time again, there are veils which simply cannot be pierced, and eschewing the unquantifiable – while scientifically acceptable – is philosophically irresponsible.”
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:23 pm
This is why you are rightfully called a bullshitter
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Ah, a delusional fuckwitted idjit without any cogency, who can’t accept fiction is fiction. Makes everything you say suspect as bullshit.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Fair enough, you’re a published author engaged in the popularisation of ancient mythology, and you acknowledge that is what it is in those particular books.
–
So, do you further think there’s apparent merit to the contention that at least some of the content of these myths is plausibly based upon actual alien visitations?
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:31 pm
From the Amazon book description:
Can you provide evidence for the statement in bold? You should have some arguments available off the top of your head since you are in the midst of fuckin’ editing the book.
Also, can you mention this blog in your book? We’d love to hear from your fans.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Ing said:
“This is why you are rightfully called a bullshitter.”
Or someone who is presenting differing views and letting people draw their own conclusions. If that’s being a ‘bullshitter,’ well, then I guess I am.
I don’t tel;l anyone to take me solely at my word, I encourage them to go look it up, research it and find the answers for themselves.
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:40 pm
firstapproximation said:
“Can you provide evidence for the statement in bold? You should have some arguments available off the top of your head since you are in the midst of fuckin’ editing the book.”
Nope. Not one shred, but then again, my publisher put that up on Amazon, not me.
They also renamed my first book and added the lengthy subtitle about giants and angels.
John Morales:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:42 pm
[meta]
scottyroberts,
I suspect every published author feels your pain.
(But then, many authors would just love to have a publisher ;) )
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:43 pm
firstapproximation said:
“Also, can you mention this blog in your book? We’d love to hear from your fans.”
No. But you will be welcome to discuss it with any of them over at my blog or on my FaceBook. I did post the link to this thread on my FaceBook page last week. Some people have been following it.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Yeah let’s look at that quote again
Bullshitter
feralboy12:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:56 pm
That’s crap. How does blurring the lines between fantasy and reality do anything other than confuse the issue of “what exists out there?” How does faith, which accepts ideas in the face of contrary evidence, inform science?
You’re jacking off on crap. If that’s your intended contribution, you deserve the beating you got here.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Oh wait I get it. Presenting the sides and letting people decide. It’s just like Fox News!!!!
This guy, is un-be-fuck-a-leivable. It’s like a horse and a bull got together and decided to have a “who can shit more” competition and somehow the resulting pile gained sentience.
firstapproximation:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Yeah, this guy is definitely a bullshitter. He doesn’t care about the truth.
He says here he’s been an agnostic for 15 years yet wrote in his book, written less than 2 years ago, he believes in God, Jesus and the Bible. He says he doesn’t believe in these ancient contact theories but then organizes conferences and write books that take them seriously.
Oh, and then there’s this from The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM,
Yeah, why ever did I did think you believed that shit you wrote?
scottyroberts:
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:59 pm
John Moralessaid:
“I suspect every published author feels your pain.
(But then, many authors would just love to have a publisher ;) )”
Ain’t that the truth, John! When New Page took on Nephilim, I was gratefully giddy. Now they are publishing the follow-up, and they are green-lighting a book I am going to begin working on with Dr. John Ward.
John and I have disparate views about the Exodus and the historical Moses. I place Moses in the 18th dynasty under the reign of that remarkable woman pharaoh, Hatshepsut. I believe that Moses was none other than Senemut, the man who tutored her daughter. I build my theory on the cornerstone date of the dedication of Temple 1 in Jerusalem – an undisputed date, save for 3-6 years in either direction – placing the Exodus event around 1445 BCE.
The biblical story aligns with the historical events of Hatshepsut, Senemut and the succeeding pharaoh, Thutmosis III. And there are, of course, a shitterload of other historical and archaeological facts.
On the other hand John takes a different view that he has worked on for ten years, placing the entire Moses character and event a few generations up the line under the reign of Amenhotep IV (Arsinoe). He aligns the event with certain catastrophes in the coity of Thebes.
It’ll be an interesting and fun excursion. If all goes well, I mean that literally, as i plan on heading to Luxor and Medinat Habu, where John and Maria live, right on the Nile. We will be going on some expeditions to retrace some steps and follow the historical account as it is reconstructed.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Don’t you mean “Dr” John Ward?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:06 am
LOL WRONG in so so so many ways.
Great history fail, asshole.
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:10 am
No. There is no archaeological evidence of a large number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt or a mass exodus across the Sinai Peninsula. Neither is there any evidence to believe there was a historical Moses.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:11 am
I’m curious where SnottyRoberts places Robin Hood, King Aurthur and The Shadow in history?
As an aside after going over the history with Dr Max PoodleSchleeper I have concluded the Scarlet Pimpernel AND Paul Bunyan can be traced to the court of Charlemagne.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:16 am
Hey after fucking around in Egypt maybe you can start digging up DC cemeteries looking for Abe Lincoln’s vampire slaying ax!
John Morales:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:21 am
[meta + OT]
scottyroberts, I’m not an ideologue nor are you particularly pernicious in my estimation, so as one human being to another, I wish you well.
(I shall comment no more on this thread)
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:22 am
So if anyone is wondering what the harm is, humanity is sending two clowns with crackerjack box degrees to fart around in Egypt while actual students have to pretty much piss off and fight for scraps. Just imagine the actual good that might be done by sending one actual scholar and one student to Egypt, (or fuck ANYWHERE) instead of financing the world’s most delusional LARP
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Ing said:
“Hey after fucking around in Egypt maybe you can start digging up DC cemeteries looking for Abe Lincoln’s vampire slaying ax!”
Oh, why go to all that trouble when I can buy it on eBay?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:24 am
go excavate yourself
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:25 am
John Moralessaid:
“scottyroberts, I’m not an ideologue nor are you particularly pernicious in my estimation, so as one human being to another, I wish you well.”
Thank you, John. Cheers.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Ing said:
“go excavate yourself”
Clever, And funny.
I may have to borrow that one…
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 12:30 am
Why not? After all, not like a pretend scholar has to worry about plagiarism.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:36 am
IIRC, the first of the Jewish Messiah with even a hint of real historical evidence is David, and there’s literally nothing but Exodus to imply there was an ‘exodus event’. Contrary to quack belief, the Egyptians kept records, and at no point did thousands of slaves walk away.
Luxor? Fool, you’re not fit to scrape around the Luxor dungeon in Uncharted Waters Online, let alone go to the actual site. Fuck, this idiot is going to break shit.
No, not really.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Rutee,
I have absolutely no hands-on archaeological experience, so I’m not digging in anything.
John Ward has been there living, digging and cataloging for nearly fifteen years. He just was granted permission by the Egyptian government to dig and catalog at Gebel el Silsila last month. So, stop worrying your purdy, little head, as John Ward is qualified, capable and deemed so by the government of Egypt.
As for the slave issue, it is my contention the Hebrews were not slaves at all, but an integrated people.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:51 am
Y’know, Ing, your words might at least have the appearance of being efficacious if they weren’t so dramatically over-laden with attempts at hurling zingers.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Ah yes, the actual reason for the Exodus.
Wait
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:54 am
The most likely historical basis for the Exodus story is that some priest made it up. There’s plenty of historical evidence for priests doing that, and contemporary, too. A priest would, of course, try to make his story plausible by “borrowing” from legends and even history, but that doesn’t make it true, or the other legends true.
Seriously, if two friends, both true believers, are both working on an historical Moses, and can’t even place the bugger within a hundred years of each other, it reeks of bullshit. I’ve had better discussion about Wolverine and his adamantium claws.
The Egyptian records do not record anything at all like the Exodus, or any of the events therein. There are records, however, of army posts all through the Exodus area, all through that time.
Exodus makes no sense, internally, and fits into history not at all. If you start knocking bits off it, you can’t stop until you arrive at some revisionist scribe trying to justify an invasion and a massacre, and to puff up his princeling and his priest.
Really, that’s the most parsimonious explanation, and the most likely. Some dishonest dude with a papyrus and a pot of ink, on a mission from God.
hotshoe:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:57 am
scottyroberts:
Fuck off, you patronizing slimy turdbucket.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:58 am
If you think digging is the only way to damage shit, you’re not really helping my contention. Fool, walking around can damage the site.
You don’t deserve to be in a digital version of the place fighting rock-stupid NPCs, let alone actually go there in person.
Nor are there any records of thousands of citizens, such as they are, leaving. There is no evidence of the Jews having been in Egypt in notable numbers prior to the Diaspora.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:01 am
Menyambal said:
“Really, that’s the most parsimonious explanation, and the most likely. Some dishonest dude with a papyrus and a pot of ink, on a mission from God.”
But also incredibly speculative.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:09 am
Rutee,
Calm yourself. I am not as stupid as you might wish I were.
As for your vehemence, there are qualified others who know more than you (and I only say that because I have no idea who you really are), who think completely contrary to you about these matters.
And, by the way, I never said we would digging anywhere, especially in Luxor. I said he lives in Luxor. Do you guys actually even read these posts prior to launching bombast at them?
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:12 am
Why? At least the slave story has a text that said they were slaves. What does your theory claim-you-pulled-out-of-your-ass have?
And again, there is no evidence of a massive number Hebrews, slaves or otherwise, in Egpyt or a 40 year trip of Hebrews through the Sinai Peninsula. If you’re already willing not to buy part of the story why not just be rational and say the whole thing was made up?
Also, do you still contend that ancient accounts establish “a crossover between inter-dimensional or interplanetary races”?
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:22 am
You keep using words …
What, exactly, is unbelievably “speculative” about thinking a priest made something up? They do that, you know. You seem to be doing that, yourself. Where were you planning on stopping when you begin doubting that Exodus is gospel truth? Or do you not doubt that at all?
If the Hebrews were “an integrated people”—what do YOU mean by that, anyhow—who upped and outed of old Egypt, they would have made up the early portion of Exodus to justify taking over Canaan.
Y’know, Scotty, your words might at least have the appearance of being efficacious if they weren’t so dramatically over-laden with attempts at being scholarly.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:32 am
Hotshoe said:
“Fuck off, you patronizing slimy turdbucket.”
Fuck off yourself, you feckless, self aggrandizing, nudje.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:33 am
Scotty, you said:
Which does NOT say you will be digging. But what it does describe you doing is so incredibly fucking pointless that most people just blipped right over it. Plus, given what I’ve read of you here, you probably will be having a crafty scoop or two, if you get any chance at all. Of course, you may not do the digging yourself, but you will come home with some sort of improper memento, to the detriment of scholarly archeology.
And, as folks say, your attitude is a massive dump on decent research, so you are doing as much harm as if you were running amok with a shovel. Stay the fuck home, shut the fuck up.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 4th, 2012 at 1:08 am
186 scottyroberts
190 hotshoe:
196 scottyroberts
Oh yes, I’m so terribly shocked that a huckster who panders to the ignorant for his daily crust is also a privilege blinded misogynist. Shock I say, SHOCKED!
[scrabbles around for his dropped monocle]
[retires to the fainting couch]
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:35 am
Now, there are some people out there who say Scotty Alan Roberts fucks crocodiles. Let me be clear. I am not one of those people. I am writing a book entitled ‘Scotty Roberts Fucks Crocodiles’ and I am organizing a ‘Scotty Roberts, Crocophile Symposium’, but none of that should be taken to mean I believe the man fucks crocodiles. I am merely intrigued by the idea. There will also be several people at the symposium presenting alternative views. There will be someone who thinks he’s into sheep, another who says ducks, and another who says Roberts enjoys threeways with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. The last is clearly a loon. I do, however, have an open mind.
It was one night in Roberts’ teens. He was walking through a swamp, when he heard something and began to run. The thick, foul air filled his lungs. The only source of light was the pale full moon. Then there, he saw the she-croc. It must have been her big grin that got to him because he instantly ripped off all his clothes and two made mad love*. He has since tried to quit his addiction to crocodile sex several times, but always goes back. There are some who say that half-human half-crocodiles roam through the Everglades. Did this inspire him to write books about humans mating with other creatures? Is he currently attempting to suppress his temptation to crocodile sex by writing a book about Reptilians, or something?
There are people asking these interesting questions. Questions that are not being taken seriously by the authorities. Again, I do not make the claim that Scotty Roberts fucks crocodiles nor do I believe it, but it is interesting.
* Don’t quote this. You have to have the context.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:57 am
You say this,a nd yet, you’re still here, and you’re still spouting stupid bullshit. A smarter person would have left or gone to go get actual evidence.
No. Nobody who knows more than me pays any mind to this stupid shit you’re peddling*. There’s no evidence whatsoever for *any* claim you’ve made, and we all know it. ‘we’ being both ‘Pharyngula’s commenters’ and ‘Historians’.
I didn’t say you’d be digging at all, so that’s great for you
*Technically, I suppose there might be a really brilliant astronomer or something who nonetheless holds to this stupid nonsense, but nobody who knows more about the relevant field thinks this shit.
Nepenthe:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:30 am
@firstapproximation
15 points for the coining and use of crocophile.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:54 am
The above reminds me of something I’ve seen once or twice or a hundred times in this thread from scottyroberts.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:03 am
firstapproximation @115:
Thanks for providing a quote from scottyroberts’ book.
****
Hey, Scotty, can you tell me what exactly *are* the basic
tenantstenets of the bible? How long did it take for you to pick and choose what to adhere to?firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:15 am
I don’t have evidence, but some people say that if Scotty seems frustrated it’s because he’s getting croc blocked.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:16 am
scottyroberts:
I’m amazed anyone can claim to be an agnostic with a straight face.
I *think* you’re applying your agnosticism to the god question, am I correct? You feel we can never know whether god exists or not, so you keep the possibility open.
Do you also have the same position about the Nordic Gods, the Aztec Gods, Superman, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, fairies, elves, trolls, demons, naiads, banshee, vampires, werewolves and Santa Claus? We can’t know for certain that these things don’t exist. Yet we don’t know for certain they do exist. We can never know. Since they can’t be disproven, we may as well keep an open mind about the possibility of their existence, no?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:55 am
scottyroberts:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!
Oh, that is so goddamned rich.
Oh boy.
I’m in stitches here.
You think *that* is speculative. Yet you believe:
You think the explanation that some dishonest dude with a papyrus and a pot of ink, on a mission from God is more speculative than a plethora of ancient accounts serve as verifiable proof of a crossover between our species and one of extraterrestrial origin?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:02 am
Ing @176:
On the stand by his bed, next to his lube and naked pics of Ancient Aliens like ALF.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:21 am
firstapproximation @199:
Because of thy post, I grant thee an early Christmas gift:
One gold plated Internet, free of charge (I’m even throwing in an autographed copy of Chariots of the Gods)
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 5:07 am
@ scottyroberts;
A quote from The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim;
This seems a very low threshold at which to start taking the existence of mythological creatures seriously. If I may amplify a point made by Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– with regard to agnosticism @ 205, there are multitudes of myths that would qualify under When there exist such localized myths in geographical regions, repeated by other localized myths in other, far away geographical regions, over and over again, there is a certain scientific methodology at play. There is a message revealed.
As an example, myths and superstitions about demons and demon-esque pernicious non-corporeal spirits, vampiric creatures, witches and shapeshifters are so common as to be almost ubiquitous across many cultures – does this mean that we should take the existence of such things seriously in defiance of all scientific knowledge? I must admit to a certain curiosity; if you are consistent in your claim that a commonality of myths across several cultures is a credible basis for taking a belief seriously, then do you never leave the house without exorcism rituals, talismans to protect against evil magic, sharpened and fire-hardened hawthorn stakes and silver bullets (if you will forgive the eurocentric examples)? Would it not be imprudent to fail to do so, when the myths of so many cultures warn us about the perils of the creatures of the night?
The obvious interpretation of the widespread nature of such myths is that these types of stories resonate within human social structures, and thus broadly similar myths can arise independently of one another in widely separated cultures with no need for any supernatural (or alien) basis underpinning them, but you seem to reject such parsimonious explanations in the above quote. If you consider the precautions I outlined above unnecessary, or even irrational, then I would be very interested to hear how you can maintain the idea that ancient alien contact is credible on the basis of widespread mythology, and yet these other, equally widespread myths can be safely discounted. What makes the AA claims different?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:42 am
Gregory Greenwood,
I think it is a possibility, but I have my reservations, too.
What I was attempting to demonstrate is that every culture seems to have a similar set oy mythologies, many of them – if you boil off all the religious mythology – seem to indicate the same thing: some kind of interactivity with “non-human entities.” Does this necessarily mean “space aliens?” No, but there is also no evidence to sustain that notion. Unless you start listening to those who make speculations.
Then the question I ask is are those speculations, and the compiled = call them “evidences” – they bring to the table worth further study to establish a cogent thread?
Maybe not by the established scientific community or academia. So they have to go about it on their own, looking for linkages and trying to establish a foundation for what they see as being many things that point to their notion.
I can’t make a definitive claim, myself. But in my book, I try to demonstrate that there is room to consider the idea, simply based on all the ancient stories that have the common theme.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:45 am
Tony-Queer Duck said:
“Because of thy post, I grant thee an early Christmas gift:
One gold plated Internet, free of charge (I’m even throwing in an autographed copy of Chariots of the Gods)”
Thanks, but I already have one – and it’s blue. haha.
And I have an autographed copy of the 1969 hardback version of Chariots of the Gods?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Tony Queer Duck said:
“I’m curious where SnottyRoberts places Robin Hood, King Aurthur and The Shadow in history?”
Actually, there have been some quite scholarly works written on the Robin Hood character. Dr. James C. Holt, formerly chair of Nottingham University, wrote what I think has been the quintessential work on Robin Hood.
Now, its been 20 years since I read that book, so I am going by memory on some of these items, but he identifies the man as one “Robert Hod” of the 12th century, found in court documents of the time.
Its an interesting look into legend building.
As for the Arthuroian legends, there is so much work out there on this topic by acamedicians, that there is no way to claim the man did not actually exist. However, it is not clear if he was an individual clan chieftain, or an amalgam of characters.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:54 am
Tony Queer Duck said:
“You think the explanation that some dishonest dude with a papyrus and a pot of ink, on a mission from God is more speculative than a plethora of ancient accounts serve as verifiable proof of a crossover between our species and one of extraterrestrial origin?”
Not “more,” just speculative.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:54 am
Sorry about my fumbling code, Tony. You get what I meant. I think.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:57 am
Fossil Fishy said:
“Oh yes, I’m so terribly shocked that a huckster who panders to the ignorant for his daily crust is also a privilege blinded misogynist. Shock I say, SHOCKED!”
Really? Now I hate women, too? Hahahaha.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 7:58 am
snottyroberts likes to quote respected scientists such as Carl Sagan in a dishonest attempt to make his bullshit respectable. It’s worth noting that Sagan remarked that interbreeding between humans and aliens was less plausible than between a man and a petunia.
I’ve come to the conclusion, contrary to my earlier belief, that snottyroberts is not an ordinary liar and con artist. Rather, he is genuinely unable to tell the difference between truth and falsehood, says whatever is most convenient at the moment he says it, and is genuinely hurt and puzzled when people compare his statements (for example, the claim here that he’s been an agnostic for 15 years, and the statement in his book of less than two years ago that he’s a Bible-believing Christian), and deduce that at least one of two starkly contradictory statements must be a lie. It just shows the dangers of “education” at a Bible college, years of voluntary exposure to Faux News, and constant mixing with crackpots and con artists.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Fossil Fishy,
I forgot to add… “Privilege blinded??”
What privilege are you speaking of, and how do you extrapolate misogyny from anything I have said?
I am curious to understand your thinking on this.
chigau (棒や石):
November 4th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Have you ever read anything written by an actual anthropologist?
Ever?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Nope, nothing cogent with your speculations, fictions, and idiocy. Just abject fuckwittery.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:02 am
firstapproximation,
Can i get a signed copy? ;)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 8:02 am
“Misogyny” covers the kind of contempt for women shown in your “stop worrying your purdy, little head” attempted putdown.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:06 am
That is fictional wanking about myths, making it totally more fiction. There is nothing of truth there.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Wrong again.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 8:12 am
No; and we are still waiting for you to produce specific examples of these alleged “evidences”.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Yet in this thread, snottyroberts has repeatedly assured us that he does not believe this. So, snottyroberts, were you lying in your book, are you lying here, or has some new evidence or argument come to light in the intervening time that has made you change your mind? Even in the latter case, of course, you have been deceitful here, in not making it clear that you did believe in such a “crossover” until recently, and wrote as much in your book.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Scotty,
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:19 am
damn it
Scotty,
I don’t have time right now to scroll up through all of the comments but did you ever answer my question on what about the archaeology and artifacts points you to go down the Ancient alien path instead of more earthly and rational explanations?
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:26 am
Actually, ARthur being a fictional construct to try to steal some of Charlemagne’s thunder is pretty close to consensus status IIRC, so yeah, well done on continuing to be a grand poo-bah of fools.
More accurately, you maintain institutional structures that disadvantage women. Perhaps not more than average, but certainly moreso than us.
This isn’t really something you can realistically contest, given that you’ve been throwing out gendered bullshit in your responses to me. You can either stop, or you can continue and confirm what you do to non-fools.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Nick Gotts said:
““Misogyny” covers the kind of contempt for women shown in your “stop worrying your purdy, little head” attempted putdown.”
Oh, jesus. You guys are the persnickitiest (not I’m a homophobe) lot I have ever seen. Hahahaha.
Actually, I was evoking a line from the musical, Oklahoma.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Rutee,
That’s just simply bullshit all of its own brand. You should stop looking for every little thing on which you can hang an infraction.
Let me go get my wife, and she can tell you how I nothing like a misogynist…. “Hey Honey, once you are done with the vacuuming and the dishes, put that breast feeding baby down, put on some shoes and beautify y’rself. Then grab me a beer on your way over here so you can tell people how much I love you women folk.”
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:39 am
scottyroberts @ 210;
So, no stakes and silver bullets as standard fashion accessories/urban survival essentials for you then, I take it?
You can’t talk about mythology and just ‘boil off’ religion. Religious myths are highly ubiquitous examples of mythology, and it is notable that a great many of those myths grew out of aspects of the established culture, such as the way Abrahamic god myths neatly reflect feudal authority structures by simply extending the power hierarchy upwards by adding a supernatural class of super monarch above the rank of king/queen or emperor/empress called ‘god’. The way in which these godhead myths attempt to stamp reality with the same familiar, understandable structure as that of the culture that originated the myths is clear. It is an attempt to cast those aspects of the natural world that these early cultures lacked the scientific knowledge to understand in the mould of something that they could grasp.
There is no reason to suppose that other mythology doesn’t function along those same parsimonious lines. These mythical ‘non-human entities’ you mention all share the interesting characteristic of being highly humanoid. For all their other odd attributes – whether it be a penchant for throwing lightning bolts about the place or a taste for a tipple of O+ – they never really seem to deviate very far from the human norm in terms of motivations, perspectives and even physical appearance; hardly what you would expect if the basis for these myths were aliens who shared no evolutionary history with humanity. It does, however, make much more sense if we read these mythical creatures as early cultures anthropomorphising the causes behind events that they did not understand.
A lack of understanding about the weather patterns and soil exhaustion processes that can lead to crop failures leads to a belief that a deity is angry for some reason, and is punishing the community much as a local nobleman might punish his serfs and, like such a lord, can also be appeased.
A series of coincidental accidents or a disease outbreak leads to a belief that a human like agency must be behind the events, and so a vulnerable member of the community is identified as a witch and burned in the belief that this will halt a series of events that are otherwise beyond the power of those that are afflicted.
A lack of understanding about the processes of decomposition results in a belief that a corpse’s hair and nails are continuing to grow after death, and that it has blood around its mouth taken from the living. Pair this with an outbreak of tuburculosis that the people of the era have no scientific undertsanding of, and the vampire mythology is born.
A series of animal attacks coincides with an outbreak of rabies, and you have the seeds of the werewolf myth.
There are perfectly rational explanations for all the world’s myths that don’t require the massively non-parsimonious and wholly unevidenced leap of invoking ancient alien visitations or the existence of any class of sapient ‘non-human entities’.
You and I define ‘evidence’ very differently. From what I have seen, you have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence to support the notion that ancient alien visitation is even remotely credible as a hypothesis.
I think you really need to consider the possibility that the scientific community’s disinterest in AA and other similar ideas from way out on left field is not a product of some kind of close minded intellectual snobbery, nor an attempt to supress some grand ‘truth’ that the scientific community is for some reason afraid of, but is simply the result of a total lack of evidence and the fact that such claims fly in the face of established theories that have an extremely strong evidential base. Why should scientists ignore that which has been painstakingly established through years or decades of experimentation and careful research in favour of something that its proponents cannot even support?
But, as noted above, that commonality among myths does not amount to a very strong basis for anything. Indeed, it is the exact same mindset that lead our ancestors to mistake completely natural processes for the wrath of god, or a corpse undergoing decomposition for a blood-sucking revenant. All the mythology in the world does not amount to a hill of beens when set against the product of rigorous research backed up by replicateable experimentation.
The whole point of the scientific method is that it is a self-correcting process whose findings are tentative – it demands that the scientist follows wherever the evidence leads, and is prepared to sacrifice pet hypothesese or even established theories should new evidence be discovered that invalidates them. I think that part of your problem is that you want the ancient aliens idea to be true, to such a degree that you are unwilling to follow the evidence even when it is unambiguously pointing in a different direction. That is the difference between your position and that of many of the other commenters here – if technology was discovered tommorrow in an archeological dig that was clearly so advanced that it could only be the product of a civilisation thousands of years more advanced than our own then (after the find had been vigorously verified) we would change our minds about the ancient alien visitation idea. We would follow the evidence. Conversely, you are ignoring all the evidence that supports the rational, parsimonious explanations of the origins of mythology in favour of cleaving to your preferred explantion.
So I ask you – is there any evidence, any experiment or finding, that could ever convince you that the AA idea is not credible?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Rutee said:
“Actually, ARthur being a fictional construct to try to steal some of Charlemagne’s thunder is pretty close to consensus status IIRC, so yeah, well done on continuing to be a grand poo-bah of fools.”
I think its humorous how you take the theory you like the best and cancel out the work of anyone else on the topic, labeling them all as inferior in their scholarship.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Well, do you know about inferior scholarship, presuppositions, and idiocy.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Rev BigDumbChimp said:
“I don’t have time right now to scroll up through all of the comments but did you ever answer my question on what about the archaeology and artifacts points you to go down the Ancient alien path instead of more earthly and rational explanations?”
hahaha… frankly, Reverend, I don’t remember. Like you, I get lost in all the posts, too. I am one guy being thrown dozens of questions all at once, then criticized for posting too many responses. hahahaha.
If all I had was time on my hands to sit in here and reply to everyone, I would. So, be patient, and I’ll try to respond to the things people are asking me to respond to.
Specifically, Gregory Greenwood, I want to get to your post, but I haven’t even had time to absorb it yet. But I DO appreciate the fact that you’d take the time to disagree with me in thoughtful, lengthy fashion. I’ll get to it…
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:49 am
And Rutee, thanks for all of your comments beginning with “actually…”
Shows me that I am obviously up against a superior intellect. Are you sure you aren’t Nephilim…?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:50 am
Nerd of DickHEad said:
Well, do you know about inferior scholarship, presuppositions, and idiocy.”
Well, I know idiocy when I see it… keep talking…
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:51 am
The theory I like best? Dude, I don’t care about Arthur. And I didn’t actually say every proponent was inferior in their scholarship, I heavily implied you were. Consensus: It doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t concur is a lying asshole like you.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Are you illiterate? I began one comment with ‘Actually’.
If I’m going to be a fictional creature, I’d rather be a vampire.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Rutee Katreya @ 238;
Superhuman speed and strength, near invulnerability and immortality, immunity to disease, power over the elments and the minds of animals and even people, shapeshifting, close to irresistable sexual allure and generally being cursed with awesome*…
Yup, I think I could learn to live with that too, especially with the modern development in fiction of the vampire that doesn’t actually have to be evil or hurt anyone, and can even survive without ill effect by feeding on animals without killing them.
Its kind of hard to see a downside really.
——————————————————————
* Warning – TV Tropes link.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 10:06 am
And you do, showing us nothing of cogency. Keep pretending your fuckwitted idea is anything other than self-delusion. You are good for a laugh…
Matt Penfold:
November 4th, 2012 at 10:08 am
When I think of all those poor electrons and photons that gave their lives just so Scotty Robert’s crap could appear on a computer screen near you …..
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Anyone else love that Snotty Roberts finger waggles people for snark yet spends so much of his comments flippantly dismissing people with chestnuts or downright disrespectfully mocking them?
Amphiox:
November 4th, 2012 at 10:33 am
After all this time, scottyroberts has apparently figured out the “b” tag but not the “blockquote” one.
It would appear a 10 letter word is beyond poor scotty’s intellectual capacity to type.
Either that or its a sign of same degree of intellectual laziness that scotty’s so-called “scholarship” demonstrates.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Sound familiar?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 11:06 am
snottyroberts,
What difference does that make?
Absolutely typical misogynist response, of course.
On Arthur:
Then in response to Rutee saying that the consensus is the opposite:
Self-awareness really isn’t your strong point, is it Snotty?
Oh, and by the way, when are you going to tell us whether you were lying in your book – where you claimed to be a Christian – or here, where you claim to have been an agnostic for 15 years? Also, whether you were lying in your book, where you say you believe there is “verifiable proof of a crossover between inter-dimensional or interplanetary races”, or here, where you claim to believe no such thing?
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 4th, 2012 at 11:27 am
This is a rich dish of comedy. I’ve only just read this latest portion of the thread and see I’ve been missing some gen-yoo-wine craptastica.
Scotty, you are really dumb. For real.
Did y’all check out his “about” page? It’s chock-a-block with the diagnostic signs of a self-absorbed narcissist:
Instant citation of family-man status: CHECK. Inappropriate and telling capitalization:CHECK.
Pseudo-brit-intellectual knob-polisher who did it in the drawing room with the candlestick: CHECK.
Proud humility: CHECK
Hover over the link and note the text.
Oh, lord.
He even has a picture of himself against a circa-1978 Olan Mills StarGlamour™ backdrop.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 11:58 am
What a pity that desire has not been realised.
consciousness razor:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Now, Josh, that’s not his fault. They can’t very well hop around the galaxy dragging lots of heavy, expensive equipment everywhere. The aliens are just sort of hobbyists at photography anyway, you know. And basically every other technology since the stone age, considering how little they shared when teaching us how to build the pyramids. But other than being the reason I just made up for why there’s no evidence for them, that’s beside the point. I’m just saying you don’t have to rain on their parade.
I bet you didn’t realize Streisand is an ancient alien. Well, now you know.
Of course I’m not a believer in ancient aliens, but…. well, it’s possible. Do I get a cookie for not contradicting myself as much as I could have?
consciousness razor:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I’m sorry, that should read “When do I get a cookie…?” I would like it soon.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Nerd of DickHead said:
“And you do, showing us nothing of cogency. Keep pretending your fuckwitted idea is anything other than self-delusion. You are good for a laugh…”
At least I’m good for something! ;)
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Ing said:
“Anyone else love that Snotty Roberts finger waggles people for snark yet spends so much of his comments flippantly dismissing people with chestnuts or downright disrespectfully mocking them?”
See…? I have already been influenced by you guys.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Josh said:
“He even has a picture of himself against a circa-1978 Olan Mills StarGlamour™ backdrop.”
This was the only point you made that was worth addressing… the “star” background isn’t a background, at all. This was a live shot taken by artist Adam Blai. You have to sit in the dark, unmoving against an open lens, while he walks behind you and does penlight and fibre optic lighting as art. He does some great work, subject matter notwithstanding. Credit to the artist.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
scottyroberts:
No, you said it was “incredibly speculative”. Incredible means unbelievable, by the way, so you were dissing that just as hard as you could, with no explanation given for why, and now you are backing off what you said.
Again, then. What is wrong with the idea that some fabulist just fabricated Exodus?
—
Some of this “widespread myth” dreck reminds me of the Flood fanatics. There aren’t that many ways to imagine survivable destruction. Fire, flood and famine are the big three, and famine isn’t very dramatic. So if you want a story about group survival of trying circumstances, flood is about it.
And, if you want mystic beings, you’ve pretty much got to build them on a human framework.
But back to flood myths: Science has given serious study to massive flooding of human settlements in the Black Sea, in the Mediterranean basin and in the North Sea. All of those are possible origins for a widespread flood myth/account, and all are scientifically likely.
Science is also studying Troy, Jericho and Tyre, places once thought mythical. So making an argument that science ignores myths is bogus, but so is arguing that your pet idea must be true.
Calling him an amalgam of characters is saying that he didn’t actually exist.
That’s just like the “historical Jesus” guys. Somewhere in Judea was a man named something like “Yeshua”, therefore God.
Of course there was a man on Great Britain named something like Aturos, or who at least some guys who did something vaguely Arthurian. Hell, I speak English and I had breakfast this morning—does that make me Arthur?
Scotty, you are like a lot of the trolls we get through here. You are a little smarter than most of the people around you, but not nearly as smart as you think you are. You want to be a respected scholars so bad that you are pissing down your leg, but you haven’t got what it takes to really be one. Instead of doing serious, careful work, you write dreck that any sensible person sees right through, without checking or contemplating your own work, and you are here slanging with people who are clearly not buying your nonsense, and doing a poor job of that.
But yes, you are provoking some of the great writing that I love, so keep up the poor work.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Nick Gotts said:
“What a pity that desire has not been realised.”
“The Great and Magnificent Oz has spoken.” That’s what rushed into my mind, anyway.
I am sure you guys would all have a very different tone if we were conversing face-to-face, so I chalk most of this bs up to internet speak.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Like all your responses, a non-sequitor. Meaningless drivel to avoid having to face your failures as an alleged scholar, and not having anything to back up your “speculation”. Pure speculation is found in this genre: fantasy where your drivel belongs. For your drivel to be considered real scholarship you would need real facts outside of the texts to support your claims. Like a crashed spaceship. Facts which you acknowledge you don’t have. Which makes your claims drivel, and you know that.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
as per Josh, here is my “About” bio. You have to admit, its more creative than some of the other stuff you see out there… and that was the intention…
Founder and Publisher of INTREPID Magazine, Illustrator and Author of fiction and non-fiction occupationally hovering in the advertising ghettos of Minneapolis & Saint Paul, Minnesota. I can be more or less defined by my roles as Dad and Husband; parent to my five exuberant children, three of whom are still young enough to live with me in my home. These ingredients combined, make my life a paradoxical roller coaster of hellacious joy and insightful befuddlement, and were it not for my buoyant, easy going nature, I would most assuredly have lost my sanity a long time ago.
I value a good pipe, a stout pint, and consider myself a purist when it comes to single malt highland Scotch – which for me is not a tool of inebriation, but rather an enlightened repast to be shared with colleagues and like-minded pedagogues of philosophy and hob-knobbing banter.
I am a contemplative, spiritual man of consideration who values intelligence, wit, justice and touch. I do not shy away from a good fight, and have had a few brawls in my day – whether on my behalf or in defense of another – and, were times different, would most probably be known wide and abroad as an expert swordsman. However, in keeping with my paradoxical nature, I prefer employing words over weapons, wit above profanity, spirituality above religion, stalwartness above inconstancy. And as I grow older, my burgeoning jaded cynicism is wholly tempered by my desire to not become an ass. My humor is wry, my mind is fertile, and my love is deep.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
snottyroberts,
I’m still waiting for you to explain whether you were lying in your book, or here. But it’s surely obvious that someone who tells lies that are as easily discovered to be such as yours are, is an ass.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Oh, hah, missed the origin of that ‘Let me go get my wife’.
So you basically are trying to pick a fight with every academic discipline then? So far, Biology, Sociology, Physics, and anthropology, as well as history. Are you sure you don’t have something you can say to piss off mathematicians? And hey, I’m sure there’s a Science or two you haven’t managed to trash yet.
I’m not looking for them; you’re lobbing them across the plate.
Yes, mock the disproportionate household labor of women, or the beauty standards unfairly heaped on us. That will truly show us you aren’t more of a misogynist than average.
@Gregory Greenwood
Yes, I know, I have fantastic taste. It’s a curse.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Just because flood myths are widespread because civilizations tend to settle on rivers and seafronts and because some ancient cities have entered into myth does not make the study of ancient aliens anymore valid.
As it stands, the more time that the chew toy spends squeaking, the less time he has to edit his book.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
If we were face to face would you dismiss any disagreement or even annoyance as random artifacts as well or actually treat the other speaker as people? Fucking jackass
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Could you hoggle somewhere else please?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
@Josh
You don’t mean that, that’s just the internets talking!
Fucking jackass.
Hey you know what, I bet YOUR tone would be different if you’re cashcow wasn’t tied to this bullshit.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
scottyroberts @212:
You misattributed a quote to me. I didn’t say:
That was Ing @ 176.
Also, my comment @208 was directed to firstapproximation b/c of hir post @199. I’m not sure what you were getting at with your post @211, b/c my compliment wasn’t directed to you.
Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
@Tony
subtract “reading”
Sorry was that too quipy?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Also seriously what is the implication of the “you would have a nicer tone face to face” comment?
The only one I can think of is “…because you’d be afraid I’d punch you” which makes his constant repetition of it less than civil.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Rutee @238 and Gregory @239:
For the love of all the ancient aliens that scottyroberts claims to exist (as per the comment he makes in his book), I hope neither of you wants a little sparkle with your vamp abilities…
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Menyambal @253:
especially since Exodus is a really, really stupid story and highlights the impotency of the christian god (what, he could just snap his fingers and bring his chosen people right where he wanted; he didn’t know they were hungry and thirsty?)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Buffy stakes Edward.
The End
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Ing @264:
Nah, not to quipy.
It was rather “thwipp-y” though…
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Janine:
I have that shirt.
It’s totes awesome.
feralboy12:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I’d like to see Scotty take on some astronomy. Some ancient cultures pictured the sky as a dome, the sun being towed by chariots, the stars as little lights hanging from the dome, etc. etc.
Surely these myths can inform us as to “what’s really out there.” I mean, it’s worth some research, right? Let’s not be so closed-minded.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Nick Gotts who thinks he has a point, keeps asking:
“I’m still waiting for you to explain whether you were lying in your book, or here. But it’s surely obvious that someone who tells lies that are as easily discovered to be such as yours are, is an ass.”
Here goes the “he said-she said,” but, you are completely inaccurate and smugly asinine when calling me a liar. So my simple is answer is: I wasn’t lying or misleading in any way whatsoever.
If you have seen my several replies to this question – as posed in several other ways in this thread – you would not even have to waste your time asking it.
As I have said more than once, twice or perhaps even three times in this thread, Nick, my roots were Christian. I strayed those roots long ago, mostly due to church methodology and extra-biblical theology as well as the inability to address questions outside the nomenclature.
As I have already stated, when I wrote Nephilim, I was at the verge of not knowing what the hell I believed about God and Christianity, anymore, but wasn’t prepared to let a lifelong system of belief be kicked to the curb, simply because I had personal issues with it. It had nothing to do with finding that God could simply not exist within the framework of the scientific/skeptical/atheistic bullshit flying around out there. But it had a lot to do with what I felt I could no longer tolerate as true, when confronted with different aspects of the things I was researching.
And, mind you, this wasn’t simply an overnight transformation between books, it was the culmination of 20 years of thinking, brushing aside, studying, putting on the back burner, then reengaging. I finally ended up finding that I could no longer sincerely call myself a Christian, but that did not happen until after Nephilim was written, and I was nearly through with Reptilians.
If you are personally a man who has never had the spiritual and emotional conflict of stepping away from something that had been engrained in your psyche for nearly 50 year, well, congrats. Because its a helluva disconcerting experience – especially when you have repeatedly avoiding coming to terms with it due to some fear planted in you from the day you were practically born.
To have called myself a Christian in Nephilim, only to call myself an agnostic a mere year-and-a-half later, while also saying I was nigh unto a practical atheist and agnostic for the previous 15 or so years, should be not a picture to you of a liar or charlatan, but rather the picture of someone who sincerely struggled with the issue of faith that was deeply engrained.
Did I lie or attempt to tell half-truths? Not in the least. Because it really was between the writing of the first book, and the launch into the second one where I can see some decisive moments of directional change on the spiritual/spiritual front, for me.
My short answer is that you have a despicably low comprehension of how the mind works if your immediate response is to jump to “liar.” it fits your presence on this board, but says a whole lot about things you obviously know very little about.
I’m still impressed by the words of Richard Feynman…
“If you expected science could give all the answers to the wonderful questions about ‘what we are’ or ‘where we’re going’ or what the meaning of the universe is, and so on, then I think you could easily become disillusioned and then look for some mystic answer to these problems.
The way I think of it is that we’re exploring, trying to find out as much as we can about the world…. And when we go to investigate it, we shouldn’t pre-decide what is it we’re trying to do. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live ‘not knowing’ than to have answer which might be wrong.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and differing degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and they are many things I don’t know anything about. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, about being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose. That’s the way it really is, as far as I can tell possible.
And so altogether, I can’t believe the special stories that have been made up about our special relationship to the universe, at large, because they seem to be… too simple, too connected, too local, too provincial.
The earth! He came to the Earth! One of the aspects of God came to the Earth, mind you, and look at what’s out there… it isn’t in proportion.
Anyway, it’s no use arguing it. I can’t argue it. I’m just trying to tell you that the scientific, well, with my father’s view we should look to see what’s true and what may not be true. Once you start doubting, which for me is a fundamental part of my soul, to doubt. And ask. And to doubt and ask, it gets a little harder… to believe.”
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
feralboy12:
You may have a point.
We should also see if we can find any remnants of Ymir’s body in Earth’s crust as well as his blood in the oceans. I mean, people used to find that intriguing and it’s part of an ancient myth, so obviously there’s something there worth pursuing.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Tony Queer Duck said:
“especially since Exodus is a really, really stupid story and highlights the impotency of the christian god (what, he could just snap his fingers and bring his chosen people right where he wanted; he didn’t know they were hungry and thirsty?)”
What you are seemingly unable to see, Tony, is that THAT statement isn’t scientific at all. It isn’t even skeptical. It isn’t even seeking evidence. It’s simply saying you don’t believe the story. Which is ok. Just don’t try to ride the coattails of archaeological or scientific pundits (in either direction) to shout out a hearty, “I wanna contradict that guy everybody’s calling an ‘idiot,’ too!”
That would be like me saying, “How can that scruffy, tobacco-enriched idiot Al Gore produce a movie called “An Inconvenient Truth,” when he is such a stupid dumb-dumb head.”
Now THAT’S substance.
And when you talk about the “impotence of the Christian god,” keep in mind that the Exodus isn’t a Christian story. It’s Hebrew (Jewish), Einstein.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/1291
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
“I don’t believe a story that has zero evidence for it and that logically contradicts itself” isn’t scientific now, apparently.
It’s the same godhead, so the relevance is nil.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Ing,
If you read back and look at the full context of what I said, you’ll be able to better note your inaccuracy above.
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
if this conversation was happening in meatspace, at a bar for example, you’d have long ago been long had a beer or two spilled in your face. you certainly would have deserved it for the “pretty little head” comment.
also, in the name of all illustrators out there, I apologize for this twerp and promise we aren’t all complete wackaloons whose mind is so open, the brain fell out ages ago.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Rutee,
Funny, were I have to made a misstatement like that, it would have been you taking me to task for the same minor discrepancy. So, yes, in the spirit of this blog/forum/thread, it is relevant.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Tell that to the christian who draw upon the fables of the OT to dictate how all of us are to live.
Glares at Leviticus.
Glen Davidson:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
If you take out what’s dissimilar in myths, you have intriguing similarities. And the parsimonious explanation for these very basic similarities (IMO, there are some similarities not due simply to cherry-picking) couldn’t be psychological. Plus science sucks for not crediting endless speculative nonsense. That seems to be about all that Scotty has.
There’s a controversy! Because dumbfuck ideas exist. At least they’re not demanding that we teach the controversy, only that we should credit it because, well, it intrigues this huckster. No, it isn’t science, but it’s important and worthy of blathering on and on about because Scotty can’t quite shake himself loose of mythology that he was taught.
It’s pathetic egocentrism, but there it is. Seriously, though, I can’t quite see why to keep arguing with such mindless drivel. It’s more that he’s not even wrong, incapable of seeing the importance of getting to anything that could be right or wrong, than that what he says is untrue. It’s von Daniken all over again, bring in the trash and ask, “could it be?” instead of asking if it’s anything even worthy of consideration.
Roberts doesn’t rise to the level of saying anything worth considering at all, beyond the psychology that takes its own gullibility to be profound.
Glen Davidson
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
It’s not a mis-statement. Christians append another pair of avatars, but they consider it fundamentally the same god as the god of Abraham and Isaac, they just understand it better than the Jews. Muslims make the same claim, but for Jews and Christians.
Do you know anything, about anything?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Jadehawk,
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
because the jewish and christian god are totes different things.
also “archeological pundits”? LOL
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Scotty, until you show us your scientific credentials, you need to shut the fuck up about what is and isn’t scientific. The pros know you are full of shit with your ideas of what is scientific.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Tony:
It occurs to me that if somebody back in the day was trying to build a legend based somewhat on historical fact, they might have made up the 40-years-in-the-desert stuff. See, if there was something vaguely like Moses and the plagues or the exit from Egypt—and it had some value—and a troupe of later invaders wanted to capture that myth, they could just say, “Yeah, that was us, we’ve just been wandering the desert for 40 years, but we are the Habiru, so give us our land.”
Which isn’t to say it happened, I’m just being speculative.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
scottyroberts @91:
Here is one lie from you:
from scottyroberts’ book (thanks to firstapproximation @171):
Here is another lie from you:
(thanks to firstapproximation @115)
Which is it? Are you agnostic? Or do you believe in god? You’re not an agnostic if you claim to know god exists.
Do you come from the same school of flip flopping that Mitt Romney did?
****
BTW, I’ve noticed another case of misattributing quotes (first mentioned by me @263) from you @131:
PZ never said anything about your belief in his *one* post, back @ 111. Your response should have been to firstapproximation @115. I bring this up because it adds to your dishonesty and deceit.
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
actually i don’t give a fuck about “offensive”, but that comment was bigoted unlike any other comment made in this conversation. so yeah, you deserve a beverage in your face for saying bigoted things, even if they are bigoted quotes rather than original bigotry.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Fuckface does not realize how fucking condescending is.
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
There lies you misogyny, even if you do not realize it.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
sigh
another typo
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Janine:
You should be ashamed.
You know that people who display sexist or misogynist tendencies *hate* to be called out on them. It’s oppression, abuse, and harassment, dontcha know…/snark
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
I’ve asked you for yours at least a dozen times. What are you hiding, Mr. Romney…?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
scottyroberts @292:
You’re the one making the idiotic claims (yes, you are doing that, despite lying and saying otherwise). You’re the one that has criticized scientists. You’re the one that misunderstands how science works.
You’re the one that needs to pony up on credentials.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Janione,
My latent misogyny. Word police.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Of course it’s a picture of a liar and charlatan, saying what they think will benefit them most in each context. Tony@287 has pointed out once again the clear contradictions between what you have said here, and in your book. So you absolutely are a liar and charlatan, unless, as I suggested above, you are literally unable to tell the difference between truth and falsehood.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
It bears repeating, bullshitter
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Count the hits and ignore the misses!
If you take out what’s dissimilar between cats and rocks you have intriguing similarities!
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Tony,
I already did that. Days ago. You must’ve missed it.
It was right after that I asked if everyone would do me the courtesy to tell me what their credentials were. Nick Grotts very graciously gave me his, as did one other person (sorry, dude, can’t remember your moniker off the top of my head… there are over a dozen of you, but only one of me).
I asked Nerd of Redhead if he would also give his, since he makes so many remarks. He has ignored that request.
That’s why I asked again.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
QUANTUM Bullshitter!
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Latent misogyny is common. I run up against it all the time in me. We all screw up and let our cultural conditioning come through in our speech and writings. This is normal (though we should all be on the lookout for it). Here’s the key, though: when someone calls you on misogynist language, it is best not to defend it, or double down, or deny. The best thing to do is what I do: apologize, possibly with an explanation, and be more alert in the future.
No word policing involved. Just a friendly hint from someone who has said, done, and written misogynistic things without even being aware of it too many times to count.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
scottyroberts:
Care to comment on my @287?
chigau (棒や石):
November 4th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
scottyroberts #256
Can recite that aloud while looking in a mirror without laughing?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Tony,
What you wishfully believe is my “hatred of being called-out,” is simply me calling you out on what a load of crap that is.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
@303
Scotty Scotty Scotty, we’re not saying you are misogynist. WE are just portraying all sides and letting people decide. We need to straddle the line between truth and slander, civility and trolling in order to get a full picture.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
One other thing, Tony,
By the way, at what point does something become a “tendency?” A single remark that you cannot admit you misinterpreted? Two remarks? Three? A lifestyle that is the antithesis of what you charge?
All it takes to foster vehement disgust from the brand of “thinkers” occupying this thread, is for someone to deny their original nasty claim.
“Oh! He denied he’s a liar! What a ever more liarly liar he MUST be!”
“He denied he’s a misogynist. He must REALLY hate women. I’ll bet he’s probably a homophobe, too.”
“Oh my God! He’s a Conservative!!! I’ll bet he’s rich and wants to reinstitute slavery, because we all know he’s a tacit, if not open, bigot and racist!”
“He said he’s intrigued with ancient alien notions! He is obviously a racist who thinks that brown people didn’t have enough ingenuity to built a mud hut.”
The shrill you guys have is of paramount proportions. You are all Liar McLiarstons, in that you manufacture the other 99% of the 1% for which you take me to task. Well, the numbers are skewed, but you get my point, I’m sure, since you are all so brilliant.
I think you all need to go get some social retraining.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Yes, fuckface, figuring out what a person thinks by the words that person uses makes one the .
How goes the editing of your latest missive?
SQUEAK!
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Hey have we exceeded 1/5 of the material being Bog Boypant’s peaty skunk weed bullshit?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Here’s a better question; did ancient astronauts butcher Whedon’s Alien 4?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Great! I can call you a and deny that I really do not dislike badly and/or poor educated poor white people because, hey, I only said it onnce. It is not like it is a “tendency”.
SQUEAK!
kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, I thought all hypotheses were worth exploring. Gotta keep an open mind and all that.
What ? No line about we’re all immature meanies with pointless lives who live in our mother’s basement ?
I has a sad.
What with the “calm down”, “don’t worry your pretty little heads” and the “you’re not a real scientist”, I almost had a bingo here.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
scottyroberts:
Again, most of us raised in western societies have latent misogynist tendencies. Saying, or writing, something misogynist does not mean one is a misogynist. It does mean that my, or your, socialization has reared its ugly head. To react this defensively, to react this aggressively, shows that you are unaware of your misogynistic tendency, or think that, in today’s culture, it is normal and accepted.
The vehement disgust has shown up not because of your use of the misogynistic and silencing phrase, “pretty little head,” but your willingness to use the quite gentle reprimand about such language’s acceptability on this blog as an excuse to start with the ‘hive mind’ or ‘echo chamber’ assertions (you have not used those phrases, but you are coming real close in some of your comments (of course, I could be wrong since I have, by your own claim, read and understood nothing of what you have written)) and are now claiming that we are blowing this up out of all proportion. Read my #300. Compare and contrast your reaction with the reaction of someone who is aware of his privilege, aware of his upbringing, aware of his societal straight jacket.
When someone says that you have used misogynist language, it really is best not to deny, not to double down. Just apologize, be aware of who you are, ask for an explanation if you wish, but don’t go down the road you are aiming for. It makes you sound like a total misogynist. Whether you are or not, that is the effect.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Kemist, you forget that we are all fourteen year old boys. or was that just Lynna?
SQUEAK!
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I never said that you are a racist. I said that much of the ancient aliens stems from racism. There really is a difference.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I’ve read the whole thread, no scientific credentials presented. Your background is seminary, not science. No citation to those creditials, didn’t happen, another lie exposed. Welcome to science, where YOU must provide the evidence or shut the fuck up.
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Notice how scotty didn’t deny being a crocodile fucker? I don’t have any evidence he is one nor do I believe it, but I find this interesting.
Nick Gotts,
Yeah, I think so too. As Tony mentioned, he seems to be like Romney, except it’s funnier when someone does it on a thread where people can easily look up your past comments or words you wrote in print.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
YOU FIRST, SHOW US YOUR SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS. BUT MY BUSINESS CARD SAYS SR. SCIENTIST FUCKIWIT. CHECKMATE. NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT SCIENCE. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Ok. After roughly 700-1000 posts (somewhere in that range), you got me. If I am such a liar and a bullshitter, than there’s no basis to continue these gymnastics.
When there is one person fielding the criticisms of twelve or more, all demanding immediate responses, it gets a little tough to keep up.
If so desired, I’ll be done and you can move on to the next, as PZ put it so well. God love ya, PZ. ;)
I think I’ve shown I have a pretty thick hide, and am not easily scathed, being the delicate flower that I am. I have not yet shrunk to the corner, hugged my knees to my chest and started rocking in a fetal position, but I am simply spending far more time fondling the inanity of most of the comments being made, rather than having time to answer anything substantively.
If any of you would like to continue the dialog on a more or less personal basis, email me or call me on my mobile – which I won’t post here again for fear of a second round of “stupid” comments. Just go to either of my websites, and you will find them both listed:
http://www.scottalanroberts.com
http://www.intrepidmag.com
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Bless your heart!
SQUEAK!
chigau (棒や石):
November 4th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
bets on the flounce?
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
scotty,
What is your basis for this claim?
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
there is no misinterpretation possible of something as blatantly sexist as the line “don’t worry your pretty little head about it”. furthermore, your defense of that statement, compounded by attempts at joking about discrimination, do in fact amount to evidence for a tendency. you’re welcome to disprove us anytime now by acknowledging your fuckup and apologizing.
assertion without evidence. not that it matters, since very few people actually live effectively anti-bigotry lives; it takes a fuckload of conscious effort to have a net positive effect against structural and cultural bigotry
wishful thinking on your part. it’s pretty obvious that it’s your disingenuousness and defense of a bigoted, condescending line that are inspiring disgust.
that is not an English sentence. shrill is an adjective, and paramount means “most important” or “having supreme power”
really, you’ve descended into “i know you are but what am i” territory? that’s deeply pathetic
we’re not the bullshitters throwing around bigoted language
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
stop butchering the English language, it has done nothing to deserve this.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Jadehawk the grammar police!
Jadehawk:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
well, someone has to do it. This guy tortures the poor language publicly, and in books even! won’t somebody think of the
childrengrammar?!Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Scottyroberts:
I guess you have nothing to say about the points I raised @287 that prove you’re a liar.
firstapproximation:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Stay away from his book. The writing style is almost as bad as the content.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Um, Jadehawk…
A little problem there.
Sorry.
(I know, I am hardly the right person to point these things out. The Typo Monster is fat because I cannot stop feeding it.)
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Scottyroberts:
I’m fairly certain PZ doesn’t want the love of your genocide loving, gay hating, rape loving, anti woman deity.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 4th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
snottyroberts@317,
But Snotty, what about your promise to post the substantive, questions about specific items that show scientists should take the Ancient Alienists seriously? Surely you’re not going away without fulfilling that commitment?
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Nick,
[email protected]
Email me directly.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Why bother, either post it or it doesn’t happen. We all need a good laugh at your expense.
chigau (棒や石):
November 4th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I read #317 as a flounce.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Flounce plain as day. But then, when has that stopped egotistical idjits from seeing if we missed them? (Nope, not missed at all).
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Bull…shit.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
If nobody else has said it, yeah, he’s a almost certainly a fucking racist, unless he holds the Colloseum and roman roads were as much ALIEN TECHNOLOGY as the Pyramids or Chichen Itza. You can’t not be, and espouse this shit. And he’s moreso than average, for sure, given the very basis is “non-white people can’t be engineers”.
Keep telling yourself that, skippy. The bog standard misogyny of what you’ve said isn’t novel, you know.
Rutee Katreya:
November 4th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
And no, stonehenge alone isn’t sufficient to redeem an ancient alienist. I mean white people engineering in general, rather than giving an exhaustive list. And they never find white people engineering as suspect, for some bizarre reason (like you know, racism)
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 4th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
I see that others have already addressed this, but hey, scotty asked me directly.
Your comment was misogynist, that kind of language is part of the standard toolkit for keeping women in their place. It doesn’t matter if you intended to be a misogynist or not you achieved that end.
You are privilege blinded because you couldn’t see that your language was the language of a misogynist. You demonstrated this by your response to hotshoe.
You have the privilege of being able to place all insult, gendered and non-gendered, in the same class because your gender isn’t sexually assaulted at a rate of out of six, because your gender still earns more for the same work, because your gender doesn’t have legislative bodies regulating what kind of health care you can and can’t get, and so bloody on.
And as I said before, none of this is any surprise. You earn your living by selling fantasies to the gullible. Because of that you have to be in permanent defence mode. When challenged you duck and weave, dodge and dive to keep those fantasies alive because to do anything else would be to jeopardise you livelihood. You have to meet every valid objection to your historical bullshit with obfuscation and that mindset leads to an intellectual poverty so profound that I suspect you are literally incapable of seeing when you are in error.
Perhaps I’m wrong though. You could apologise, you could learn and grow, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– @ 266;
Bleurgh – that would be the biggest problem with being a vampire*; dealing with all the twihards who expect you to sparkle.
I mean, I can go along with Dracula being able to walk in sunlight as depicted in the original novel and the rather nifty Francis Ford Coppola film version, but sparkling? ‘Tis an affront to all the living impaired.
Then again, that’s where the mind control powers come in. You compel them to develop better taste in fiction.
—————————————————————-
* Well, other than the little hurdle of vampires not actually existing, no matter how many cultures have myths about them (sorry scottyroberts).
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Rutee Katreya @ 258;
But I bet that you don’t want to be blessed with suck* to remedy the situation – that might result in you suffering from such a severe case of anti-taste poisoning that you might wind up reading/watching Twilight and actually enjoying it. *shudder*
——————————————————————
* Again with the TV Tropes link – apologies.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 4th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
@ scottyroberts;
@ 234 you stated that you hadn’t at that time had the opportunity to compose a reply to my post @ 231.
Given the fact that several hours have passed since then, I was wondering if you have had any thoughts on the issues raised in that post? In particular, I would be interested in an answer to the question I posed at the end of that comment;
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Gregory:
I hate to inform you, but our preeeeeciousssd liar, scottyroberts, has flounced.
scottyroberts:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Gregory,
Most certainly.
vaiyt:
November 4th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
@342:
Your question-dodge-fu isn’t strong enough, grasshopper. WHICH evidence, experiment or finding?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 4th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
@342
Well that was worth the wait
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Which a person of honesty and integrity would have described. For example, this is what is required for me to even consider a deity: Physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush.
Why can’t you show your integrity so you can be shown the evidence to refute your idiocy? Oh, that’s right, you know it exists…
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 4th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
scottyroberts, just so’s you know, you popping back in like that is going to make people say “you couldn’t stick the flounce”. I love that term.
Speaking of flouncing, you really do remind me of a very spoiled teenaged girl I once tried to help raise. I’ve long been studying people like you—creationists, homeopaths, moon hoaxers—and when I got to know her, I recognized you and your ilk. Arrogant, selfish, bossy and shallow. And you think anyone who isn’t standing in line to give you money is being mean to you.
Say, why did it take you until age 53 to bail out on Christianity? I had given up on it by age 17, and went through a serious reconsideration of what that implied at age 27—two months of introspection that figured out evolution and Republicans—and I can plot my progress in a straight line. You, on the other hand, seem to be very gradually giving up on bits, and not realizing how much you need to discard (voting Republican, for one) and stopping off at every cultic craziness you can find. (I do know it isn’t easy, but you really need to realize that your way doesn’t make you smart.)
Speaking of smart, I have a bachelors in Industrial Technology, Summa Cum Laude in the Honors College, and I see no need for visiting spacemen in any ancient engineering. I also have a master of science degree, in a different field, also not needing inter-dimensional wotsits to explain the world. But degrees aren’t the criteria here, cogent arguments are.
Besides, we’ve gone a few rounds with supporters of “Doctor” Kent Hovind, whose alma mater is a warehouse, and whose “doctoral thesis” starts with “Hello”. We’ve also kicked the ass of Richard Dawkins for wanting to get by on authority.
But you were the one who brought up credentials. My complaint is that you just now snarked about people missing where you posted them. Seriously, do you think we are hanging on your every word, and going back to savor all of this endless thread? Just copy and paste them in, eh? There’s a good fellow.
You also were whining about some publisher who stuck in a title or subtitle that you didn’t like. Do you realize you were admitting you compromised your beliefs for money, there? I once wrote a long report, after careful research, and had my name proudly on the front page, but when the boss wanted to change my conclusions, I took my name the heck off. Why did you not refuse the publisher, and why do you whinge about it? Admit you are corrupted by money, and be honest with yourself, and with us.
By the way, my mom is from the town in Oklahoma that was the setting for the play and movie Oklahoma, and she’d heartily agree that you were being sexist when you quoted the line from the movie. And when you tried to excuse yourself by saying you were just quoting a movie, you really were being insulting.
And again: What is unbelievable about the idea that the entire book of Exodus is fiction?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 4th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Wow.
He didn’t stick the flounce.
Perhaps he came back to present that evidence he said was going to take a day or two to find…?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 2:52 am
snottyroberts@330,
Why on earth would I be interested in one-to-one communication with a liar and charlatan? You said you would post the specifics of why scientists should take paleo-contact notions seriously here. You haven’t. My hypothesis is that that’s because you don’t have anything worth posting; but if you do, you can prove me wrong.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:41 am
scottyroberts @ 342;
I was hoping for a slightly more comprehensive answer than that.
Would you care to give some examples of what type of evidence, experiment or finding would cause you to consider the AA hypothesis to no longer be credible?
You know, deliberately dodging the question like this might lead a person to wonder whether you are arguing in good faith…
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Sorry Gregory,
Your question to me was:
I answered it as simply as possible with: “Most certainly.”
Are you asking me “what kind of evidence” would convince me that it didn’t exist? I think that would be easy – the kind of evidence that I already believe exists to some extent, and that would be the proving that all the archaeologiocal reliefs and relics that AA-ers use to stir up questions, be established to be proven as:
1) normal/average inconsistencies in art and tooling styles within that culture and period.
2) Drawings/artifacts AAers attribute to depictions of AAsbe evidenced as merely “pictorial stories” (as we do with il;lustrated children’s books, today), or be shown to represent mythical characters or priests dressed in costumes, etc.
Then again, as you have said, the onus is on the AAes to provide that evidence from the other way ’round.
Does that answer what you were asking a little better, Gregory?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Nick Gotts,
That isn’t what I said. That’s what you and others keep insisting I said.
What I said is that I would provide the evidence that AAers say brings to question some of the archaeological finds they use to promote AA notions.
I also said “give me a couple of days, or over the weekend,” as I was pretty neck deep in a deadline which I just completed not 20 minutyes ago. Now i am free to gather some of the data.
Hold your horses.
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Ancient Alienist” is not a thing. It’s not a term. Using it will not decrease your Silly Quotient.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Tony,
Maybe you guys define “flounce” by your own blog/forum standards of engagement, but I don’t think I’ve made any quick, angry, spur of the moment movements, here.
I did say that since this has all become gymnastics in a circus type of setting, perhaps I would do what many of you asked and step back. But I did not say I wouldn’t communicate with any of you.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Josh,
And this is an example of why any productive dialog takes place in here. Its distractionary. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to join in.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:31 am
Josh,
I typo-ed. What I was saying is that your statement is an example of precisely why nothing productive happens in this dialog. Its a distractionary tactic.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:32 am
I asked this a long time ago but it was ignored. Did ancient aliens have their own ancient aliens that jump started their own civilizations.
Was there a prime mover ancient alien that jump started all other civilizations through out the universe.
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:35 am
No, it isn’t. Really. It’s a flip attempt to amuse myself at your expense. Otherwise I’d be bored to absolute death because you never actually say anything. You talk a lot about what you “never said,” “never implied,” “didn’t say,” “don’t endorse,” but you never affirmatively state a position.
A commenter above has the right of you; this is about shifting ground on the fly so you don’t feel like you’re “losing.” I’m not sure you’re even aware that you don’t understand how to argue.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Oh fuck off you tedious turnip-brained turd. Here’s what you actually said@15 above:
That is not what you’ve just said you said (which makes no sense anyway – WTF does it mean to “bring to question” “some of the archaeological finds they use to promote AA notions”?) You did say you would post some “specifics”; if these “specifics” are not “why scientists should take paleo-contact notions seriously”, why in hell do you think anyone’s going to be the slightest interested in them?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Heh I won that bet.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Scotty, that “flounce” bit you blockquoted was mine, not Tony’s. And yeah, flounce is just the way we say it here, as you said. But you did write like you were gone forever, or at least in a way that could be easily taken that way, and we’ve had a lot of your ilk do it just that way.
Your ego is noticeable in the long descriptions of yourself that you’ve posted and linked to. I’ve mentioned that I have a degree, just because you brought up credentials, and I have at other times, when relevant, mentioned my gender, weight, color and general locations—but only when it was part of the discussion. Usually, here, people just advance arguments and let them rise or fall on their own merits—this isn’t about egos. But you, you describe everything about yourself in such loving detail that I expect you to spooge. You really seem hung up on yourself and your alleged accomplishments.
Taking 53 years to shuck Christianity isn’t an accomplishment, BTW. And wandering off into Ancient Alien Astronaut Assistant Aryan Ancestor Accessory Arcana Assholery isn’t anything to be proud of. Seriously, you are really like an 18-year-old, what with dumping parts of Christianity, but not thinking through all the implications, and turning to some dumb-ass pseudo-cult instead. Chariots of the Gods? Really?!?! I’ve met many a twenty-year-old in just the same place as you are now.
Again: What is incredible about Exodus being a literary invention?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
scottyroberts:
This is the third time I can count that you’ve misquoted someone. Are you not bothering to check who you’re responding to?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Janine,
I asked this a long time ago but it was ignored. Did ancient aliens have their own ancient aliens that jump started their own civilizations.
Was there a prime mover ancient alien that jump started all other civilizations through out the universe.
That’s a good question. Who knows?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Janine,
Messed up the blockquote. Dangit.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Nick Gotts @358:
wait, so scottyroberts lied *again*.
Shock and horror.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
At least he’s optimistic:
http://illuminutti.com/2012/09/01/its-all-in-the-cards-tarot-reading-and-the-human-psyche/
Crank magnetism.
Quite the intellect there.
Glen Davidson
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Menyambal,
i posted my first long bio as an answer to several questions regarding my credentials and “what I brought to the table.”
My bio was posted because someone had taken my FaceBook/social networking bio and posted a few extracts to demonstrate my narcissism. So in response I posted the thing in it’s entirety.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
*facepalm*
and
*eyeroll*
chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
scottyroberts
If you type
<blockquote>paste quoted text here</blockquote>
this will result.
It will make your comments easier to read.
It will not help you make sense.
—–
and Janine was asking if there are turtles all the way down.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
he’s into Tarot cards too?
How much woo fills scottyroberts’ cup?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
chigau:
you may need to explain the bit about turtles to him. He probably doesn’t get it.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Thank you, chigua. But I am not sure if the crank understands Discworld references.
Though it would be a step up for him if he started investigating the myths of Discworld.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Nick Gotts,
Have you considered that I am answering the rifled questions, charges, comments and tirades of several different people here?
If you don’t get how that can muddle the process a bit, you are bing complete obtuse, and there’s no room for dialog.
chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
*sigh*
Timing is everything.
Refresh is your friend.
(so is preview)
—
Tony
I expect you are correct about the turtles.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Poor Scotty doesn’t like reasoning:
http://www.intrepidmag.com/blog/the-politics-of-exploration/
Oh, pardon me, it’s immovable reasoning, and that evil concrete mode of traditional methodology (you know, what gave us the modern world–why would anyone value such a trivial accomplishment?), and this being a charge against fellow cranks.
Sure, he belongs to that collection ufology freaks, but he’s not at all a believer. Perhaps not, actually, he seems to crash around in a blur of incomprehension and gobblydegook, the intrepid explorer without navigation or the curse of traditional methodological approaches. A crank without the respect of other cranks, too vapid even for the already vapid.
Glen Davidson
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Tony,
he’s into Tarot cards too?
How much woo fills scottyroberts’ cup?
I looked into lots of different things, especially when I was with TAPS ParaMagazine. When you take a Jungian approach to the Tarot, its a pretty interesting bit of psychology.
chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
You don’t even need Discworld for turtles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Tony, you should find out about crank magnetism. Many people who follow a crank idea usually follow multiple crank ideas. Please notice that scottyroberts admits to being a former editor of Ghost Hunter magazine.
Ghosts of ancient aliens!
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
The only one being obtuse here is you Scotty. The only one not engaged in dialog is you Scotty. Because your fallacious idea of dialog is you lecturing to real scientists and they lapping up your
arguments[fuckwittery]. Not where your arguments are trashed with reality, as they have been.chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Jungian?
Forsooth!
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Sorry, chigua. I am afraid I have that concept of turtles tied in with Discworld.
I have made much worse mistakes!
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
you’re just giving further evidence you’re an idiot.
chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
‘sokay Janine
Sir Terry needed a Prime Mover, too!
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Nick Gotts,
As you are all so aware, I come from an entirely different end of the spectrum from any of you esteemed lot. Surprise, surprise, rocket scientist, that you are going to find things about me you find woo-woo and abhorrent to your way of thinking.
In my attempting to make some crossovers and connectivities – as a result of many recent things that have changed in my outlook – I am met with a pretty sorry example of PR for your end of the spectrum.
While I have dwelt in the woo for a long time, my arrogance is nothing when pitted against yours.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
He certainly doesn’t like Obamacare, although waxing on about nonsense is quite all right:
http://deadreckoning.planetparanormal.com/
Radio programs by Scotty. Might do to listen to a few while doing something else at the computer.
Glen Davidson
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
His modesty is matched only by his knowledge of the scientific method.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Geln,
If yiou are an Obama supporter, I am pretty sure you aren’t going to waste much time listening to my old political talk.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Glen, please take the bullet and listen to this episode.
I do not have the intestinal fortitude to listen to this for a couple of hours.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Actually Scotty, your arrogance is inversely proprtional to your knowledge of science/scientific metehod. Since that knowledge is non-existent, your arroganance is infinite.
chigau (棒や石):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
You are not on the same spectrum as us.
Humanists and atheists and rationalists (for examples) are seeking “bridges” amongst themselves.
Psychologist and brain-physiologists (for examples) are seeking bridges.
You are what we are bridging over.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Janine,
Do you have some trouble admitting that people who spent their whole lives in a completely different way of thinking are decent people, too?
I’ll bet you are one of the Leftist Progressives voting for Obama who want to “all be in this together…” oh wait, until someone disagrees with you.
I don’t mean any of that in a mean-spirited way, I just know when someone is Left leaning almost immediately by the way they argue.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Scottyrobert, you really do not understand this crowd if you think that the US Horde are truly Obama supporters.
Not surprising. You you seem not to understand what anyone has to say.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Chigau,
I knew that from the start. Fair enough.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Janine,
I’d be willing to place a wager.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
You place too much pride in how you perceive people. Most of the regulars here could tell you that I have few positive words for Obama. You have not even come close to what my political believes are.
Smug jackass.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Give it up, people. Scotty Fucking Roberts knows you guys better than you know yourselves!!
You are a slimy and rather dim little fuck.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Janine,
Then I stand absolutely corrected and sincerely apologize for pigeon-holing you.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Janine,
I am just curious… are you as audibly loud as your type-written words…?
And I was sincere about my apology to you.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Not good enough, smug jackass.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Janine,
I must be psychic, too… I had a feeling you’d say that.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Janine,
You gotta admit, I don’t have much to go on other than what you’ve shown me.
You guys have a shitterload of things to look up on me, mostly because I am not anonymous, and I am not hiding anything.
So, lighten up. I am only going on what I see.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I really do not care about your . It is not going to stop you from spouting your inanities. And it will not stop you from pulling the same shit on the next person who diviates from your political view.
Smug jackass.
(Just as an aside; can you even begin to understand why people called you on your crack?)
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Fuck, what an ignoramus you are. Educated Europeans in the 15th century knew perfectly well that the Earth was not flat, and that if you sailed west far enough you would get to China. The only dispute was how far you would need to go, and on this point, Columbus was completely wrong – he thought the eastern edge of Asia was just 3,000 miles west of his starting point. Those aiming to sail around Africa knew where they were trying to get to – the sources of “spices” in the east – the uncertainty was how far south Africa went, and so whether any such route was practical.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
No one should lighten up on you. Your smugness is repulsive, even if you are trying to be civil.
You are going on what you see yet you are so fucking willing to make sweeping pronouncements. And when called, you get all mealymouthed.
Right now, we are toying with you. Look up the concept of chew toy.
SQUEAK!
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Here he credits God or guardian angels for Tarot’s “accuracy”
I think it’s true that he doesn’t know what he believes, other than believing in himself no matter what woo he is into at the time.
Glen Davidson
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
I might have known Snotty’s denial of reality extended to the most important issue of our time.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Nick, one could say that the problem was logistics. They had no idea how far they had to go and therefore, no idea how much supplies were not. It was the fear of starvation and dehydration the was the barrier to exploration rather then the fear of dropping off the edge of the Earth.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Nick, I did not say that. I was quoting what was on scottyroberts’ blog.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
scottyroberts
seldom correct
never in doubt
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Ah, you mean by the way they’re not constantly lying, bullshitting, and goalpost-shifting. Your etch-a-sketch approach to your own beliefs certainly bears a close resemblance to Robomormon’s.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Janine,
If you think I was not aware of that, you probably aren’t as perceptive as you might think.
That is why I am still here.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Glen,
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
And the smugness continues.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Nick,
You know as well as I, that t what you state above was NOT the nomenclature of the day – even though I wasn’t talking specifically about Colombus.
You just missed the entire point. The point was that it wasn’t those who agreed with the great explorers that spurred them on – it was the overwhelming opposition that fueled their fires.
By the time of Colombus, there had already been expeditions back and forth to the New World. There wasn’t much question about the roundness of the earth at his time unless you went to the uneducated masses. As you stated, his was a mission to find the route to the orient, based on the fact that others had hit landfall prior to him.
My comments were about the things that drive us to explore. In your zeal to point out my lack of intelligence, you nay have missed that.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
B!U!L!L! F!U!C!K!I!N!G! S!H!I!T!
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Janine,
From me or Glen. He sounded pretty smug to me, bu, then again as you are quick to point out, my perceptions of people are worth much.
I simply asked him – in light of many other things talked about in this thread – did he also notice when that is dated? If i recall it is more than two years ago. What have I stated about my belief system from the past year-and-a-half?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Janine,
Qualify that.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Janine,
And before you go saying it was ALL purely about gold and subjugation of “inferiors,” think again.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Fuckface, seeing that it has been you I have been calling smug, it stands to reason it was you I was again calling smug.
Oh! I get it! You are fucking trying to be clever!
You are as clever as you are civil.
Smug jackass.
(And for the clueless, I mean you are smug, scottyroberts.)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
B!U!L!L! F!U!C!K!I!N!G! S!H!I!T!
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
scottyroberts:
I’ll repost part of my comment @287, which you’ve failed to address.
Here is another lie from you:
(thanks to firstapproximation @115)
Which is it? Are you agnostic? Or do you believe in god? You’re not an agnostic if you claim to know god exists.
Do you come from the same school of flip flopping that Mitt Romney did?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
It won’t wash, Snotty. You referred to them specifically as “flat-earthers”. What “spurred them on” was money: the idea was to cut out the middlemen and import “spices” direct from source – which is exactly what the Portuguese started doing, along with killing rather a lot of people.
WTF are you on about? “Asia” and “Africa” were both terms used by Europeans in the 15th century.
The only European expeditions to the Americas prior to Columbus generally accepted by reputable scholars are those by the Vikings from Greenland (which is geologically part of the Americas itself) to Labrador and Newfoundland, and possibly further south. It’s possible Basque fishermen had reached Newfoundland. It’s most unlikely either of these had any influence on Columbus. I guess the speculative tales about other pre-Columban expeditions are just another type of crankery you accept.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:29 pm
scottyroberts:
Well you’ve stated that you believe in the tenets of the bible.
That’s from YOUR book, which was published THIS year. So are you a believer, or an agnostic (as you say you’ve been more or less for the last 15 years)?
You’ve contradicted yourself several times.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
A little over two years. Is that a long time in your flailing about? It isn’t to most people who deal with things reasonably.
You mean because I show up what a fraud you are? Yes, I’m sure that using honest data is “smug” in your idiotic little world of shifting woodom.
Glen Davidson
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Tony,
I have answered that at least three times.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Tony,
I have also answered THAT one at least two times.
Jadehawk:
November 5th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
decent? maybe. wrong, and therefore harmful? definitely.
does not compute
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
With patently dishonest obfuscation. Here, you’ve claimed to have been an agnostic for 15 years; in your book, less than 2 years ago, you claimed to be a Christian.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Until the contradictions are eliminated by a clear and concise answer, it hasn’t been answered. Logic 101, which you fail.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Nick,
Despite my comments being about exploration, NOT Colombus (I should know, I wrote it), there are other Europeans who are said to have travelled to New Foundland and “Amerike.”
1) Henry Sinclair in the late 1300s, though scholars say this is myth, others do not.
2) Irish St. Brendan of Ardfert and Clonfert, known also as “Brendan the Voyager” in the 530s. Several scholars attest to the veracity of this voyage.
3) Lief Erickson around 1000. Duh.
4) The “Bristol Fisherman,” around 1480, calling NewFoundland and Nova Scotia, Brassyle.
But, of course, my article wasn’t about Colombus, it was about exploration and discovery. Read it in full or quote more of it.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Scottyroberts:
It should be easy to direct me to the comment where you explained your beliefs. Of course your book says you’re a Christian.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Nick,
I already addressed that with you in quite a lengthy response that had absolutely nothing to do with obfuscation.
You see what you want to see.
vaiyt:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Overwhelming opposition? All the maritime expeditions were financed with inordinate amounts of money from the powerful of the time. There were no mavericks in that business.
But hey, if you’re willing to buy one type of mythology, why not go the whole hog?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Tony,
It’s somewhere in this thread from the last two days. That’s the best I can offer you. It was a huge, lengthy reply to Nick Gotts.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Janine,
I was just toying with you.
Rutee Katreya:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
http://fyeahhistorymajorheraldicbeast.tumblr.com/post/3726786937/depressingfacts-tumblr-com#notes
Course not. There was also spice, porcelain, and prestige too.
People don’t really hear enough about the Basque outside of the context of balkanization nowadays. Granted, it’s kind of a small group.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Tony,
Found it… #272
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Rutee,
My little article wasn’t about Colombus. It was about exploration and discovery.
Rutee Katreya:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
And that makes you less misinformed about the supposed heavy opposition by flat earthers in what way?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
FTFY
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Scotty:
Did you ever come up with the citation for your claim that the DNA and fossil evidence don’t agree when it comes to human evolution? If not, why not? And why did you even bring it up?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Anyone who wants to read Snotty’s obfuscation, it’s @272. It is, as he says, long, but about a third of it is a completely irrelevant quote from Richard Feynman.
Incidentally, while obfuscating over how it really doesn’t indicate lying to say in a recent book that he’s a Christian, in the following quite explicit terms:
- but to say here that he’s been an agnostic for 15 years, he simply ignores the other blindingly obvious contradiction: that he’s repeatedly said here he doesn’t believe in paleo-contact, while he said in the book that he believes not just in contact but in interbreeding:
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
I think there’s a clue to the answer to your last question in the second passage I quote from his book@441.
vaiyt:
November 5th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
scottyroberts, after trying the Galileo Gambit, switches to the Columbus Gambit.
Guess what, jackass. They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, but they also laughed at Gene Ray. Just because you’re facing opposition, doesn’t mean you’re right, unless you’re willing to give Time Cube a consideration.
The only genius who was a genius BECAUSE people laughed at him was Groucho Marx.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 5th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Personally, I’d rank Stan Laurel higher.
Rutee Katreya:
November 5th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
They were right to laugh at columbus. Dude was lucky therew as a continent in the way on his trip to China, or he’d have starved.
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
It was about exploration and discovery.
five bucks says you have spent less than 2 months of your life out of your home state.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 5th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
No shit, shithead.
SQUEAK!
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Scotty, is that what you are doing here—getting some fuel for your fire from our opposition? Your ego really does need a lot of stroking doesn’t it? (And, yes, “stroking” is a reference to masturbation—your self-written bio reads like porn (from back when porn was read, not watched on the intertubes). Are you having a crafty as you type one-handed?)
At best, you are acting annoying and obtuse just to provoke us, so you can show how rude and profane the Pharyngula people are.
Speaking of annoying: Yes, I’ll be voting for Obama tomorrow, but not for the reasons you believe. I’m voting against Mitt Romney, in some ways. Mitt and his goofy religion, ignorance and hatred, and the dishonesty and deception that he uses to bring out the bad side of people, are all things to be fought by any decent American. Just like we keep fighting your delusions here.
Obama is a very good man, and I respect him. He respects me, in turn, and my rights and freedoms. Mitt says he respects rights and freedoms, of course, but he doesn’t respect me enough to allow me to have those rights and freedoms, or to tell me the truth.
Scotty, you and your beliefs are all of a package, one that we have seen here hundreds of time. It usually is from someone a lot younger than you, though—like a teenager.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
I see Scotty the arrogant woomeister doesn’t understand the real significance of Columbus. At the time, almost all scientists/natural philosophers knew the earth was a globe. The question was the size of the globe. Columbus used the smaller size so that he could gain financing for his trip. Without the new world, Columbus did not have the provisions to make it to Asia with the largest size estimate, which was fairly accurate. Columbus is not an example for somebody challenging the scientific consensus and winning. He would have lost.
PZ Myers:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
I can’t believe this crap is still going on.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
The woomeister is arrogant. Ego the size of TexASS.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Yup, PZed, still going. And he has denied his own words so many times that he is starting to remind me of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (during the Nuremberg Trials, he denied his signature so many times that other Nazi defendants began calling him “The Man Without A Signature).
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
And the evidence presented by the woomeister wouldn’t fill a quark…
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Obborvis,
Did you ever come up with the citation for your claim that the DNA and fossil evidence don’t agree when it comes to human evolution? If not, why not? And why did you even bring it up?
Not yet. JUST completed a deadline this afternoon, been running ever since until five minutes ago. After tonight, my schedule cracks wide open for w few days. Stand by…
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Ogborvis,
Well crap. Typos and code typos.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Ogborvis,
Why does this keep chabging every time someone else posts it? hahaha. I said I wanted to present some items about archaeological finds that some people have brought into question.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
PZ,
I can’t believe this crap is still going on.
Me either.
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
I hope it’s cleat that PZ made the right choice not bothering to attend your “symposium”.
after all, your great thinking is on display for all to see here.
no need to throw money at it.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Ichthyic,
I’ll take that bet.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Rutee,
Indeed. And even when he landed, he didnt realize he wasn’t but a third of the way there.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Vaiyt,
I never brought up Colombus. Other people did. Wasn’t my gambit.
firstapproximation:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Jesus, how much crankery does scotty buy into? Hell, he doesn’t appear to follow the law of non-contradiction, so the answer may well be ‘all of them’.
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
I’ll take that bet.
well?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
You keep throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. And every time you are caught out in another lie, or another totally unsupported assertion, you toss something else out. But you never provide one iota of evidence to support any of the theories you bring up and then deny.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Ichthyic,
4 years in Detroit, Ad Agency CD
2 years in Virginia/DC, Ad Agency CD
18+ years in Twin Cities, MN, Ad Agency CD, AD
The rest is just travel: Scotland, England, Honduras, Wales
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Then shut the fuck up like the loser you are should…
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
4 years in Detroit, Ad Agency CD
2 years in Virginia/DC, Ad Agency CD
18+ years in Twin Cities, MN, Ad Agency CD, AD
The rest is just travel: Scotland, England, Honduras, Wales
ah, now I get it.
you’re an ad exec.
thanks.
explains everything.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Ogvorbis,
That’s a pretty slanted take on what’s gone on in here. I have been called a liar, I have been given opinions from this group. That’s very different than actually “catching” some sort of lie or finding “non-asserted” claims.
I have stated some things pretty clearly over and over again, only to have some other person come in and take me to task on things I’ve already answered, ad infinitum.
Regardless of the topic of discussion, it would be interesting to see how any of you did when 8-12 people were continually picking apart anything and everything you say. Not just important topics, but how you write your social network bio to whether or not you love your children.
Like PZ said, you all saw blood in the water and I stirred it up, so I’m the chew toy. I get that, that why I don’t whine about it. But you guys sure are shrill (and, yes, that’s a proper usage of the word, as it ain’t just an adjective) about everything and nothing.
I think there would have been a lot of good ground covered without all the diversionary drama you guys hurl out there. But, like I said waaaaay back at the beginning, I wear my big boy pants, so it doesn’t really phase me, other than the bit of frustration that ensues when every other post from someone else is off-topic.
But that’s the way you play, so I’ve stuck it out.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Jackass,
The only diversionary drama here is being perpetuated by you. You think there is fertile ground to cover? Show us the evidence. Link to something. Give us a reason to entertain your notions. It is that simple. Anything else but you offering up some evidence is diversionary.
The topic is “what evidence is there for any of these outlandish claims about aliens and DNA?”.
Drain out your bog boy pants and go fetch us that evidence. Stop stalling, stop diverting.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Ichthyic,
Would you like to know where to send my $5…? ;)
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Translation: We could have talked a lot of bollocks about absolute shit, if only you all stopped asking for evidence of my claims!
SQUEAK!
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Woo Monster,
I didn’t bring up anything about DNA. Let the AA-ers provide their own evidence. I said I was intrigued, and I also presented a case for the “alternative” theory in my book – which are the only paragraphs that ever get quoted here.
I also said in my book that I do not adhere to the AA theory. So why is it up to me to prove their point?
I DID say, here, that I know there are some existing questions from the AA-ers about archaeological relics, relating to style, culture, tooling, etc., and that I would post some of those questions over the weekend. I just said a few post back that due to my deadlines, I had to move that out to tomorrow, so hang on to your pants.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Sorry fuckwit, all the diversions come from you. And your failure to stick to the topic and present conclusive evidence to show you aren’t a woomeister afraid to commit to an idea. Since you are, you are all over the map with utter and total fuckwittery. What is telling is you think are are on topic. NEVER.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Your questions are irrelevant. The evidence that confirms your questions are of interest. No evidence, your questions are utter fuckwittery….
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Woo,
Nice squeak, but we all know what utter bullshit that is. You are, none of you here, looking for evidence, as is evidenced by all the diversionary shit you throw out there.
Don’t worry your… oops… I mean, hold your horses. I’ll post some of the questions I’ve had tomorrow.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
You must have a great time blowing your microphallic, masturbatory steam over there.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
scottyroberts:
This was pasted here from something you wrote elsewhere:
The explorer most associated with “flat-earth” is Columbus, no? Are you saying you didn’t post that here, or are you saying that wasn’t about Columbus?
You certainly seemed to know what the great explorers were thinking, so we just assumed Columbus was in your special friends.
No, you have seldom been clear. And you have refused to repeat information when requested, and you have dodged most questions. What is wrong with the idea that Exodus is fake?
I once explained and defended myself and my life to/from a very rude man and 8-12 of his friends, while solving a mechanical puzzle that had defeated them all. (See, I haz an ego.)
The fuck you don’t.
But, of course, you are the grand and noble soul here, while us little people shrill our frustrated hatred about your alabaster ankles. Thanks for casting some of your pearls our way.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
The answer is you are full of shit. I don’t even need to see fuckwitted and irrelevant questions. I need to see the evidence that answers your woo….
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Would you like to know where to send my $5…? ;)
wouldn’t you rather I just buy your book?
that’s why you’re here, right?
mr. “I’m an explorer because I lived in 3 states in the midwest”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
You need to pull your head out of your ass and actually make a man like stance on something to do with real evidence. So man-like, if you are refuted, as you will be, you will shut the fuck up like a man…
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Shut the fuck up about how you just met your deadline. Commenters on Pharyngula generally read the threads. Stop being a repetitive moron.
***
So, now you are backtracking on this issue too? No surprise. Do you not remember this little back and forth?
This clearly implies the evidence re your claims about DNA are going to be forthcoming? Are you changing your mind about this too?
***
I say they have no evidence at all.
You have given them a platform. Do you think they have any legitimate evidence, or are you knowingly giving bullshitters a stage? If you think they have ANY evidence whatsoever. Link to it! Fuck, it is not that hard.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Bull fucking shit. You are such a pathetic liar.
You have been asked countless times, by many various commenters, in many varying degrees of civility, to show us some evidence.
That is, pretty much, all I give a fuck about.
Show us that you are not a liar. Prove that we aren’t interested in evidence, link to some.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Nerd, I think you broke the chew-toy.
Wait, what the hell am I saying? This trinket was malfunctioning right from the start.
SQUEAK!
vaiyt:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Come on, you’re not even trying. Here’s what started the Columbus derail.
You were the one trying to compare our opposition to bullshitters to the “flat-earthers” opposing “the great explorers”. The only European explorer with such a story built around him was Columbus.
The comparison, all things considered, is apt. Columbus ignored evidence in favor of his crackpot geography, and the people opposing him were right.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Lurkers, notice what the fuckwitted Scotty is trying to do. He is trying to pretend that his questions are relevant to something. They aren’t relevant at all to science. Science doesn’t give a rip about his questions. The answers he gives to those questions and the evidence supplied to support his answers to his questions is the only thing of importance. No evidence supplied to support his answers his questions, and *POOF* science will dismiss his questions. Period, end of story. Only evidence by Scotty will convince science of anything.
My prediction, Scotty has nothing but his OPINION, which *POOF* can and will be dismiss as fuckwittery.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Because you have lied. And the evidence has been provided many times.
Asking for evidence to support your ideas is not opinions.
No, you have dissembled, backtracked, and denied your own writings many times.
Because, as has been pointed out by others, you either give different answers at different times, or your answers directly contradict your published work.
No, I saw a wooist who suports racist pseudo-science.
You have been trying to divert this thread since you showed up. Between ancient aliens and denial of science, you have been self-diverting.
This is not play. This is done for the lurkers out there who may take this woo as real science.
B!U!L!L F!U!!K!I!N!G S!H!I!T!!!
Your direct quote (#420 of the previous page of comments):
See? That is why we call you a liar. Because you are.
And it is spelled Australopithecus (done without even looking it up (and I am a stupid historian, not a scientist!)).
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
Simple sollution… don’t look.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Stop spouting shit!
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
And I have read that Scotty Alan Roberts fucks crocodiles.
vaiyt:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Lie.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
All Hail Tpyos. Has anyone seen a missing ‘C’?
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Fuckwit,
I’m just going to append this on to all my comments to you until you answer it,
firstapproximation:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Hey scotty,
Just out of curiousity, how do you think the election is going go tommorow?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Simpler solution. You shut the fuck up, as the abject woomeister you are should in the presence of real scientists… But then, that requires honesty and integrity, which you obviously lack. Must be a character flaw, and why you dropped out of the seminary..,.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Lol wrong
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Repeating
You intentionally are vague and leave wiggle room, never fully committing to anything so you can justify back tracking and scolding people for misreading you. Honest people state their case and make it, you do not. You argue and constantly shift your case based on how the tide is turning. You try to avoid ‘losing’ so much you don’t say anything. Your style of dialogue is intentionally and painfully protean, which is why people are frustrated with talking to you.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Ogborvis,
You might be more accurate to state that I may have forgotten that post and asked me to clarify what I meant. And it might help if you weren’t so blinded by your bandwagon, mob mentality, that all on your own you could have figured out what I was saying in plain Englich.
But I get it, you are putting on the Pharyngula dog and pomny show for your lurkers, so the show must go on.
As you notice, I din’t say a damn thing about having any DNA evidence? I said I had read that there isn’t any DNA linkage. Then I asked you a question about it. Rather than answer, you all told me to show evidence that there is no DNA linkage. What kind of horseshit idiot answer is that?
I would ask again… is this correct or are there DNA linkages between fossilized remains in the stages of the evolutionary ascendency of humans?
I, frankly, have no axe to grind either way. I’d just like to know from all you brainiacs which version is correct?
An absolutely spurious, vapid charge. Nice try. Again.
Because once you think you’ve latched on to something, you just won’t let it go, because to do so would make you look bad to your lurkers. Who’s the liar…? The guy who explained the incomplete context of one paragraph puled out of a 260 page book? Or the guy who has to play to his audience? Hmmmm…
What evidence did i ask you to provide so I could support “my” ideas…? Citation, please. Evidence, please.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Jesus fuck as if to illustrate my point.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
2 years =/= 15.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
How the fuck could you forget when I keep asking for the citation?
You are the one who brought it up, with no citation, no evidence. Do your own fucking homework. There are a shitload of books available, at your library or on Amazon (I even gave you a link to that particular search).
Why did you bring it up? To muddy the waters? Obfuscate? Red herring?
You deny that there has been any racism in some of the ancient aliens shit? YOu really deny this?
I, and many others, have repeatedly asked you for evidence to support your claims and you keep saying you will get to it. And then you forget all about it.
I’m reading this one (among others). I have no idea what the fuck you are reading.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Ichthyic,
The book would cost you more. I’d settle for the $5 if I were you. Are you trying to demonstrate how a real scientist gambles? If so, I’ll bet against you more often.
When did I ever say I was an explorer? I thought you said you’d bet $5 I’d never left my home state for over two months my entire life. There was no quote hailing back to some other post or comment. I told you exactly what you were betting on: where I had lived out of state for more thn two months.
Wait a minute… this is just another one of those diversionary posts, isn’t it? This is just a silly attempt by you to welsh on your bet, isn’t it…?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
The very same non-answers. For example, how long have been agnostic, 2 years or 15 years. It is unclear from you evasions which it is. Failure to say a simple one or the other is a form of lying, and you know that. Which is why you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
three pages of wasting time with a professional bullshitter.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Ing,
Are you dimwitted, or do you play one for your lurkers? Or do you simply not read?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Again repeating
You intentionally are vague and leave wiggle room, never fully committing to anything so you can justify back tracking and scolding people for misreading you. Honest people state their case and make it, you do not. You argue and constantly shift your case based on how the tide is turning. You try to avoid ‘losing’ so much you don’t say anything. Your style of dialogue is intentionally and painfully protean, which is why people are frustrated with talking to you.
It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
I think you’d have a different tone if you weren’t on the internet, mister!
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Noticing a pattern. We get 3 different stages of Scotty
A) Psuedointellectual who just wants to talk and doesn’t know what allt he problem is about, I mean come on guys he’s an honest seeker
b) Flippant and evasive. responding to questions with a chestnut and moving along ignoring it
c) verbally abusive.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Which is it fuckwit, 2 or 15? STRAIGHT ANSWER, OR YOU ARE A CONFIRMED LIAR AND BULSHITTER.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
People, people, people. He said he’d supply evidence, and I’m sure he’ll do so just as soon as Jesus gets back.
Scotty:
Now see, there was a chance to supply evidence, by saying where you’d read that. Instead, we get a Romney, with you just taking what you read on faith, and you expecting us to trust you. Do you know enough about DNA to realize that we can’t yet tell much about what codes for what? We certainly can’t look at DNA and say that a certain section was used by Australopithecus (damn, misspelled one letter) to look a certain way. We can, at best say that us and chimps differ in certain ways. We cannot dig up fossil DNA and read it like Jurassic Park.
But no, you read some goober, and trust that goofy information, and you do no work nor any research, you just take it in trust. Well, we don’t trust you. We want evidence.
For instance: What evidence do you have that the Book of Exodus is not a complete fabrication?
By the way, it isn’t personal that we don’t trust you, we don’t really trust anybody without evidence. The insults and shit, on the other hand, that’s personal, just for you, and well-deserved.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
By your standard you just set forth in this quote, you have declared yourself a liar. I have asked you at least a dozen time to give me your credentials and what field you work in science.
You have evaded, ignored and failed to either say one way or the other.
Go to bed now, it’s after 9:00PM.
anteprepro:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Or, in other words: Obvious troll is obvious.
The amount of substanceless bluster and bobbing around that scotty has done in just this one thread is simply remarkable.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
No no no no no he is not a troll. He’s a trickster, an old style fast talker. Imagine him in the rapid fire tone of James Woods or a cartoon Used Car Salesman. That’s what he’s doing.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Menyambal,
I get that position. Carry on.
And, no, I know absolutely nothing about DNA, well, except that I have it. I think. Right…? That’s why I posed my question to you (all) about what I had read.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Evidence required, not just your OPINION. Your unevidenced OPINION is *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. And my business card says Sr. Scientist. Trump that liar and bullshitter. My field is irrelevant to my ability to tell you what is and isn’t scientific…and you know that.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Fuckwit,
…
Lie #1,
Lie #2,
Fuck it, I’m not wasting my time with such a broken play-thing. You are not worth it.
SQUEeepfft. ..Whoops, the squeaker has been popped.
firstapproximation:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Lemme try that with less errors….
Hey scotty,
Just out of curiosity, how do you think the election is going go tomorrow?
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
scotty:
Nerd is not the one making extraordinary claims. Or supporting extraordinary claims. Or expecting anyone to take those extraordinary claims on faith with no evidence or citations. You are. Not Nerd. Were Nerd of Redhead making extraordinary claims, we would be asking him for citations and evidence.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Where did you read it. Citation, or you made it up. Welcome to science, where you ARE WRONG UNTIL YOU EVIDENCE YOURSELF RIGHT.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Scotty,
I think there is no evidence at all for ancient aliens. Prove me long*?
PFFT**
*It shouldn’t take a day to find one link, and yes, I know you just met some deadline, blah, blah.
** Chew-toy’s new noise.
anteprepro:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I would agree with the caveat that he is an especially incompetent version, soaking in flop sweat.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
And I would either have to supply them if I were a person of honesty and integrity, or shut the fuck up. If I kept making claims I, like you, could be accused of being a liar and bullshitter. What is your excuse for not shutting the fuck up?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Ing,
You and all your smarts. Look at you. Your mama must be proud.
What you have not factored in is the fact that all of you are talking to ONE guy. I’m talking to… how many…? All at once. The rapid fire ain’t nuthin’ but me trying to keep up.
And while you may all win the Science Guy Brownie Points, you lose on the moxie. You’re just thuggish middle schoolers admittedly trying to save face for your lurkers. You lie for your lurkers. You obfuscate for your lurkers. You put on the dog and pony extravaganza for your lurkers.
But, as I have said before, you lose major points for being dipshits in the “Science is cool for everybody” category. If this is the scientific community’s PR campaign, they’d better fire their ad agency and start shopping it around.
All you really do here is establish my charge that the scientific community is filled with people who have no idea how the common person perceives them. You artful at the insult and toss out a damned impressive twist on every variation of the word “fuck” you can fit into a pronoun. But your draw to those who might want to know more… for shit.
But keep that ball in the air for your lurkers.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
oops, prove me *wrong*, not long.
Typo monster has gotten very fat off this thread. My pants are plenty bogged, but I suppose I could be more coffeed-up.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
@anteprepro
Ah come on, give old Gil a break!
to be fair he usually has an audience self selected for wanting to believe. Hell at his conference he could probably just babble inanely and have it be eaten up. He doesn’t get to exploit the Fox effect here.
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Are you trying to demonstrate how a real scientist gambles?
yup.
I now know where you lived and what you did.
we now know the sum total of your knowledge comes from being an ad executive.
your travel knowledge comes from living in the midwest.
I’d say I got exactly what i wanted.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Pot, kettle, black, liar and bullshitter.
Sorry, you lose points for being a lying and bullshitting dipshit. You know that. But you do it anyway.
Irrelevant, and you know that. Science doesn’t give a fuck about liars and bullshitters. Which is all you are.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
That’s a “creative” misreading of what I meant.
Oh are we at “abusive Scotty” now?
I seem to have touched a nerve.
Nice to see you’ve given up being right and are now just whining about losing.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I suggest you focus less on keeping up and more on the quality of your comments.
Quality to be measured by how clear your claims are AND how much evidence you supply for them.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Nerd of DickHead,
Seriously? Dipshits like you who keep insisting i shut up, but have offered up nothing but blowhard.
But, hey, here’s my hand – no, not in marriage (not that there’s anything wrong with that) – but as a gesture toward a newfound paradigm between us, Nerd. You stop being a dickhead, and I’ll see what I can do to offer you more of what you need from me?
Does that work…?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Bullshiter
firstapproximation:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Ing,
Woo_Monster,
QFT
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Citation for your comment about DNA or shut the fuck up.
Also,
I think there is no evidence at all for ancient aliens. Prove me wrong?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Woo,
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
No evidence from you, so you should shut the fuck up, or you are blowhard liar and bullshitter. As we both know.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
You know why? It’s because you’ve made a lot of claims, and not backed up any, or almost any, whichever.
This is the always the way with you bullshitting pseudoscientific woomeisters, you come in with BS, you get called on it by all of the people who don’t like the lies, then you whine that you have so many people writing that you can hardly answer.
No, you’re getting a lot of responses because you don’t answer anything that you should, you feckless fraud. To be sure, you hardly know anything about discovery and proper evidence, but unfortunately you’ve chosen a territory where you have the obligation to know and to provide evidence. Ignoramus being asked for what you don’t understand, of course, but you’re still required to have some evidence for your claims. It just never occurred to you that it was important, instead of the adman glib made-up tripe that has gotten you through too much of your life.
It’s the absolute lack of any proper response from you that keeps people asking, and it was clear that you weren’t about to provide any proper response from the beginning. I’m not sure why such an ignoramus manages to get this much attention even so, but the nothing you’ve provided thus far hardly warrants the whiny complaint that you’re being hounded for a proper reply at any time.
Glen Davidson
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Ing,
I’ll see your ‘bullshitter,’ and raise you an “I-call-you-on-your-fuckin’-bullshitter” thing.
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
When you finally do put up some evidence, THEN one might have a reason to take you at your word.
Words must be supported by evidence, otherwise they are just bullshit.
PFFT!
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Glen,
Seriously. I keep hearing that, and I am flummoxed. Please recite for me this list of the “lot of claims.”
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Gaddamn, Woo!
What evidence do you want from me? Evidence that we were visited by aliens in our primordial past? There is none. We all know this.
What else do you want by way of evidence from me?
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
You finally learned to blockquote. Will check back in 5 years to see if you’ve figured out crop circles.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Obviously, WE do not as some of us write fucking books promoting it. Hell even if you don’t know but did when you wrote your damn book you’re basically now admitting to knowingly exploiting bullshit. Really the only question is when, if ever, you started consciously being a bullshitter rather than just mistaken.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
This should be the back cover blurb for his next book.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Then why do you claim that archaeologists (and other scientists) should take the idea seriously and devote time and money to investigating it? Then why do you write an entire book claiming that not only are there ancient aliens, but they have bred with humans? Then why do you claim that a particular sculpture of a turtle is different enough that it could be considered evidence?
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Glen,
I have given “proper response” over and over and over again. Long before we hit 500 posts. The real question is: are you reading them? Because you keep asking the same questions, despite my answers.
Please tell me what you feel I have been avoiding and I’ll tell you if that’s something I haven’t already answered at least a half dozen times.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
You are so fucking pathetic
Woo_Monster, Sniffer of Starfarts:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Fuckwit,
Did you say you appreciate my “civil tone”, or am I misreading you?
I really don’t get your understanding of the term “tone”, fuckwit.
***
I greatly disdain bullshitters who put liars for
jeebusancient aliens in front of an audience. People who make money of peoples’ gullibility can fuck off.I don’t think your woo is *as* harmful as some of the other types of woo, such as alt. med, faith healing, racial conspiracies*, or fundamentalist religion to name a few, but it is still mind-numbingly stupid. It is stupid because it is an outlandish, extraordinary claim, for which there is no evidence. Supporting AA-ers promotes irrational thinking and it is dishonest.
*Though there is some of this going on with the AA-ers
firstapproximation:
November 5th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Evidence that these ancient alien theorists should be taken seriously, which btw, is evidence you said you were going to provide. Evidence for your claim that the Hebrews lived in Egypt and weren’t slaves.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Furthermore, if you KNOW there is no evidence why are you insisting science is making a mistake by not taking seriously claims that have as much weight as pixie shit?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
No, unless your “proper response” is lies, bullshit, and evasions. The true proper response is the evidence to back up your ideas. Which you avoid like the plague, will tells all of us here and the lurkers, that you are a liar and bullshitter.
consciousness razor:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
I’m not a fucking scientist (or a non-fucking scientist). You could say I’m a “common person,” but that hasn’t stopped me from knowing since you arrived that you’re full of shit. It seems credentials aren’t necessary for that.
It’s kind of funny (and sad) that you seem to think you’re speaking to the scientific establishment. I guess it would be even funnier (but also even more sad) if all your bullshit here was published in a peer-reviewed journal, but that is not happening. This is a blog.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Ogvorbis,
For the same reason we devote any time to something for which we don’t have sufficient evidence. Perhaps some of these question are in the “it doesn’t matter” category for scientists. But there are good people who say there is more to these things than just silly ideas.
And no one is saying anyone should drop their busy work to devote time to something they have no desire to support. But i know of some scientists who might be happy to examine the theories or notions, but they fear repercussion form their peers… much like this thread illustrates.
Don’t take it seriously. But devote maybe a day or two a year to have a look without preconceived disregard.
Do I think any evidence exists? No. Not that we know of. But is that conclusive proof for all time that it will never be forthcoming? Your answer can only be “yes” if you’ve already made up your mind.
Same goes the AA-ers. They need to approach this fully prepared to have their notions dashed to pieces.
Then why do you write an entire book claiming that not only are there ancient aliens, but they have bred with humans?
But you see, the entire book isn’t about that. That was one of the alternatives offered up in the intro, and in a section later in the book. The bulk of the book is about Hebrew religious mythology. If you’d like, I’ll send you a book and you can see for yourself. The entire book was about exploring the Hebrew Nephilim mythology.
I don’t personally claim it means anything. But I know that this is one of the questions posed. If we are to look to archaeology, in part, for answers and evidence, what do you do when that evidence seems to contradict itself?
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
scottyroberts:
And I have told you half a dozen times that it doesn’t matter what anybody’s credential are. In this blog, we don’t go by authority, we go by argument and evidence.
But, to make you happy: I am the most interesting primate on the planet. The pope comes to me for confession. I am the main editor of Wikipedia. I have a doctorate in Russian pneumatics. I am the secret controller of NASA … see, it’s the internet, I can say anything, just like you can write yourself a bio that would make Hugh Hefner a bit squicky.
Plus, asking someone again and again for personal information, after they have declined to answer is very rude. As is declining to answer when someone has asked you again and again for reasons to think that Exodus isn’t a steaming pile of sermon-fodder.
And it would have been much better to give the source so we could read the original. But given the level of your reading, why would we even bother to take such a question seriously, why would we think you could understand a response, and why the fuck are you asking strangers on the internet to do your homework for you?
Yeah, thanks, dickweed, for yet another insult to our intelligences. We know you are on your own here, and you have reminded us of that before, and we have done this little dance with other trolls before. We know we’ve got you swarmed, and we know you haven’t answered ANYBODY at any useful level.
But keep playing the martyr card, and keep telling us we’re stupid. That’s really gonna help.
You’ve really fixated on the lurkers. Is that somehow like God for you? You know, the hidden observer making judgement thing? Is that why it resonates for you?
Hey, lurkers! Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries! Unlurk, you useless gits, or go away.
No, just the comment section of a biology blog. Are you imagining some shadow conspiracy or something?
This isn’t really “the scientific community”, and I am a fat white guy in the Ozarks, about as common as the drunks next door. And the really common folk have made it quite clear how they perceive science, thanks—again, we aren’t stupid, we’ve got internet access, and we are communicating with you.
Yeah, I do love the writing here.
Actually, we don’t do it just for them—that’s your obsession—and we do get a lot of former lurkers who come in to say they have learned a lot. I know I have learned a lot.
Just because you want us to explain things to you in the way you like, instead of doing your own studying and thinking, you get all shirty. It’s a damn popular blog, in case you haven’t noticed.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
I’m not about to make a comprehensive list of your pathetic BS, but there’s the DNA bit, the claims about cultural artifacts not fitting in (at least perhaps not) the cultural context, the claim that science is religion (here? Probably, but don’t really care, it’s part of your dishonest spiel), the claim that the ufologists are practicing in religion by dissing your junk (not here, don’t care, you need to back up any of your claims, including those you leave out here to obfuscate the issue), a host of claims about people here, which itself would constitute a considerable list (some might be considered supported by context, many not), your claim that your junk is worth considering despite the fact that it doesn’t fit with science (sure, as a psychological study in woomeisters, but that’s not what you meant), the basic claim that ancient astronauts are worthy of consideration for which I know of no good evidence whatsoever, and all claims relating to your open-mindedness and knowledge. Of the latter two, we see neither.
That’s quite enough, although I’m sure I could add a bunch if I were going to serve as your lackey paying attention to the gibberish that you spout, when you don’t even trouble to keep track of it. Not likely.
Glen Davidson
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Irrelevant. Science doesn’t give a shit about your questions. The answers and supporting evidence might be of interest to science. So, either show that evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Fixed that for you. Your questions are irrelevant to science. And you know that.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
You wrote earlier that there was no evidence. Now you write that there is insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence mans that there is some. Where is it? Or is this another non-lie?
You look for an explanation that fits the available evidence. And your explanation must have evidence supporting it.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Sufficient =/= any
Which is why you’re a bullshitter.. You admit it has as much evidence as fairie shit and then argue that means we SHOULD research it.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
See I’m going to call the trying to slight of hand “no evidence” into “insufficient worth researching” as a lie.
Or bullshit
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 5th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Some say Scotty Roberts is an ambulatory mound of crystallized urine. We have no evidence of this but people are saying it and we lack sufficient evidence so we must take this claim seriously.
Menyambal --- Sambal's Little Helper:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Sure, Ing, but are they good people?
Amphiox:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Hardly surprising to see scottyroberts devolve into the fallacy of authority.
Glen Davidson:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Oh no, not the “can’t prove that it didn’t happen” line common to all pseudoscientists.
Guess what, no one’s keeping anyone from looking for evidence for ancient astronauts, ID, or herbal remedies. And we actually expect scientists who might have found something truly strange to at least consider the possibility of aliens, since they’re a real possibility. WTF do you think SETI’s about anyhow?
No, you don’t study anything lacking in evidence at the present. You find evidence, probably while looking for something else (because who’s going to waste time chasing for what has at present no evidence?), then you study. We’ll study UFOs when there’s genuine evidence, and intelligent design as well when there’s genuine evidence.
Someone says something stupid, so scientists have to go chase after that. That’s the demand of charlatans such as yourself. No, come up with evidence that there’s something to study–even if it might not turn out to have alien origins–and then it’ll be studied.
If only you knew something about real discovery, rather than what you merely imagine it to be about…
Glen Davidson
Ichthyic:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
You are so fucking pathetic
+eleventy
Amphiox:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
If one really, really believes something, but doesn’t have sufficient evidence, then the honest and responsible course of action is to go LOOK for the evidence oneself, and PRESENT that evidence until it becomes sufficient to convince the scientific consensus.
That is what Newton did. That is what Galileo did. That is what Einstein did.
And if what evidence one has is not sufficient to convince one’s skeptics, then one does NOT wank about it, complain about it, or snark about it. One goes back and looks for MORE evidence.
That is what Wegener did. That is what Margulis did. That is what Marshall did.
It’s called “taking personal responsibility”. It doesn’t just apply to taxes and social programs.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Woo,
Are you saying that I misread you? I thought your tone was quite civil. If I was wrong, I will withdraw my statement, and you can be as civil or uncivil as you’d like.
As for the rest of what you said, we are on similar pages, for I too hold great disdains for certain things, oner of them is needing to be uncivil for the sake of putting on a dog and pony show for lurkers.
As for Fuckewits, fuckwits are fuckwits. Period. There’s plenty of those in the AA and Scientific fields to cancel each other out. And, by the by, you possess scientific fact and still be a fuckwit.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Woo,
Not you personally. I meant ‘you’ in the general sense. But if you want the moniker, I am sure you could step up to the plate…
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Amphiox,
Bingo. I can only agree with about 100% of what you said.
Spot on.
Amphiox:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
If scientific resources were infinite, and the time available to search for evidence infinite, then there are all sorts of interesting questions that we could go looking for the answers for.
If our own minds and lives were infinite, then there are all sorts of interesting things we can spend time and energy thinking about.
But scientific resources are NOT infinite, nor are individual intellectual resources. Hard choices must be made on what to spend these limited resources on. And there are many more pressing and more useful things to spend those resources on than something for which there is absolutely no evidence, in the faint hope that some time, some place, the evidence will some day be forthcoming.
And if someone should think otherwise, then the onus is on that person to pay the piper, and fork over the intellectual, temporal, and financial resources to go snipe hunting.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Amphiox,
I haven’t asked of him anything he hasn’t asked of me. The difference is that I graciously responded while he ignored my request, yet continued to offer up new ridicule.
A request is hardly the stuff of fallacious authoritarian devolution.
scottyroberts:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Again, Amphiox, outstanding. Thank you.
You have won my mind.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 5th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Well, I can’t believe scottyroberts has lasted this long.
3 pages.
You’d think he would learn something more than how to blockquote after all this time.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 6th, 2012 at 12:00 am
So scottyroberts, I checked out your post @272. Out of that, I got that you’re an atheist agnostic struggling Christian.
How the hell does that explain what your beliefs are?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 6th, 2012 at 12:08 am
@71
A possibly bible believing atheist agnostic struggling Christian who believes in ancient alien ancestry, maybe
chigau (棒や石):
November 6th, 2012 at 12:34 am
I, for one, do not want another 3D4K because of scottyroberts.
Travis:
November 6th, 2012 at 12:50 am
Wow. I had no idea this thread was still going on. I wish I had paid attention to for longer but now I am impossibly far behind. Lately I have, much to my sadness, not seen many threads where a decent crackpot type has come by and stuck around for a bit. I miss the creationists and other similarly minded people that would come here and chat for a while, it brought some joy into my life to see them flail and sometimes I even learned something reading through the comments. It does not seem to happen as often any longer.
Screw it, I am going to go back and find the start of this and in the very least, skim the posts and see if it brings my happiness levels back up.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 6th, 2012 at 12:58 am
Oh wow Travis. Good luck with that reading.
I’d love to see your face when you get through reading the crap scottyroberts has written the last few days.
Travis:
November 6th, 2012 at 1:04 am
I have already been reduced to skimming it and scanning for keywords that catch my attention. It is getting late and I sort of want to go take some photos before going to bed.
*sigh* I think things have changed and I will never find that old joy again.
*sob*
Ichthyic:
November 6th, 2012 at 1:40 am
As for Fuckewits, fuckwits are fuckwits. Period.
if you haven’t provided any evidence for any of your other contentions, you most certainly have provided plenty of evidence for your being a fuckwit alrighty.
firstapproximation:
November 6th, 2012 at 1:55 am
Scotty, you’ve been so dishonest I’m going to punish you by quoting you more.
The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM:The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins, Preface.
firstapproximation:
November 6th, 2012 at 2:02 am
Hanging him some more with his own words:
The Rise and Fall of the NEPHILIM:The Untold Story of Fallen Angels, Giants on the Earth, and Their Extraterrestrial Origins
Ichthyic:
November 6th, 2012 at 2:57 am
I wonder if Snotty thinks the Simarillion is a work of anthropology and history?
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 6th, 2012 at 3:35 am
Actually, I’m amazed he’s managed that.
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 3:41 am
Nick Gotts,
Actually, I’m amazed he’s managed that.
Yeah, you know, we lying ignoramuses and html code…
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 5:08 am
first approximation,
You can hang me on these words, then, too. This is from the new book releasing in February. It’s a bit out-of-context here, as is the passage you lifted from Nephilim, but it demonstrates where I have taken this whole notion since the writing of the first book. This hasn’t gone through final edits, but here is a section from chapter four where I addressed the psychology behind why people believe some of these things. I obviously can’t post the other 80% of the chapter, as the book isn’t yet in print, but here is a look…
* * *
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 6th, 2012 at 6:04 am
No it isn’t. Freudian psychoanalysis (I know less of Adler) is more or less pure pseudoscience, and in the USA (it’s not really taken seriously anywhere else these days), has become a large-scale scam, although it must be admitted it only exploits the well-off. There’s no evidence I know of for the major tenets of Freudian psychology, no evidence I know of (beyond anecdote) that psychoanalysis is ever beneficial, and some that it is harmful.
Assuming the extract you give from your new book is an accurate reflection of the contents, what changed your mind? In 2011 you were thought it had been proved that aliens not only visited the earth, but interbred with humans. Now you admit there’s no good evidence for these claims.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:15 am
It’s very obvious, and well evidenced, Snotty is a writer of fiction, pretending to write non-fiction.
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:24 am
Nick Gotts,
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:25 am
Damn. Typo in the block quote. Sheesh.
vaiyt:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:29 am
@83 (plus one thousand):
And that’s supposed to convince us? You’re just confirming to us that you’re a crank who thinks wishful thinking has the same value as reality.
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:36 am
Vaiyt
If that’s what you really think, then there it is.
vaiyt:
November 6th, 2012 at 6:45 am
I’m going to explain it further:
You point out that the AA claims are built on the framework of myth, that the adherents treat it like theology, that there’s no evidence… and then refuse to go the whole hog.
You outright characterize their field as the result of wishful thinking, but then try to keep a door open for their factual claims. Why?
You provide no argument for this besides “we need to beliiiiiiieve” (sure, that will go well in a forum of atheists) and “unfalsifiable claims can’t be proven to be wrong, so they could always be right” (sure, and how do we distinguish one unfalsifiable claim from another? Or are all equally true and dragons will be real if I wish hard enough?).
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:09 am
Vaiyt,
I personally think its ok to keep that door open – as long as there is responsible research on the part of the adherents as opposed to simply wishful thinking.
Its a notion. But those steeped in the research will claim they have “evidences” that ought to be considered. I say to them: “show me the money.” I want to see what they’ve got beyond simply a claim.
I will admit that this stuff certainly is an outcome of “childhood fantasies,” on my part. Less than my religious faith was for me, but more than mere scifi/fantasy, this stuff intrigues me. Should I just throw out the fun and excitement of the exploring the possibilities?
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:10 am
And Vaiyt,
That’s not as complete an answer as I could give you at the moment, as I am also doing three other things at the same time, but its a start, I hope…
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 6th, 2012 at 7:18 am
What you do with your time is your own affair; but stop pretending anyone else – particularly scientists – has any reason whatsoever to do likewise, or is being closed-minded, dogmatic or “religious” when they dismiss all this stuff as the pointless pseudo-scholarly wankery it is.
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:37 am
Nick Gotts,
I think it was you who mentioned waaaaaay back that scientists have personal beliefs that they do not bring ionto their research. That, of course, is a no-brainer.
Can I ask you… is there anything that might be categorized as “woo” that you, personally, find intriguing?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:40 am
Nope, but call it what it is FANTASTY. It isn’t non-fiction, which requires EVIDENCE.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:41 am
NOPE, nothing but drivel, and the looneytunes folks who believe in it are boring scatterbrained twits.
scottyroberts:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:51 am
Nick Gotts,
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:55 am
That is correct. Any scientist knows the easiest person to fool is themselves. So them must guard against that. Unlike you, who wants to fool themselves and think they are “deep”.
Yes, as do many scientists. But we know it is fiction. END OF STORY. Your drivel is fiction.
Ogvorbis: broken and cynical:
November 6th, 2012 at 7:59 am
scottyroberts:
I am so glad I don’t work for you. You have been misattributing comments the entire time you have been here. Do you do this in meetings at work? Do you have any idea how annoying it is to have my (or other’s) work attributed to someone else? Look at #96 & #97 on this page of comments and tell me what is wrong, please?
I think that I outgrew woo at about age 12 or 13. I do read science fiction and fantasy but I recognize that it really is fiction. Have for many decades, in fact.
PZ Myers:
November 6th, 2012 at 8:09 am
This really is ridiculous. I’m closing this thread, and everyone can move on over to Thunderdome to continue this discussion about Nephilim <snicker>