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.
You categorized many here wrongly.
But anyway, that’s not the most important part of my comment.
Please answer the questions I’ve asked.
What evidence?
Brought to question by whom?
Under what guidelines is it questionable?
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.
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
Questions don’t need to be scientifically supported. However, presuppositions, speculations and answers DO.
… 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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
And in your case, of course, the answer is abundantly clear: the latter.
please excuse the multitude of grammatical mistakes and typos. I’m commenting in the middle of a number of other things.
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.
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.
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
Was my archaeological reference not the right kind of question?
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.
Nope. Forget the questions, look at the evidence. And keep in mind simple explanations first.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
What are your credentials to question how science is done? Put up yours, or shut the fuck up about mine.
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.
And implicit in that is the claim you agree with the conclusions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Has Scotty ever answered this repeatedly asked question? Evading answering such simple questions do bring his whole truthfulness into question…
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why does this point you to Ancient aliens instead of some more rational options?
Unicorns instead of horses or even zebras.
I’ll believe it when I see it. But of course this should have come before your diatribes about how closed-minded scientists are.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Nope, none whatsoever. Which is why we have to remind you of how science is done.
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.
Open minds, meaning woo, woo, woo is accepted unskeptically. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of your scientific prowess. Which doesn’t exist.
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?
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.
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?
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)?
That it lacks evidence, for a start. For another that it’s grossly counterindicated at most construction sites.
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.
What scientific experience to you bring to the table woomeister?
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.
LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE IMAGINARY DEITIES, LEPRECHAUNS, PIXIES, AND UNICORNS.
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
I like posies. They’re pretty. Not sure about a symposy, but I’m always game.
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.
I’d go 7 to 2 against.
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.
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.
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?
Indeed; and the parallel with your silly little meeting is exact.
Admittedly an incomplete list, but you seem to understand the point. No conclusive evidence, your idea gets no consideration.
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.
Why do you take no notice of the other standards listed in the same comment?
Hell, Nerd, at this point even inconclusive evidence would be an improvement.
Now you mention it, I think Nerd would do well to drop the “conclusive” from his standard demand from theists and wooists.
Then you should understand why we don’t take you seriously.
@62:
*peeks in*
Any positive evidence of aliens yet?
No?
Call me when there is.
We’ll miss you
Funny.
This is pretty much how the original undead thread (Now the lounge) got started.
Call it the primordial ooze.
Well, in fairness. The two in that thread were actually presenting bullshit “evidence”. Something they could be nailed down on.
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.
Point.
So you are saying they have evolved? or, rather, the tactics hae evolved?
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.
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.
Nick Gotts,
Why do you take no notice of the other standards listed in the same comment?
I did.
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?
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.
That was me who asked that question.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Why did you ignore the other standards that are listed?
Damn tenses. Hates them, I do.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Why did you ignore the other standards that were listed?
hypothesis
theory
fallacy
peer review
chatroom
.
What do the above terms have in common?
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.
chigau @84:
Rebecca Watson?
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.
Which is an implicit claim of believing it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be intrigued by it. Logic 101, you fail it.
@nerd
Ugh no. I am actually interested incryptoid and saucer bullshit. Your logic is wrong
Okay, what do you mean?
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.
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)
@nerd
The 0phenomina both of the urban legends and the way they change and develop in historical context is interesting to me
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?
And now scottyroberts is cutting out a portion of my quote and arguing against that. Fucking liar and bullshitter.
PZ has not been around much the past few days. The last version of the lounge when over the 1000 comment mark.
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.
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.
Scotty learned well from his bible college and fox news
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?
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.
Books About UFOs
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.
Ing said:
“Scotty learned well from his bible college and fox news”
What would that be, Ing…?
scottyroberts:
Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish? Please be specific.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clarification on my typo… I have NOT hedged my words….
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.
People have frelling cited what you said dumbass. Like I said, Fox News bullshit.
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.”
UH whoops.
Seems you’ve been putting up a bit of a charade here Scotty.
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
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?
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
Well DUH, that was obvious from its first inane post. The bullshit was there for everybody to see.
That would be fun.
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
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.
Nerd, not every issues is a nail.
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
Ing, I think this was the first gray that I can recall seeing.
Not a school girl.
@Janine
How do you know it’s not a school girl. Have an open mind
I watched that show over forty years ago. Prince Planet was not a school girl.
@Janine
Prince PLanet is just your religion
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.
But undoubted very grey!
An other gray from the same time period.
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.
Space Pope
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.
scottyroberts, I suppose we could consider you equally as fairly agnostic about God as about extra-dimensional Watchers, fallen angels and ancient aliens.
<snicker>
*Snicker* the self-deception is still there.
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.
scottyroberts:
The ineluctable implication is that, at that time, you were stagnant.
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.
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.
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.
Was this the result of alien biological experimentation?
Nepenthe said:
“Was this the result of alien biological experimentation?”
No. It was the product of thinking.
Just checking.
Scotty, your faith in the imaginary deity isn’t what I was talking about…
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:
firstapproximation quotes thus:
I have a problem with that speculation — why didn’t they become bonobos?
(A clear manifestation of anthropocentrism)
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.”
At some point someone should bring up the first rule of holes.
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.
Rev. BigDumbChimp said:
“At some point someone should bring up the first rule of holes.”
Oh, you’re not in THAT deep.
scottyroberts:
Has it occurred to you that the context of that story is ludicrous?
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!)
scottyroberts
Which artifacts are so anomalous that Aliens are the only remaining explanation?
[a citation would be nice]
Oh yeah how could anyone get confused
Says the Black Knight
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?
But you were in over your head with your first post…
WRONG not since Vol 2 of Runaways IIRC
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.”
This is why you are rightfully called a bullshitter
Ah, a delusional fuckwitted idjit without any cogency, who can’t accept fiction is fiction. Makes everything you say suspect as bullshit.
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?
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.
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.
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.
[meta]
scottyroberts,
I suspect every published author feels your pain.
(But then, many authors would just love to have a publisher ;) )
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.
Yeah let’s look at that quote again
Bullshitter
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.
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.
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?
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.
Don’t you mean “Dr” John Ward?
LOL WRONG in so so so many ways.
Great history fail, asshole.
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.
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.
Hey after fucking around in Egypt maybe you can start digging up DC cemeteries looking for Abe Lincoln’s vampire slaying ax!
[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)
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
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?
go excavate yourself
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.
Ing said:
“go excavate yourself”
Clever, And funny.
I may have to borrow that one…
Why not? After all, not like a pretend scholar has to worry about plagiarism.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes, the actual reason for the Exodus.
Wait
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.
scottyroberts:
Fuck off, you patronizing slimy turdbucket.
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.
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.
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?
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”?
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.
Hotshoe said:
“Fuck off, you patronizing slimy turdbucket.”
Fuck off yourself, you feckless, self aggrandizing, nudje.
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.
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]
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.
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.
@firstapproximation
15 points for the coining and use of crocophile.
The above reminds me of something I’ve seen once or twice or a hundred times in this thread from scottyroberts.
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?I don’t have evidence, but some people say that if Scotty seems frustrated it’s because he’s getting croc blocked.
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?
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?
Ing @176:
On the stand by his bed, next to his lube and naked pics of Ancient Aliens like ALF.
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)
@ 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry about my fumbling code, Tony. You get what I meant. I think.
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever read anything written by an actual anthropologist?
Ever?
Nope, nothing cogent with your speculations, fictions, and idiocy. Just abject fuckwittery.
firstapproximation,
Can i get a signed copy? ;)
“Misogyny” covers the kind of contempt for women shown in your “stop worrying your purdy, little head” attempted putdown.
That is fictional wanking about myths, making it totally more fiction. There is nothing of truth there.
Wrong again.
No; and we are still waiting for you to produce specific examples of these alleged “evidences”.
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.
Scotty,
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
Well, do you know about inferior scholarship, presuppositions, and idiocy.
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…
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…?
Nerd of DickHEad said:
Well, do you know about inferior scholarship, presuppositions, and idiocy.”
Well, I know idiocy when I see it… keep talking…
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.
Are you illiterate? I began one comment with ‘Actually’.
If I’m going to be a fictional creature, I’d rather be a vampire.
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.
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…
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 …..
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?
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.
Sound familiar?
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?
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.
What a pity that desire has not been realised.
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?
I’m sorry, that should read “When do I get a cookie…?” I would like it soon.
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! ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Could you hoggle somewhere else please?
@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.
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?
@Tony
subtract “reading”
Sorry was that too quipy?
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.
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…
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?)
Buffy stakes Edward.
The End
Ing @264:
Nah, not to quipy.
It was rather “thwipp-y” though…
Janine:
I have that shirt.
It’s totes awesome.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/1291
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Jadehawk,
because the jewish and christian god are totes different things.
also “archeological pundits”? LOL
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sigh
another typo
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
Nerd of DickHead,
I’ve asked you for yours at least a dozen times. What are you hiding, Mr. Romney…?
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.
Janione,
My latent misogyny. Word police.
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.
It bears repeating, bullshitter
Count the hits and ignore the misses!
If you take out what’s dissimilar between cats and rocks you have intriguing similarities!
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.
QUANTUM Bullshitter!
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.
scottyroberts:
Care to comment on my @287?
scottyroberts #256
Can recite that aloud while looking in a mirror without laughing?
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.
@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.
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.
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!
Hey have we exceeded 1/5 of the material being Bog Boypant’s peaty skunk weed bullshit?
Here’s a better question; did ancient astronauts butcher Whedon’s Alien 4?
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!
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.
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.
Kemist, you forget that we are all fourteen year old boys. or was that just Lynna?
SQUEAK!
I never said that you are a racist. I said that much of the ancient aliens stems from racism. There really is a difference.
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.
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.
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.
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
Bless your heart!
SQUEAK!
bets on the flounce?
scotty,
What is your basis for this claim?
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
stop butchering the English language, it has done nothing to deserve this.
Jadehawk the grammar police!
well, someone has to do it. This guy tortures the poor language publicly, and in books even! won’t somebody think of the
childrengrammar?!Scottyroberts:
I guess you have nothing to say about the points I raised @287 that prove you’re a liar.
Stay away from his book. The writing style is almost as bad as the content.
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.)
Scottyroberts:
I’m fairly certain PZ doesn’t want the love of your genocide loving, gay hating, rape loving, anti woman deity.
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?
Nick,
[email protected]
Email me directly.
Why bother, either post it or it doesn’t happen. We all need a good laugh at your expense.
I read #317 as a flounce.
Flounce plain as day. But then, when has that stopped egotistical idjits from seeing if we missed them? (Nope, not missed at all).
Bull…shit.
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.
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)
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.
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).
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.
@ 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;
Gregory:
I hate to inform you, but our preeeeeciousssd liar, scottyroberts, has flounced.
Gregory,
Most certainly.
@342:
Your question-dodge-fu isn’t strong enough, grasshopper. WHICH evidence, experiment or finding?
@342
Well that was worth the wait
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…
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?
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…?
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.
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…
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?
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.
“Ancient Alienist” is not a thing. It’s not a term. Using it will not decrease your Silly Quotient.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Heh I won that bet.
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?
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?
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?
Janine,
Messed up the blockquote. Dangit.
Nick Gotts @358:
wait, so scottyroberts lied *again*.
Shock and horror.
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
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.
*facepalm*
and
*eyeroll*
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.
he’s into Tarot cards too?
How much woo fills scottyroberts’ cup?
chigau:
you may need to explain the bit about turtles to him. He probably doesn’t get it.
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.
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.
*sigh*
Timing is everything.
Refresh is your friend.
(so is preview)
—
Tony
I expect you are correct about the turtles.
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
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.
You don’t even need Discworld for turtles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
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!
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.Jungian?
Forsooth!
Sorry, chigua. I am afraid I have that concept of turtles tied in with Discworld.
I have made much worse mistakes!
you’re just giving further evidence you’re an idiot.
‘sokay Janine
Sir Terry needed a Prime Mover, too!
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.
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
His modesty is matched only by his knowledge of the scientific method.
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.
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.
Actually Scotty, your arrogance is inversely proprtional to your knowledge of science/scientific metehod. Since that knowledge is non-existent, your arroganance is infinite.
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.
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.
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.
Chigau,
I knew that from the start. Fair enough.
Janine,
I’d be willing to place a wager.
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.
Give it up, people. Scotty Fucking Roberts knows you guys better than you know yourselves!!
You are a slimy and rather dim little fuck.
Janine,
Then I stand absolutely corrected and sincerely apologize for pigeon-holing you.
Janine,
I am just curious… are you as audibly loud as your type-written words…?
And I was sincere about my apology to you.
Not good enough, smug jackass.
Janine,
I must be psychic, too… I had a feeling you’d say that.
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.
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?)
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.
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!
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
I might have known Snotty’s denial of reality extended to the most important issue of our time.
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.
Nick, I did not say that. I was quoting what was on scottyroberts’ blog.
scottyroberts
seldom correct
never in doubt
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.
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.
Glen,
And the smugness continues.
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.
B!U!L!L! F!U!C!K!I!N!G! S!H!I!T!
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?
Janine,
Qualify that.
Janine,
And before you go saying it was ALL purely about gold and subjugation of “inferiors,” think again.
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.)
B!U!L!L! F!U!C!K!I!N!G! S!H!I!T!
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?
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.
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.
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
Tony,
I have answered that at least three times.
Tony,
I have also answered THAT one at least two times.
decent? maybe. wrong, and therefore harmful? definitely.
does not compute
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.
Until the contradictions are eliminated by a clear and concise answer, it hasn’t been answered. Logic 101, which you fail.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Janine,
I was just toying with you.
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.
Tony,
Found it… #272
Rutee,
My little article wasn’t about Colombus. It was about exploration and discovery.
And that makes you less misinformed about the supposed heavy opposition by flat earthers in what way?
FTFY
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?
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:
I think there’s a clue to the answer to your last question in the second passage I quote from his book@441.
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.
Personally, I’d rank Stan Laurel higher.
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.
It was about exploration and discovery.
five bucks says you have spent less than 2 months of your life out of your home state.
No shit, shithead.
SQUEAK!
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.
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.
I can’t believe this crap is still going on.
The woomeister is arrogant. Ego the size of TexASS.
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).
And the evidence presented by the woomeister wouldn’t fill a quark…
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…
Ogborvis,
Well crap. Typos and code typos.
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.
PZ,
I can’t believe this crap is still going on.
Me either.
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.
Ichthyic,
I’ll take that bet.
Rutee,
Indeed. And even when he landed, he didnt realize he wasn’t but a third of the way there.
Vaiyt,
I never brought up Colombus. Other people did. Wasn’t my gambit.
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’.
I’ll take that bet.
well?
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.
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
Then shut the fuck up like the loser you are should…
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.
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.
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.
Ichthyic,
Would you like to know where to send my $5…? ;)
Translation: We could have talked a lot of bollocks about absolute shit, if only you all stopped asking for evidence of my claims!
SQUEAK!
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.
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.
Your questions are irrelevant. The evidence that confirms your questions are of interest. No evidence, your questions are utter fuckwittery….
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.
Nerd of DickHead,
You must have a great time blowing your microphallic, masturbatory steam over there.
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.
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….
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”
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…
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.
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.
Nerd, I think you broke the chew-toy.
Wait, what the hell am I saying? This trinket was malfunctioning right from the start.
SQUEAK!
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.
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.
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!)).
Nerd of DickHead,
Simple sollution… don’t look.
Stop spouting shit!
And I have read that Scotty Alan Roberts fucks crocodiles.
Lie.
All Hail Tpyos. Has anyone seen a missing ‘C’?
Fuckwit,
I’m just going to append this on to all my comments to you until you answer it,
Hey scotty,
Just out of curiousity, how do you think the election is going go tommorow?
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..,.
Lol wrong
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.
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.
Jesus fuck as if to illustrate my point.
2 years =/= 15.
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.