Lol. I knew it. Mea culpa for not phrasing the painfully obvious better, I should've known you would miss the point entirely.

We could continue this for the next twenty pages, you know. If you want my advice, I'd consult a professional about your obsessive clinging to details while failing to see the big picture.

And because you're still missing it, apparently, I'll repeat: put forth an argument or quit spamming.

Put forth an argument to what?
First of all, I'm not the OP, I already stated what I had to say to minimalist, to which he has provided no answer.
Secondly, if you want me to stop my rebuttals, stop addressing me...

Anything relating to the OP. What I meant was, we've gotten about as far from the original discussion as possible. I don't see the point in the continuous nitpicking when it doesn't add anything to the debate.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:04 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: There is no point that a supernatural explanation becomes a more reasonable explanation for any example of a thing that either one of us cannot comprehend or personally explain. Arguing from ignorance keeps you ignorant. I said that your old book did not hold the answers to the origins of the universe. You then thought that you were right about your conclusion if you could get me to admit that people of an older generation were capable of doing something that I didn't understand, well...you've mistaken. That is not what was demonstrated and the reason I didn't answer your "question" was because it seemed stupid. So...there ya go. I hope it was worth the wait.

My point was that Ancient people possessed knowledge that we currently do not have (as evidenced by the pyramids etc.), they weren't dummies.

Dummies? Who said they were dummies? That's a straw man. It's the year 2015, look at all the things that modern science has discovered and can now explain. Even if you ignore all the cool stuff that is in direct conflict with your book, you gotta admit Huggy, it's pretty fucking amazing. Particle physics, molecular biology, bio-mechanical engineering, neurophysiology, just do a simple YouTube search of those words and I defy you not to find something that's awe inspiring. What I said was, it would be exceedingly foolish for anyone to ignore all of the modern contributions available to them while searching for the best answer for the origin of the universe. I said that your book was written by primitive men, I didn't say they were dummies. I too am impressed that they were able to do some of the things they did back then as some of them seem impossible today. But if you ignore the part that makes them the most impressive, you miss the whole point. Those things they did are especially impressive because they did them in spite of their lack in technology, in spite of their lacking in knowledge, in spite of their gaps in wisdom . Don't forget, Egyptians used to worship statues that they personally built, and something as simple as an eclipse could provoke these people to believe that the statue was angry and wanted them to kill some of their people in order to set things right again. Don't confuse impressive physical feats as evidence for absolute universal knowledge, Huggy. I would encourage you to start drawing a line in the sand when it comes to where you place your certainty, and instead of keeping a wide open mind without capacity restrictions, start using a filter. You can have an open mind that entertains all things, but you gotta stop letting everything stay.

(March 4, 2015 at 8:12 am)Norman Humann Wrote: Anything relating to the OP. What I meant was, we've gotten about as far from the original discussion as possible. I don't see the point in the continuous nitpicking when it doesn't add anything to the debate.

The thing is, when I don't answer someones post, I'm accused of dodging, and if I answer everything, I'm nitpicking.

(March 3, 2015 at 6:45 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote:

---

---

why are you posting a video of Jamal Bryant? The Guy is a crook.

---

(March 4, 2015 at 8:36 am)The Reality Salesman Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My point was that Ancient people possessed knowledge that we currently do not have (as evidenced by the pyramids etc.), they weren't dummies.

Dummies? Who said they were dummies? That's a straw man. It's the year 2015, look at all the things that modern science has discovered and can now explain. Even if you ignore all the cool stuff that is in direct conflict with your book, you gotta admit Huggy, it's pretty fucking amazing. Particle physics, molecular biology, bio-mechanical engineering, neurophysiology, just do a simple YouTube search of those words and I defy you not to find something that's awe inspiring. What I said was, it would be exceedingly foolish for anyone to ignore all of the modern contributions available to them while searching for the best answer for the origin of the universe. I said that your book was written by primitive men, I didn't say they were dummies. I too am impressed that they were able to do some of the things they did back then as some of them seem impossible today. But if you ignore the part that makes them the most impressive, you miss the whole point. Those things they did are especially impressive because they did them in spite of their lack in technology, in spite of their lacking in knowledge, in spite of their gaps in wisdom . Don't forget, Egyptians used to worship statues that they personally built, and something as simple as an eclipse could provoke these people to believe that the statue was angry and wanted them to kill some of their people in order to set things right again. Don't confuse impressive physical feats as evidence for absolute universal knowledge, Huggy. I would encourage you to start drawing a line in the sand when it comes to where you place your certainty, and instead of keeping a wide open mind without capacity restrictions, start using a filter. You can have an open mind that entertains all things, but you gotta stop letting everything stay.

Granted.

The point I was making though is that the construction of the pryramid would have defied the laws of physics, which the example of coral castle proves. How can a single man move a 30 ton stone? No one is saying it's magic. The popular theory is that it was anti-gravity, which is far beyond our technological level.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys can ask Y/N questions, but can't answer them yourselves.
Pretty hypocritical, no?

(March 4, 2015 at 4:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: First of all, I wasn't talking to you, that was directed at Esquilax.

Is that why you said "you guys?"

(March 4, 2015 at 4:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Secondly, I explicitly stated "A yes or no answer will suffice", your answer of

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit.

Is not a clear yes or no. The word you used "intimating" meant to be purposefully vague.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate

Quote:intimate
: to say or suggest (something) in an indirect way

Well, from your own link, you forgot the second part of that definition. Which is pretty much what everyone here expected, but just to clear things up for some of the new people who don't know how much of a lying sack of disingenuous shit you are:

Huggy's own link Wrote:Full Definition of INTIMATE

transitive verb
1
: to make known especially publicly or formally : announce
2
: to communicate delicately and indirectly : hint

None of this matters, though, Huggy. Time to pony up.

Are you saying that you don't understand what I mean when I say this, in response to your question:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit.

You don't know what that sentence means?

Just a heads up, Steel. There's nothing new down Huggy's Bullshit Road. Be prepared for extremely irrelevant nitpicking.

(March 4, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Norman Humann Wrote: Just a heads up, Steel. There's nothing new down Huggy's Bullshit Road. Be prepared for extremely irrelevant nitpicking.

Believe me, I know. I fully expect him to completely miss the question and nitpick some more on the definition of "intimate" as if that word just makes my whole meaning unclear and up to wild interpretations. As if that sentence could possibly mean anything other than "no."

Huggy's ego will not allow him to admit he's wrong. It'll never happen. I just enjoy watching him spin circles to maintain said ego. The irony is that while he's doing that, he's just proving to the rest of us who live outside in the real world how stupid and ridiculously pathetic he is.

Perhaps he should look up "I was wrong" in Greek and Hebrew.

(March 4, 2015 at 5:26 am)Norman Humann Wrote: Quit playing dumb.

I'm afraid it's not an act, in Huggy's case.