What are your thoughts on this?

[ozso]

They're not non human. I explained that. They may not be what you think of as human. In fact, I know they're not. But as these are accepted scientific terms, your opinion on this matter doesn't count. You might as well argue about what a joule is or what a photon is.

Sometimes terms are inaccurate. Or are modified along the way. Terminology is not an exact science.

Archeology tends to indicate that ancient man was more advanced rather than less advanced. Desperate evolutionists actually go the "it was aliens" route to try explaining it.

 

[ozso]

If someone is posting on a forum about this topic and makes at least 6 factual errors in as many posts then one could safely assume that the person is exhibiting limited knowledge about the topic.

The errors pointed out were mostly a matter of being colloquial as you say, rather than being painstakingly technical.

 

[Bradskii]

Sometimes terms are inaccurate. Or are modified along the way. Terminology is not an exact science.

Not in science. It is 'an exact science'. So we know when we refer to humans in a scientific sense (as we were), that it is not just H. sapien we are referring to. It's precisely the need to avoid inaccuracy that these terms are used.

 

[Bradskii]

The errors pointed out were mostly a matter of being colloquial as you say, rather than being painstakingly technical.

There were nine or ten you made. I said 6 to allow for that. You can't mix terms like 'human' used in a colloquial sense with scientific terms like 'hominid'. In any case, pointing out that a human (in any sense of the term) is actually a primate for example is not being overly technical. It's pointing out an error in fact.

I think we should return to the op.

 

[ozso]

There were nine or ten you made. I said 6 to allow for that. You can't mix terms like 'human' used in a colloquial sense with scientific terms like 'hominid'. In any case, pointing out that a human (in any sense of the term) is actually a primate for example is not being overly technical. It's pointing out an error in fact.

Sounds like an argument over grammar rather than science.

I think we should return to the op.

Okay, LGBTQTXX+ is on an obvious campaign to brainwash little children.

 

[Astrid]

That's based on mistaking the remains of chimps as being ancient humans.

That statement- as in the rest if this discussion- is based on having no idea what you are talking about.
are talking about.

It's said to be a chridtian virtue to avoid speaking
falsehoods.

Sorry, I don't really follow. You said there were egregious books. That's a statement of admission that there are. How else am I supposed to interpret that? That you actually meant there aren't egregious books?

Since we seem to be confused I think you can answer this question even if English is your second language. Are there egregious books or not? Yes or no.

I don't think I made up any negative things about you. Please explain.

I don't really give hoot about what you think about evolution. I know that evolution from a common ancestor theory is unscientific. But I honestly am not that interested in discussing it. It's not an important enough topic for me. You may believe whatever you wish.

Yes your dismissal of the LGBT agenda to convert the kids due to a lack of acknowledgement of all the things being done is quite astounding.

At least you understand the concept of adding things up. Because when you add up all the LGBT droppings I mentioned you definitely do get a manure pile.

ADMIT= RELUCTANTLY CONFESS.

And you cannot admit that's the definition,
that calling it a confession was inappropriate.

As for that you "know" that common ancestry
is a false theory, that is so ridiculous.

Any theory is (again, check a dictionary sometime)
by definition, impossible to prove, might be false.

But to claim you know that its false is to claim the
impossible.

I'd say two horse plops there is already enough
to impeach all your opinions.
And start a manure pile.

I've no time for someone who makes things up
and pretends they are valid arguments.

So as I've had to say elsewhere for the same reason,
" Ok bye, lah"

 

[Astrid]

When a theory is rejected there's a tendency by some to conclude that the person rejecting it, must have no knowledge of it, even though they have no background information or evidence with which to base that conclusion on.

Turns out we do have the background
and can cite endless evidence.
Neither is true of thee.

 

[ozso]

" Ok bye, lah"

Ditto

 

[BurningBush84]

N.J. Forbids Schools From Involving Parents In Trans Decision

A grassroots fight over parental and transgender children's rights is brewing in New Jersey. One America’s Caitlin Sinclair has more.

www.oann.com

 

[Bradskii]

Sounds like an argument over grammar rather than science.

There are two vocabularies. One for common usage and one for scientific matters ('theory' is an excellent example, 'animal' is another). One shouldn't use the former when discussing the latter. It will make a person look like they don't understand the science.

 

[Bradskii]

Didn't you want to return to the OP?

Actually I wanted you to return to it to stop you commenting on scientific matters which I find I must correct. The thread has run its course. People are simply repeating themselves. You might as well just give the post numbers.

Post 33!
Yeah? Well Post 132 back at you!

Reminds me of a joke I can't be bothered repeating.

 

[ozso]

Actually I wanted you to return to it to stop you commenting on scientific matters which I find I must correct. The thread has run its course. People are simply repeating themselves. You might as well just give the post numbers.

Post 33!
Yeah? Well Post 132 back at you!

Reminds me of a joke I can't be bothered repeating.

Bye then.

 

[Astrid]

There were nine or ten you made. I said 6 to allow for that. You can't mix terms like 'human' used in a colloquial sense with scientific terms like 'hominid'. In any case, pointing out that a human (in any sense of the term) is actually a primate for example is not being overly technical. It's pointing out an error in fact.

I think we should return to the op.

Ever get the feeling that our friends who make
things up and cannot ever accept the least error
actually believe they are infallible?

 

[rjs330]

I dunno. You be the judge:

View attachment 334596
Say hi to grandma.

Well in you case I'd question your heritage. You're good looks certainly didn't come from them. Somebody better check the mailman. I'm wondering where they got the camera.

 

[rjs330]

That statement- as in the rest if this discussion- is based on having no idea what you are talking about.
are talking about.

It's said to be a chridtian virtue to avoid speaking
falsehoods.

ADMIT= RELUCTANTLY CONFESS.

And you cannot admit that's the definition,
that calling it a confession was inappropriate.

As for that you "know" that common ancestry
is a false theory, that is so ridiculous.

Any theory is (again, check a dictionary sometime)
by definition, impossible to prove, might be false.

But to claim you know that its false is to claim the
impossible.

I'd say two horse plops there is already enough
to impeach all your opinions.
And start a manure pile.

I've no time for someone who makes things up
and pretends they are valid arguments.

So as I've had to say elsewhere for the same reason,
" Ok bye, lah"

Nope, still don't follow. You admitted there were egregious books. And when pointedly asked if there were or weren't you refused to answer the question. Avoidance is usually indicative of not wanting to admit you did say something. Yes theory of common ancestry is false and unscientific. It's not observable, testable or repeatable. So see ya.

 

[Astrid]

Nope, still don't follow. You admitted there were egregious books. And when pointasked if there were or weren't you refused to answer the question. Avoidance is usually indicative of not wanting to admit you did say something. Yes theory of common ancestry is false and unscientific. It's not observable, testable or repeatable. So see ya.

How is it you cant figure a simple dictionary
entry, but you understand more science than
any scientist on Earth?

Don't run off leaving me wondering.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is it you cant figure a simple dictionary entry, but you understand more science than any scientist on Earth?

It's a matter of quality over quantity.

One doesn't have to understand more science than any scientist on earth.

That's not a prerequisite for disagreeing with them.

All one has to do is believe something else.

As someone once said:

I don't have to learn botany in order to appreciate the smell of flowers.

Don't run off leaving me wondering.

I'm sure you do it too.

Do you disagree with Christianity?

If so, is it because you know more theology than any Christian on earth?

If you put all the scientists on earth together ... past, present, and future ... their collective knowledge is less than the sum of its parts.

That's what makes them disagree with each other.

And compared to omniscience, science doesn't know anything.

A grasshopper can jump further than a flea, but neither can jump the Grand Canyon.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you didn't even take the few seconds I took to show it was a cruel hoax.

It's not a hoax. They sang the song.

Gay Men's Chorus dog-piled with death threats by vile QAnon conspiracy theorists

The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus has been dog-piled with death threats by QAnon conspiracy theorists over a satirical song about teaching kids

www.thepinknews.com

My favorite part of this "pink news" story was the part where they say that a similarly named Twitter user who has a sex offender record must be someone else because that Twitter user lives miles away. How many miles? Apparently pink news didn't dig deep enough bother reporting on that....but it's at least 2.

All this does is show how easy people like yourself fall for these type of despicable acts.

What despicable act? Singing the song?

I'm up to the back teeth with people complaining about the 'lying msm' but this type of crud is sucked up without fail.

You linked "pink news". I don't think I would call them msm....but I don't think they're unbiased.

How about an apology to the members of that choir for posting such a thing?

How about they state clearly and without question they aren't trying to influence the views of children regarding their lifestyles.

I don't think you or the gay choir understands the problem here. Imagine anyone knocking on your door and telling you that they'd like to talk to your children about their sexual views and see if they can be convinced to be more accepting of the stranger's sexual lifestyle? The reaction shouldn't be "come on in stranger, I was just about to get groceries but I'll grab Susie and Jimmy and you can teach them whatever you like."

The appropriate response is "if you don't leave now I'm calling the police and if I catch you anywhere near my kids, you should call the police and start running."

It doesn't really matter what that stranger's sexuality is....why would it ever be appropriate for them to indoctrinate your children with their sexual views?

That's the first problem....stay away from people's children with your sexual beliefs.

The second problem....they aren't denying the message of the song, they're doubling down on it. Taken out of context? See the example above and tell me what sort of context that an appropriate agenda? It's as if they think that the people sending them death threats will suddenly change their minds if they knew the context was merely indoctrinating people's children....not raping them. I don't think the people angry over this will suddenly pull a 180 and apologize. If they want people to be more accepting....why not debate or talk to adults? Why go after children?

Seems pretty clear everyone understands their intentions. I doubt anyone was confused by the lyrics.

Third problem....wrong format for jokes and satire. It's not that songs can't be funny....but unless that's all you do, plenty of people will have good reason to doubt you were just joking. Dave Chapelle is a comedian. The comedy stage is a perfect format for such jokes....and that hasn't stopped this same community from viciously attacking him and attempting to harm his career. He, unlike the choir, has the deniability of saying "I was just joking." The choirs boys don't.

 

[ozso]

The hoax is they only want to teach kids to be more accepting of others. And also they have to be the ones to do it, because everyone else is failing miserably. So you know, they're out to rescue the children from everyone else, and take them under their wing.

That's about as pedophile as it gets.

 

[BPPLEE]

It's not a hoax. They sang the song.



My favorite part of this "pink news" story was the part where they say that a similarly named Twitter user who has a sex offender record must be someone else because that Twitter user lives miles away. How many miles? Apparently pink news didn't dig deep enough bother reporting on that....but it's at least 2.




What despicable act? Singing the song?





You linked "pink news". I don't think I would call them msm....but I don't think they're unbiased.





How about they state clearly and without question they aren't trying to influence the views of children regarding their lifestyles.

I don't think you or the gay choir understands the problem here. Imagine anyone knocking on your door and telling you that they'd like to talk to your children about their sexual views and see if they can be convinced to be more accepting of the stranger's sexual lifestyle? The reaction shouldn't be "come on in stranger, I was just about to get groceries but I'll grab Susie and Jimmy and you can teach them whatever you like."

The appropriate response is "if you don't leave now I'm calling the police and if I catch you anywhere near my kids, you should call the police and start running."

It doesn't really matter what that stranger's sexuality is....why would it ever be appropriate for them to indoctrinate your children with their sexual views?

That's the first problem....stay away from people's children with your sexual beliefs.

The second problem....they aren't denying the message of the song, they're doubling down on it. Taken out of context? See the example above and tell me what sort of context that an appropriate agenda? It's as if they think that the people sending them death threats will suddenly change their minds if they knew the context was merely indoctrinating people's children....not raping them. I don't think the people angry over this will suddenly pull a 180 and apologize. If they want people to be more accepting....why not debate or talk to adults? Why go after children?

Seems pretty clear everyone understands their intentions. I doubt anyone was confused by the lyrics.

Third problem....wrong format for jokes and satire. It's not that songs can't be funny....but unless that's all you do, plenty of people will have good reason to doubt you were just joking. Dave Chapelle is a comedian. The comedy stage is a perfect format for such jokes....and that hasn't stopped this same community from viciously attacking him and attempting to harm his career. He, unlike the choir, has the deniability of saying "I was just joking." The choirs boys don't.

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic