Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
(15-08-2013 08:31 AM)koolokamba Wrote:  This is a response to comment #108 by cjlr:

As I said in my last post: "All I'm saying is that a lot of people who have seen those pictures do think that it's a monkey-pig or human-pig. And looking at those pictures, I can see why." So it looks like we're in agreement. Smile

Citing it on your web site as though it supported your theory is disingenuous.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2013 10:16 AM by koolokamba.)
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to comment #111 by Chas ("Citing it on your web site as though it supported your theory is disingenuous."):

Theory is a different domain from journalistic reporting. When you're a theorist, you make arguments and hope you convince some people. I've seen that some people, looking at those pictures, suddenly think of a primate-pig hybrid as something that's a lot more plausible. So it's definitely useful to refer people to that page. But that's not disingenuous. Because I seriously do think people probably are chimp-pig hybrids, and I also seriously believe that that "piglet" probably is a human-pig hybrid. So my motives are honest. Citing that page would only be disingenuous on my part if I didn't believe such things. But I don't have to document my opinions, since they are just opinions. I look at those photos and I say "man-pig." I don't say "holoprosencephaly."

In my opinion, theories are never facts. Rather they are opinions or views that have either more adherents or fewer. But they are never facts, though some do seem so well substantiated that it's sometimes hard not to interpret them as such. As I see it, this is because once they become facts they are no longer theories. For example, if some of the scientists who have contacted me saying they want to start inseminating chimpanzees with pig semen, actually produce a hybrid, and then backcross such hybrids a sufficient number of times to produce a human, then this theory will no longer be a theory. It will be a fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
So now you're a journalist?

meh, I call creatard with a website trying to make fun of science and the scientific method. If by any chance some actual scientist happen to agree with his "theory" he then would use that to discredit science or something like that...

He's disingenuous and convoluted in his speech, and insists on discrediting others instead of actually explaining and providing evidence as any scientist would do. And he just raised the third creatard red flag: "theory is not fact", he also used the term "macroevolution" (his website name), and he said "god did not place pigs and humans in different taxonomic orders" implying god created stuff...

This one seems to be a rare kind of troll, but a troll nonetheless so...

TROLL ALERT!!!

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
15-08-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the first comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("So now you're a journalist? "):
What I said was that, in regard to reporting information about hybrids, "I see my role as similar to that of my wife, who is a journalist. She compiles, checks and documents information on various topics, but she avoids ever injecting her own personal opinions into the articles she writes."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the second comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("meh, I call creatard with a website trying to make fun of science and the scientific method. If by any chance some actual scientist happen to agree with his "theory" he then would use that to discredit science or something like that"):

So, let me get this straight. You're proposing that I, who am suggesting that humans are a derivative of sex between apes and pigs, am a creationist? LOL!!! I don't think even your intellectual allies will go for that one. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the third comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("He's disingenuous"):
Disingenuous means false or lacking in sincerity. I sincerely do think humans are chimp-pig hybrids. So what's disingenuous about that or anything else I've said?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the fifth comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("He's ... convoluted in his speech"):
Sorry if you're having trouble following my arguments. Perhaps, I could clarify if you'd be specific. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
we've seen worse from your kind... We used to have an Egor

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:32 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the sixth comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("insists on discrediting others instead of actually explaining and providing evidence as any scientist would do"):

Who, specifically, have I insisted on discrediting? So far as I know, I have studiously avoided making ad hominem remarks. Isn't it true that in fact your last post was intended to somehow discredit me? Please restrict yourself to the points under debate and avoid casting aspersions on my character. If you continue to do that, I will cease responding to you.

As to providing evidence, many, many people have commented that I provide on my website massive amounts of evidence supporting the pig-ape hypothesis. And as to explaining, I have been repeatedly told that it's all so clearly explained that anyone could understand. So I can only conclude that you're being more demanding than most people. I can't do anything about that, unless perhaps you have specific points that you want explained that you don't understand. If that's the case, please let me know and I'll be happly to do so. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Human Chimp-Pig Hybrid Theory
This is a response to the seventh comment in post #113 by Nach_in ("And he just raised the third creatard red flag: 'theory is not fact'"):
The following definitions of theory are from Webster's Third New International Dictionary:

-A belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as a basis of action
-A hypothetical entity or structure explaining or relating an observed set of facts
-A working hypothesis given probability by experimental evidence or by factual or conceptual analysis but not conclusively established or accepted as a law

Do you dispute these definitions? Do you somehow see them as being also definitions of the word fact?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: