^ Didn't use it incorrectly. Earlier, you said the person who made this thread didn't know what he was talking about. You're a hypocrite. Still think you look cool? Oh, and . . . Mr. Completely, utterly wrong, Obviously, you have a heavy problem misunderstanding or you just threw assumptions around. I disagreed with PART of what you said; I did not disagree with the primary subject of the topic. Didn't I make that obvious enough? Or you have troubles reading?
Cha Ching! There's the moneymaker right there!
That is what I disagreed with. Seeing as the back of the head of the skull bone is at least two times wider than an actual human skull, there's a direct difference. This means what you said was COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY WRONG. You made assumptions and rendered yourself a flaming hypocrite at the same time. Congratulations!
Main Entry: fal·la·cy
Pronunciation: 'fa-l&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
1 a obsolete : GUILE, TRICKERY b : deceptive appearance : DECEPTION 2 a : a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : ERRONEOUSNESS
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
as your post is completely wrong, the fallacy is in your logic due to your belief that there is a uniformity to human skulls. Any logic based on an incorrect assumption is wrong by default. Your mis-use of the word......it does not apply when you yourself are making an inaccurate statement, only when the fault of another person's logic based on known data or fact is the word used correctly. sorry, try again.
really? what are the parameters of the human skull then, may I ask? What are the precise measurements.........because I would be more than happy to link you to pictures of human beings with all different sizes and shapes of skull. So Charles Barkley isn't human because his skull is wider than mine? People with downsyndrome are not humans? A 2 second google search of the terms "skull deformity" or "facial deformity" will render your arguement completely moot........as it's based on no facts, not even logical conjecture. Your argument seems to be that any skull that differs from the size/shape of your own is not a human skull instead of realizing that there are no defined shapes or sizes for human skulls..........meaning the only way a skull could be categorized as "different from a human skull" would be in the actual anatomical construction (number of bones present or proximal positioning of bones relative to one another).
Gender: Male Location: America
Allegiance: Omega Xi
Account Restricted
Okay, you commited Logical Fallacy due to the fact that you stated there was no difference in the bones when there was a direct difference in the size of the back of the skull. Because you were incorrect and you continue to attempt to debate about it, this rings in logical fallacy.
erroneous
Being in error will cause Logical Fallacy. Immediately. When you argue upon something that is incorrect with no exclusive evidence or any evidence whatsoever, it's Logical fallacy because when you become or are incorrect, your statement is fallible.
Yet you fail to prove your point again. Not only that, you're wrong. Again.
Check this out:
(please log in to view the image)
(please log in to view the image)
^ Average skull sizes that will not render the skull a differential from regular human anatomy.
Let us see here. Debating about the Star Child skull, correct?
Let's compare:
(please log in to view the image)
^ There it is. Notice anything awkward? Well, the Starchild skull has a different structure.
Considering the Starchild was believed to be an Alien, doesn't this make it different? Or is it still the same as a human skull?
Here it comes. As simple as it gets:
The wideness of the Skull exceeds the average regular human skull and renders it different compared to a human skull. Not only that, it completely breaks Frankfurts Plane law and defies the Human Skull completely and utterly. You were wrong in saying the Starchild skull and the Human skull had no differences. Period.
^ Cha ching! Lookie here! You saying there was no differences in the bones. The wideness from a regular skull would have rendered it completely different in the first place. The skull was rendered inhuman because of it's wide and different complexion from a Human skull.
nobody's debating if the "star child" skull is an average human skull as clearly it is not. The point of contention is that you believe that human skulls have set parameters, which they do not. You believe that any skull that does not fit your made up/pulled out of your ass parameters are not human. A person could be born with a bone deformity causing their cranial bones to be 12 inches in width from left side to right side.......that does not make them any less human. A person could be born with a bone deformity (or binding, the common practice that results in this deformity) with a skull that is cone chaped......18 inches in length from top of the head to lower jaw, that does not make them any less human.
the only thing that could render a skull not human would be the number of bones present or their proximity to one another........those are the only constants present in all human skulls. Size nor shape have anything to do with anything..........
you posted a picture of skulls side by side. I see no bones missing (besides the obvious lower jaw)........I see no extra bones. All I see is a wider cranial structure........consisting of the very same cranial bones that every human walking the earth has, no extras.
next you're going to try and tell me that Joseph Merrick wasn't a human because his skull looked like this.....
(please log in to view the image)
OMG LOOK!!!!!! THE LEFT SIDE LOOKS NOTHING LIKE A HUMAN SKULL........HE WUZ AN ALIE3NZ!!!!!
seriously kid.......If you hadn't already realized your assertions were wrong before and haven't just been arguing for the sake of arguing, the actual picture of a human skull that disputes your assertions must make it clear now..........but I'll look forward to more trolling. You typing the same wrong assertion over and over simply for the sake of arguing, even though it has even been disproven with visible facts in this very post.
keep 'em coming........
ps. you could save some time typing if you just use the quote feature on your second post..............it's the same thing anyway.
Stranger things have happened. Sometimes, a sheep with 2 heads is born, or a lizard with 5 feet. Are those aliens too ?
__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Interesting comments. I didn´t realise that there were so many skull deformities. Its also probably unlikely that an Alien would have the same sort of build ie a skull of bone like us at all.
But in some conspiracy theories there has been mention of Aliens changing human, or Pre human DNA or something along those lines. Whats the possibility of some of the wierd skulls which have been found being deformed by this.
Wish I had discovery channel sounds good, although a lot of science programms tend to give one sided accounts quoting scientists who have already made thier minds up.
I hate to admit it.......but that is totally true. They are doing science an injustice and defaming it.
Science is the study of our world. The methodology of science dictates that we observe occurances and record them. We then use that data to attempt to come to a universal understanding of any particular subject. This is why science is always changing. The more knowledge we gain.....the more fine-tuned our understanding becomes. Some of these people dismiss things off hand because it does not fall into their current understanding. The exact opposite of their job.
I was watching an episode of "Is it Real?" on National Geographic channel yesterday. It was about Lake/Sea monsters. While most are laughable (the very way they were treating the subject)....they were lumping all supposed creatures together. They were lumping a supposed sea serpent (snake with flippers) which actually had a complete carcass photographed in the 30s with the laughable subject of lake monsters (no way a land locked lake could have a breeding population of unknown animal without being known). They didn't even give mention to the Giant Squid which was a supposed sea monster....a cryptid.....which actually turned out to be true.
sucks that you don't have Discovery Channel. Pretty much, all I watch is Discovery, TLC, National Geographic and Discovery Science channels. I just go through and find documentaries on subjects that interest me ( a lot of them) and DVR them to watch at my discretion.
I do watch other documentarys from other channels (Im in Germany) some which appear to be taken from BBC or Discovery channels.
One made me laugh, where they showed or tried to predict how certain creatures would evolve in the future. Theres was a Squid swinging through a jungle like tarzan, cool Graphics but pathetic.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 27th, 2006 04:24 PM
