Göbekli Tepe

[Age]

You didn't understand at all what I wrote.

I understand enough to know that you are sometimes completely WRONG in what you write, as I have just pointed out and shown.

You showing that you are completely and utterly incapable of clarifying and elaborating on what you write means that I understand enough to know that you do not always understand and know what you are actually talking about. For example, you write; "the first humans,12,000 years ago", which is completely WRONG compared to most literature, besides the bible.

No, you don't understand enough to tell when I'm wrong, at all.

But I just did tell when you are WRONG, and SHOWED the very reasons WHY you are WRONG?

Did you MISS it? Or, do you not accept it? Or, mayibe you just do not understand it?

You can't even decode a word like "human" based on context.

How do you know? I have not said any thing either way regarding "that".

You, however, have continually SHOWED that you are completely incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, write and mean

All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

You never answered the actual question, but now you say I can not decode a word like 'human' based on context.

So, IF this is True, then how about you decode this for us by explaining in what 'context' are you actually referring to when you say; "the first humans, 12,000 years ago"?

In what other context could the word 'human', in relation to "the FIRST humans", be in, other than the Universal context?

[Arising_uk]

(Sipping coffee)... ravings of a self proclaimed lunatic.

Still avoiding my question eh!

[Arising_uk]

If they keep this up, we'll end up with coffee poisoning..

One can only hope.

Btw, it's caffeine poisoning.

[Arising_uk]

Obviously yes. Never encountered people before?

I have and shouting does not appear to get good results.

Even if so, it's clear that you're one of the last persons here to tell substantiated from unsubstantiated. ...

Good job it's not me saying it then but an archaeologist who has apparently worked for over two decades in the Michigan area and on the subject of copper mining and the indigenous natives.

Of course they overlap but the past is still artificially divided into sections.
Even children understand this.

Not if they say things like "the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age" they don't.

And you still don't get it that there was a major civilizational collapse between 1200 and 1150 BC, followed by a centuries long dark age. This is common knowledge. ...

Just checking but do you know what is meant by a "dark age" in History?

I do get that some of the Mediterranean empires appear to have suffered a collapse around this time but this is not what I'm doubting about what you say.

As I said, a fine pawn. ...

Don't come the raw prawn with me.

That's the bullshit I was referring to. Thousands or ten thousands of pits were used for thousands of years, and your article is implying that they produced basically no copper. ...

Is it thousands or ten thousands? This is exactly the kind of inaccuracy that the article talks about.
The article does not claim that they produced no copper, just that the figures that are being used to justify claims that there are missing billions are based upon wildly inaccurate assumptions.

Refuting something indeed crazy like "1 to 1.5 billion pounds", and then claiming that everything was refuted, does work on many people.

Given that the claims of some mythical ocean-going race engaged in a transatlantic copper trade is based upon this idea of 'missing copper' I think it a fairly strong refutation of that claim, that there is also no other archaeological evidence for such a trade route pretty much puts the kibosh on it. I get that some people will hold onto their cherished beliefs in the face of actual facts but c'est la vie.

[Atla]

I have and shouting does not appear to get good results.

Wasn't even really "shouting" btw, it wasn't in caps.

Good job it's not me saying it then but an archaeologist who has apparently worked for over two decades in the Michigan area and on the subject of copper mining and the indigenous natives.

And what about other archeologists who claim otherwise and aren't paid to lie?

Not if they say things like "the collapse at the end of the Bronze Age" they don't.

You think that because you aren't as bright as many children.

Just checking but do you know what is meant by a "dark age" in History?

I do get that some of the Mediterranean empires appear to have suffered a collapse around this time but this is not what I'm doubting about what you say.

I do, unlike you.

Don't come the raw prawn with me.

As I said, you are a fine pawn.

Is it thousands or ten thousands? This is exactly the kind of inaccuracy that the article talks about.
The article does not claim that they produced no copper, just that the figures that are being used to justify claims that there are missing billions are based upon wildly inaccurate assumptions.

And no one sane is claiming that it was billions.

Given that the claims of some mythical ocean-going race engaged in a transatlantic copper trade is based upon this idea of 'missing copper' I think it a fairly strong refutation of that claim, that there is also no other archaeological evidence for such a trade route pretty much puts the kibosh on it. I get that some people will hold onto their cherished beliefs in the face of actual facts but c'est la vie.

Besides the hundreds of thousands of tons of missing copper that you still haven't explained, there are countless other evidences for early transatlantic travel. Some of them mentioned in this topic too. We get it that you will defend any official story to the death, no matter how much you have to lie. Talking to you is pointless and I have better things to do, as a fine pawn you can have the last word.

[Atla]

I understand enough to know that you are sometimes completely WRONG in what you write, as I have just pointed out and shown.

You showing that you are completely and utterly incapable of clarifying and elaborating on what you write means that I understand enough to know that you do not always understand and know what you are actually talking about. For example, you write; "the first humans,12,000 years ago", which is completely WRONG compared to most literature, besides the bible.

No, you don't understand enough to tell when I'm wrong, at all.

But I just did tell when you are WRONG, and SHOWED the very reasons WHY you are WRONG?

Did you MISS it? Or, do you not accept it? Or, mayibe you just do not understand it?

You can't even decode a word like "human" based on context.

How do you know? I have not said any thing either way regarding "that".

You, however, have continually SHOWED that you are completely incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, write and mean

All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

You never answered the actual question, but now you say I can not decode a word like 'human' based on context.

So, IF this is True, then how about you decode this for us by explaining in what 'context' are you actually referring to when you say; "the first humans, 12,000 years ago"?

In what other context could the word 'human', in relation to "the FIRST humans", be in, other than the Universal context?

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

[Arising_uk]

Wasn't even really "shouting" btw, it wasn't in caps. ...

Large emboldened fonts just makes it more of the words of the loon.

And what about other archaeologists who claim otherwise and aren't paid to lie?

"paid to lie", always the refrain of the internut loon.

Post up these other archaeologists then.

You think that because you aren't as bright as many children. ...

Well there are certainly bright children around shame you aren't one of them.

I do, unlike you. ...

So what does a 'dark age' mean to you?

As I said, you are a fine pawn. ...

Shouldn't you add Muhahahaha after that?

And no one sane is claiming that it was billions. ...

My apologies, 1 to 1.5 billion pounds it is then.

Besides the hundreds of thousands of tons of missing copper that you still haven't explained, ...

Wow! You certainly aren't a bright child are you. There are no hundreds of thousands of tons of missing copper.

there are countless other evidences for early transatlantic travel. ...

Post up the links then.

Some of them mentioned in this topic too. ...

Well certainly claimed but were there any links?

We get it that you will defend any official story to the death, no matter how much you have to lie. ...

No-one is lying you loon, that you think the works and critiques by the actual archaeologists working in their respective areas are lies just shows how far down the fairy-hole you are.

Talking to you is pointless and I have better things to do, as a fine pawn you can have the last word.

Ta! You are a typical example of an internut loon whose gullibility knows no bounds and whose selective reading ability and confirmation bias makes you impervious to reason or critique and unable to examine or revise your beliefs about something. I have no idea why you visit a philosophy forum if you cannot cope with critique of your ideas and beliefs.

[Age]

No, you don't understand enough to tell when I'm wrong, at all.

But I just did tell when you are WRONG, and SHOWED the very reasons WHY you are WRONG?

Did you MISS it? Or, do you not accept it? Or, mayibe you just do not understand it?

You can't even decode a word like "human" based on context.

How do you know? I have not said any thing either way regarding "that".

You, however, have continually SHOWED that you are completely incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, write and mean

All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

You never answered the actual question, but now you say I can not decode a word like 'human' based on context.

So, IF this is True, then how about you decode this for us by explaining in what 'context' are you actually referring to when you say; "the first humans, 12,000 years ago"?

In what other context could the word 'human', in relation to "the FIRST humans", be in, other than the Universal context?

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

[Atla]

But I just did tell when you are WRONG, and SHOWED the very reasons WHY you are WRONG?

Did you MISS it? Or, do you not accept it? Or, mayibe you just do not understand it?



How do you know? I have not said any thing either way regarding "that".

You, however, have continually SHOWED that you are completely incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, write and mean

All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

You never answered the actual question, but now you say I can not decode a word like 'human' based on context.

So, IF this is True, then how about you decode this for us by explaining in what 'context' are you actually referring to when you say; "the first humans, 12,000 years ago"?

In what other context could the word 'human', in relation to "the FIRST humans", be in, other than the Universal context?

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Now you are indeed 100% clueless about what I wrote (and why I won't clarify it to you hehe).

[Eodnhoj7]

I sip coffee when he speaks...do you want a cup? (Sipping coffee)

If they keep this up, we'll end up with coffee poisoning..

"Sipping" coffee...I have to pace myself.

Anyhow atla, I think your argument is an interesting hypothesis that should be expanded on.

[Eodnhoj7]

But I just did tell when you are WRONG, and SHOWED the very reasons WHY you are WRONG?

Did you MISS it? Or, do you not accept it? Or, mayibe you just do not understand it?



How do you know? I have not said any thing either way regarding "that".

You, however, have continually SHOWED that you are completely incapable of clarifying what you, yourself, write and mean

All I have done is just ask you HOW and WHY you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

You never answered the actual question, but now you say I can not decode a word like 'human' based on context.

So, IF this is True, then how about you decode this for us by explaining in what 'context' are you actually referring to when you say; "the first humans, 12,000 years ago"?

In what other context could the word 'human', in relation to "the FIRST humans", be in, other than the Universal context?

Still not even close to understanding what I wrote. Nor will you be closer with your "Universal context".

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Age... knows nothing.

Hence when discussing with him one must "sip coffee"....(sipping coffee)

[Arising_uk]

"Sipping" coffee...I have to pace myself. ...

Don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Will you be answering my question of whether you have now abandoned your claim of all being assumptions and claiming some kind of 'truth'?

[Eodnhoj7]

"Sipping" coffee...I have to pace myself. ...

Don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Will you be answering my question of whether you have now abandoned your claim of all being assumptions and claiming some kind of 'truth'?

I dont understand what you mean considering you view yourself as a loon and loons dont know anything.

[Arising_uk]

It's very simple, even you should get it. You claim everything is an assumption. I said that science is the best method we have found so far for coming to intersubjective agreement about our assumptions about how phenomena work. You then pooh-poohed this, so presumably you think your assumptions are truer in some sense. So all I am asking you is how you have come to this 'truth'?

[Atla]

Always looking at "another" and continually trying to ridicule them is just but one more way of trying to deflecting away from the Truth of things, which is; your complete inability to clarify what you, yourself, say.

You can not or will not even clarify what context you meant. This is probably because you can NOT do it. You appear to be absolutely fearful of even trying to clarify because of what WILL be revealed.

Here is a neat test I found (it's for little children tho):

There is a room with a ball, a basket and a box in it.
Ann goes inside, plays with the ball a bit, then puts the ball into the basket and leaves.
Later, Susan goes inside, plays with the ball a bit, then puts the ball into the box and leaves.
Later Ann comes in again, where will she look for the ball?