Wow, theists put too much work into trolling in atheist guises. Maybe if they spent that time learning about the issues at hand, they wouldn't have to resort to trolling and their continuous train of fallacies.
Trolls aside, I really enjoyed the videos. May those following the "Thou shall commit fallacies" theist commandments bother you more...after all, if you're not angering them, then you're not doing your job well enough. ;)
How would you convince The late Dr Phil Skell if he was alive today that in order for a doctor to treat his patients then he would have to believe his ancestors were fish?
How would it prevent a doctor from treating his patients if he did not believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs by a "blind mindless watchmaker process"?
@AestheticAtheist I'm not sure which part of "I will not respond to comments by people who have their channels hidden from public view" you had trouble understanding, but spamming my video with apologist nonsense from the Dishonesty Institute is not going to do you any good.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss
"I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.
You also commit another non sequitur when you say biology is being attacked, It does not follow that people who doubt or question that a "blind watchmaker process" over billions of years is behind the diversity of living organisms are attacking biology.
You also commit a fallacy of presenting a false dichotomy because ID is not a problem for Evolution though an atheist such as yourself might hate the idea of design being let in the door, the only problem is that when you argue that there is no design in biology then you have already treated design as a scientific question, You could not say that there is no design in biological organisms and then say that the proposition of design is unscientific without contradiction.
"If Berlinski were not avowing support for intelligent design or creationism then he would not have agreed to appear in Icons of Evolution nor would he become a senior Fellow at the discovery institute"
Non Sequitur
It is so easy to point out the fallacies in your vids.
If you are using an authority in argument then it is fine if you demonstrate in your the soundness of the argument of that person but if you say because so and so says so then that is fallacious, it is ok to use an authority in support of an argument but not as a replacement for an argument.
"Ad Hominem: Attacking The Motive - when you criticize why the person might be arguing for a certain side, instead of criticizing the argument itself"
Claiming that a person is not a skeptic because they point out that you made an argument from an authority, Your conclusion does not follow thus it is a non sequitur.
Are you denying that an argument from an authority is a fallacy?
You share my suspicion that Berlinski is nothing more than Christian Fundamentalist disguised as an Agnostic in order to advance "Intelligent" Design Theory as a non-religious concept. Berlinski has got to be the most dishonest character from the Discovery Institute. The guy must learn to fly under his true flag. Subterfuge might be a good strategy in religious wars but not in science. Take off your mask, Mr. Berlinski!
Well done. Although it seems like an awful lot of time and effort to go to. What I find strange is the way people who claim to have a monopoly on truth and morality find it so easy to lie, cheat and deceive.
I love the fact that Jonathan Wells in a member of the Lolfication church, an organization which is pretty much an anathema to mainstream fundamentalist Christianity, a fact which secularists can point to next time when cretards accuse people who view their bullshit as less than self evident of "undermining christianity and civilization derpa derpa derps...".
It seems so odd to me that Christians claim to have a superior moral code from their God, and yet they have no scruples about being dishonest in defending their faith.
I like this quote from Dembski in his book on Intelligent Design: "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him."
@KnightTemplar108 Secularity and Theocracy are two diametrically-opposed viewpoints. Secularism is founded on the ideal of the separation of religion from government. Theocracy is the melding of, and ultimately the control by, the religious in government. You cannot have both, and at least one condition is true, so the dichotomy is not false.
One of the key factors leading to my rejection of theology and creationism was the dishonesty that creationists frequently resort to.
Another key factor was that that the evidence clearly supports science. But for those people who who aren't scientifically minded, the underhanded and cowardly dishonesty of the creationists should be enough to undermine creationism and its poorly disguised alter ego, Intelligent Design, completely.
@BathTubNZ The Moonies are the "short" form of the followers of the Unification Church, founded by Reverend Moon (his first name is not coming to me at the moment.)
@BathTubNZ Right, that looks like it might fit. The point being that FSAthe1st was correct in calling Welles as member of the Unification Church, since they are Moonies.
@Cyrathil Then it's my mistake and I misheard, because I specifically responding that he was a Fundamentalist Christian, which to me conflicts with being a Moonie. Sun Myung Moon is the second coming of Christ, for Moonies.
@BathTubNZ I think I remember him lumping Welles into the "fundamentalist" camp as well, so on that I would agree. It's a common mistaken assertion that if you fall into this group, you're a fundamentalist. I would also say he did it with Berlinski, what with him claiming in the video to be more of a Jew than Christian. even if Berlinski claims to be a "Secular Jew".
Since the misnamed Discovery Institute does absolutely no "discovering," one can only wonder what they do with their time -- other than writing puke fiction, that is.
I suspect that they spend some of their ill-gotten gains on the hiring of professional "Skeptics" who spew IDiotic propaganda in comment sections on YT, blogs, etc.
I think it's pointless to play their game by attempting to answer their deliberately provocative questions. Better to expose their fallacious tactics.
The dishonesty of the antiscience crowd is no real surprize and becomes more obvious every day. What really is confounding is this idea of a troll. For the life of me I can't imagine what any person gets out of being a troll. What possible enjoyment could a person derive from this kind of behavior? It is surely a failure to mature intellectually and/or emotionally. The closest analogy is the behavior of a petulant child. And that doesn't seem to embarrass them. I give up.
Though I generally like your videos, because they make me see another side to the origins debate, I do feel your name calling is uncalled for. You should show the same respect you would ask for from others. Otherwise, you alienate people and may find yourself preaching ONLY to the choir, so to speak. Though I disagree strongly with evolution, I don't call it "evilution". Likewise, you should NOT call creationists "creatards" or call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute.
@emmaus9 you again? Right, let's sort out some of your nonsense, shall we?
"I do feel your name calling is uncalled for."
Coming from someone who thinks calling people out on their dishonesty is "name calling", this is utterly meaningless.
"You should show the same respect you would ask for from others. "
Respect has to be EARNED. That means if you've demonstrably lied, you've lost any rights to ask respect from ANYONE. The DISHONESTY Institute are LIARS and Projectionists...
@emmaus9 "Likewise, you should NOT call creationists "creatards" or call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute."
Once again, behaving like a retard or lying earns you nothing more than my contempt. Creationists routinely engage in BOTH types of behaviour, and I will NOT be held back from calling them out on it. If you don't like that I'm calling your fellow religiously-motivated pseudo-intellectual muppets out on their BLATANT DISHONESTY...
@emmaus9 ...and if you wish to cry about it, you can do so on your own channel. If you have an argument against any of the POINTS I made, then feel free to put forth your argument, but as I pointed out to that fucking retarded muppet Nazra7 in my 3 point response, NOTHING I SAY IN TERMS OF "NAME CALLING" INVALIDATES ANYTHING I SAY ABOUT A GIVEN SUBJECT, AND TO SAY OTHERWISE IS DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST.
This will be the ONLY time I entertain you on the issue of "name calling".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@FSAthe1st Your arrogance has lost this subscriber. Enjoy your little mutual admiration society.
Hope you enjoy preaching to your own choir; your antics aren't convincing any who disagree with you to take your claims seriously. If you only wanted to amuse those who are already atheists and evolutionists then you have succeeded grandly. Bravo!! You must really enjoy hearing your own voice.
@emmaus9 "You must really enjoy hearing your own voice."
Coming from you, I'll treat it for the bullshit that it is. Your continued psychological projection of your own character and your bleating about name-calling while ignoring the back-yard insanity calls of friends like ShockOfFraud and EvidenceFree is completely dishonest and hypocritical. Let me give you this parting message.
Your hypocrisy is not welcome on my channel. Into time out you go with the other children.
@emmaus9 Having now checked my Subscription emails it turns out that I never got one with your name on it. Looks like you were never subscribed. Yet another example of dishonesty from the Creationist camp.
@emmaus9 What a pathetic and obvious attempt of triggering the bandwagon effect, combined with some usual slander. You seem to be very desperate... But hey, "the ends justify the means", don't they?
If you are still in contact with the Skeptic regards the Transitionials that he/she so blindly denies then he/she should be able to provide you with a definition of a Transitional. Try it out. You won't get one ..... not from ANY creationist.
I seriously doubt that these liars for Jeebus(DI) realize how nuts they appear to anyone with even minor training in science. Attacking the ToE is like going after the fact that our Earth is spherical( but somewhat eliptical) or trying to dispute that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or saying tides are caused by Neptune pushing his strong hands against the ocean.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- Aldous Huxley
@saxmanchiro "I seriously doubt that these liars for Jeebus(DI) realize how nuts they appear to anyone with even minor training in science."
I'm not a Scientist myself, but I passed all of my Science classes when I was at school and college. I understand enough about the scientific method to know that we can only study that which is susceptible to measurement and evaluation, so this attack by the Dishonesty Institute is completely meaningless. Still, I like to make videos on the subject.
@saxmanchiro "Attacking the ToE is like going after the fact that our Earth is spherical" their main goal is to preach to the choir, and make sure the choir stays ignorant. or, if someone is on the fence but liens toward fundamentalism, and not inclined to check facts, that's another target of ID types. they're truly the lowest of the low.
Excellent!
MrHoolits 8 months ago
Wow, theists put too much work into trolling in atheist guises. Maybe if they spent that time learning about the issues at hand, they wouldn't have to resort to trolling and their continuous train of fallacies.
Trolls aside, I really enjoyed the videos. May those following the "Thou shall commit fallacies" theist commandments bother you more...after all, if you're not angering them, then you're not doing your job well enough. ;)
lagurash 10 months ago
How would you convince The late Dr Phil Skell if he was alive today that in order for a doctor to treat his patients then he would have to believe his ancestors were fish?
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
How would it prevent a doctor from treating his patients if he did not believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs by a "blind mindless watchmaker process"?
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
@AestheticAtheist I'm not sure which part of "I will not respond to comments by people who have their channels hidden from public view" you had trouble understanding, but spamming my video with apologist nonsense from the Dishonesty Institute is not going to do you any good.
FSAthe1st 11 months ago
@AestheticAtheist i wonder why the guy on this video failed to mention Johnathan wells being a Ph.D biologist.
by this i also expect him to mention Dawkins atheist world view, and the effects his world view as on his perception in science.
aaugoaa 11 months ago
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss
Dr Phil Skell"
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
"I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others.
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
You also commit another non sequitur when you say biology is being attacked, It does not follow that people who doubt or question that a "blind watchmaker process" over billions of years is behind the diversity of living organisms are attacking biology.
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
You also commit a fallacy of presenting a false dichotomy because ID is not a problem for Evolution though an atheist such as yourself might hate the idea of design being let in the door, the only problem is that when you argue that there is no design in biology then you have already treated design as a scientific question, You could not say that there is no design in biological organisms and then say that the proposition of design is unscientific without contradiction.
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
Comment removed
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
"If Berlinski were not avowing support for intelligent design or creationism then he would not have agreed to appear in Icons of Evolution nor would he become a senior Fellow at the discovery institute"
Non Sequitur
It is so easy to point out the fallacies in your vids.
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
If you are using an authority in argument then it is fine if you demonstrate in your the soundness of the argument of that person but if you say because so and so says so then that is fallacious, it is ok to use an authority in support of an argument but not as a replacement for an argument.
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
Fallacies in your vids.
"Ad Hominem: Attacking The Motive - when you criticize why the person might be arguing for a certain side, instead of criticizing the argument itself"
Claiming that a person is not a skeptic because they point out that you made an argument from an authority, Your conclusion does not follow thus it is a non sequitur.
Are you denying that an argument from an authority is a fallacy?
AestheticAtheist 11 months ago
@AestheticAtheist I will not respond to comments by people who have their channels hidden from public view.
FSAthe1st 11 months ago
Dr. Berlinski is so awesome!!!
strattgatt 1 year ago
.... skeptic ....
jordnthoms 1 year ago
You share my suspicion that Berlinski is nothing more than Christian Fundamentalist disguised as an Agnostic in order to advance "Intelligent" Design Theory as a non-religious concept. Berlinski has got to be the most dishonest character from the Discovery Institute. The guy must learn to fly under his true flag. Subterfuge might be a good strategy in religious wars but not in science. Take off your mask, Mr. Berlinski!
inityminiwur 1 year ago
Well done. Although it seems like an awful lot of time and effort to go to. What I find strange is the way people who claim to have a monopoly on truth and morality find it so easy to lie, cheat and deceive.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
Troll got served! :)
mickeypopa 1 year ago
I love the fact that Jonathan Wells in a member of the Lolfication church, an organization which is pretty much an anathema to mainstream fundamentalist Christianity, a fact which secularists can point to next time when cretards accuse people who view their bullshit as less than self evident of "undermining christianity and civilization derpa derpa derps...".
Idiots.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
awesome work! Fully supported and favorited!
Paxmax 1 year ago
I liked your video and it was very informative.
It seems so odd to me that Christians claim to have a superior moral code from their God, and yet they have no scruples about being dishonest in defending their faith.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
idiot design
CreationDebunked 1 year ago
Comment removed
PrincePhoenicis 1 year ago
Thanks FSA -- the stealth creationist Berlinski needed a bit of light shined on him.
Why is it those arguing the theological position so often cannot do so without dishonestly representing their position or the facts?
Oh, wait, I know the answer.
kbi42 1 year ago
I like this quote from Dembski in his book on Intelligent Design: "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him."
ozmoroid 1 year ago
@ozmoroid it's like gold when they give themselves away so obviously.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
The only scientific controversy that is even possible, is debate within evolution. Evolution is proven.
dangerouslytalented 1 year ago
Nice vid!
The DI is despicable, insidious, pure evil.
OnTheFritz602 1 year ago
Anti-secular = Pro-theocratic
Now that strikes me as a false dycot, but I'm not sure if it is. I don't think it is, but it seems like one.
KnightTemplar108 1 year ago
@KnightTemplar108 Secularity and Theocracy are two diametrically-opposed viewpoints. Secularism is founded on the ideal of the separation of religion from government. Theocracy is the melding of, and ultimately the control by, the religious in government. You cannot have both, and at least one condition is true, so the dichotomy is not false.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
@FSAthe1st
Than you for explaing that.
KnightTemplar108 1 year ago
@KnightTemplar108 YW
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
One of the key factors leading to my rejection of theology and creationism was the dishonesty that creationists frequently resort to.
Another key factor was that that the evidence clearly supports science. But for those people who who aren't scientifically minded, the underhanded and cowardly dishonesty of the creationists should be enough to undermine creationism and its poorly disguised alter ego, Intelligent Design, completely.
Truth cannot accommodate a lie.
Tenebrous76 1 year ago
Pretty sure Jonathan Wells is a Moony.
BathTubNZ 1 year ago
@BathTubNZ The Moonies are the "short" form of the followers of the Unification Church, founded by Reverend Moon (his first name is not coming to me at the moment.)
Cyrathil 1 year ago
@Cyrathil Sun Myung
BathTubNZ 1 year ago
@BathTubNZ Right, that looks like it might fit. The point being that FSAthe1st was correct in calling Welles as member of the Unification Church, since they are Moonies.
Cyrathil 1 year ago
@Cyrathil Then it's my mistake and I misheard, because I specifically responding that he was a Fundamentalist Christian, which to me conflicts with being a Moonie. Sun Myung Moon is the second coming of Christ, for Moonies.
BathTubNZ 1 year ago
@BathTubNZ I think I remember him lumping Welles into the "fundamentalist" camp as well, so on that I would agree. It's a common mistaken assertion that if you fall into this group, you're a fundamentalist. I would also say he did it with Berlinski, what with him claiming in the video to be more of a Jew than Christian. even if Berlinski claims to be a "Secular Jew".
Cyrathil 1 year ago
Since the misnamed Discovery Institute does absolutely no "discovering," one can only wonder what they do with their time -- other than writing puke fiction, that is.
I suspect that they spend some of their ill-gotten gains on the hiring of professional "Skeptics" who spew IDiotic propaganda in comment sections on YT, blogs, etc.
I think it's pointless to play their game by attempting to answer their deliberately provocative questions. Better to expose their fallacious tactics.
musekiteer 1 year ago
@musekiteer 2Since the misnamed Discovery Institute" - I think it is a perfect name to be quite frank. They discover new lows every day it seems.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@TheSpankymonkey
''...discover new lows..."
Nah, they're just reinventing the creatard wheel.
musekiteer 1 year ago
The dishonesty of the antiscience crowd is no real surprize and becomes more obvious every day. What really is confounding is this idea of a troll. For the life of me I can't imagine what any person gets out of being a troll. What possible enjoyment could a person derive from this kind of behavior? It is surely a failure to mature intellectually and/or emotionally. The closest analogy is the behavior of a petulant child. And that doesn't seem to embarrass them. I give up.
Stromatolite577 1 year ago
Though I generally like your videos, because they make me see another side to the origins debate, I do feel your name calling is uncalled for. You should show the same respect you would ask for from others. Otherwise, you alienate people and may find yourself preaching ONLY to the choir, so to speak. Though I disagree strongly with evolution, I don't call it "evilution". Likewise, you should NOT call creationists "creatards" or call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute.
emmaus9 1 year ago
@emmaus9 you again? Right, let's sort out some of your nonsense, shall we?
"I do feel your name calling is uncalled for."
Coming from someone who thinks calling people out on their dishonesty is "name calling", this is utterly meaningless.
"You should show the same respect you would ask for from others. "
Respect has to be EARNED. That means if you've demonstrably lied, you've lost any rights to ask respect from ANYONE. The DISHONESTY Institute are LIARS and Projectionists...
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 4
@emmaus9 I will NOT pull punches from saying so just because YOUR feelings are hurt.
"Though I disagree strongly with evolution-"
Because you do not understand it, of course. Either that or you are also dishonest. Take your pick.
"I don't call it "evilution"."
And I'm supposed to be grateful for that, am I?
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 4
@emmaus9 "Likewise, you should NOT call creationists "creatards" or call the Discovery Institute the "Dishonesty Institute."
Once again, behaving like a retard or lying earns you nothing more than my contempt. Creationists routinely engage in BOTH types of behaviour, and I will NOT be held back from calling them out on it. If you don't like that I'm calling your fellow religiously-motivated pseudo-intellectual muppets out on their BLATANT DISHONESTY...
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 5
@emmaus9 ...and if you wish to cry about it, you can do so on your own channel. If you have an argument against any of the POINTS I made, then feel free to put forth your argument, but as I pointed out to that fucking retarded muppet Nazra7 in my 3 point response, NOTHING I SAY IN TERMS OF "NAME CALLING" INVALIDATES ANYTHING I SAY ABOUT A GIVEN SUBJECT, AND TO SAY OTHERWISE IS DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST.
This will be the ONLY time I entertain you on the issue of "name calling".
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FSAthe1st Your arrogance has lost this subscriber. Enjoy your little mutual admiration society.
Hope you enjoy preaching to your own choir; your antics aren't convincing any who disagree with you to take your claims seriously. If you only wanted to amuse those who are already atheists and evolutionists then you have succeeded grandly. Bravo!! You must really enjoy hearing your own voice.
emmaus9 1 year ago
@emmaus9 "Your arrogance has lost this subscriber. "
Your hypocrisy is no loss.
"Hope you enjoy preaching to your own choir; "
You're the religious follower here, not me.
"your antics aren't convincing any who disagree with you to take your claims seriously."
Especially not as those who disagree with me on the provisions of Atheism and Evolution tend to be Creationist fundamentalists like your "good" self.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 4
@emmaus9 "You must really enjoy hearing your own voice."
Coming from you, I'll treat it for the bullshit that it is. Your continued psychological projection of your own character and your bleating about name-calling while ignoring the back-yard insanity calls of friends like ShockOfFraud and EvidenceFree is completely dishonest and hypocritical. Let me give you this parting message.
Your hypocrisy is not welcome on my channel. Into time out you go with the other children.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 5
@emmaus9 Having now checked my Subscription emails it turns out that I never got one with your name on it. Looks like you were never subscribed. Yet another example of dishonesty from the Creationist camp.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago 11
@emmaus9 "Your arrogance has lost this subscriber." - I don't think he will be too bothered. Your ignorance has lost you a reality ;-)
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@emmaus9 Obvious rage troll is obvious ^_^
A11ex 1 year ago
@emmaus9 What a pathetic and obvious attempt of triggering the bandwagon effect, combined with some usual slander. You seem to be very desperate... But hey, "the ends justify the means", don't they?
leungchaan 1 year ago
@FSAthe1st Hey thunderf00t wanna be, your channel sucks ass and so do you.
Your parents must be retarded and proud.
AllNightGaming 1 year ago
@AllNightGaming Go back to your gaming and leave the adults alone.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
@AllNightGaming Your argument proves the lack of any intelligence in your design.
wysiwyg666 1 year ago
Nicely done.
messiahjonz 1 year ago
If you are still in contact with the Skeptic regards the Transitionials that he/she so blindly denies then he/she should be able to provide you with a definition of a Transitional. Try it out. You won't get one ..... not from ANY creationist.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
Reinvent the Universe! Go Go Go, you'll have to hurry if you want to eat that pizza!
MegaYippie 1 year ago
I seriously doubt that these liars for Jeebus(DI) realize how nuts they appear to anyone with even minor training in science. Attacking the ToE is like going after the fact that our Earth is spherical( but somewhat eliptical) or trying to dispute that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or saying tides are caused by Neptune pushing his strong hands against the ocean.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."- Aldous Huxley
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro "I seriously doubt that these liars for Jeebus(DI) realize how nuts they appear to anyone with even minor training in science."
I'm not a Scientist myself, but I passed all of my Science classes when I was at school and college. I understand enough about the scientific method to know that we can only study that which is susceptible to measurement and evaluation, so this attack by the Dishonesty Institute is completely meaningless. Still, I like to make videos on the subject.
FSAthe1st 1 year ago
@FSAthe1st When ever a Creatard states there are no transitional fossils I tell them to look up cdesign proponentsists
GregQzag 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro "Attacking the ToE is like going after the fact that our Earth is spherical" their main goal is to preach to the choir, and make sure the choir stays ignorant. or, if someone is on the fence but liens toward fundamentalism, and not inclined to check facts, that's another target of ID types. they're truly the lowest of the low.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro
the Earth is not elliptical: its orbit is.
the Earth itself is iirc a spheroid or ellipsoid, specifically an oblate spheroid.
otherwise, yeah, you're right. they do look stupid.
Albukhshi 1 year ago
@Albukhshi You know, when I first typed up my comment, I had 'ellipsoid' but then changed it to elliptical. Funny that.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@saxmanchiro
hehe..well, as long as ye know ;)
Albukhshi 1 year ago