Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:

Well, I think your comments only bolster my claim that my hypothesis is
indisputable. You do admit, don't you, that you have not presented any

Of course it's indisputable, so is the Hopscotch Theory, prove me
wrong. You can't.

You have no hypothesis at all.

So are you now claiming your science fiction is better than mine, yet
you admitted you can't refute the Hopscotch Theory. Your logic is as
sane as your saber-tooth lion data.

I can't refute hopscotch theory. Unlike your theory my theory has
explanatory power. Do you dispute this?

There is a difference between you claiming "explanatory power" and
there actually being any. Anyone can claim anything they want. In your
case a steady diet of lip service is not convincing, nor is it science.





Why, you just claimed that many modern Homo are garden orientated and
that was supposed to be relevant I guess.

Do you disagree? Are you saying humans are, to use your designation,
"garden orientated?" Or not?

If you think Lucy was doing the same thing modern humans do, then where
is your evidence for it?


Please try to be consistent
in your arguments.

How was I inconsistent, IYO?

Lucy was not a modern human. Attributing modern characteristics to her
is leading the evidence. There is no basis in reality to assign gardens
to her or sandpaintings.


I expect
data consistent with the evidence. In this case, you have failed to
supply any evidence.

In this discipline we all use the same evidence.

Then how have you managed to hide this evidence from the world for so
long?

?
Reading dificulties again?

Read what you wrote, retard.

No, what you write is unsupported, undocumented garbage.


Moreover, there is no direct evidence that any of
the apiths were tool users.

Relevance. You seem to not be following the gist of the thread.

There is no evidence that any apith ever used a stone tool. You made
all that up, just like you made up "saber-tooth lion."

Is there any evidence that they didn't? No?

Negative argument. Stick around, I think you will understand it
eventually.

So you admit that you are unaware of any evidence that they did not?
Right?

Negative arguments are irrelevant, therefore don't deserve an answer.



If you read the paper I cited there is a
discussion on who might have made the first tools, but there is no
proof of who made the tools.

Relevance?

You don't have even the basics for understanding science, get to the
library.

You can't even answer simple questions.

No, negative questions are not questions, but stupidity asked by a
loon.

If you are not willing to defend/explain your assertions then you
should retract them.

No, negative questions are not questions, but stupidity asked by a
loon. Want to see that again?






If it turns out apiths were not tool
users,

Well, according to my hypothesis they employed rocks and sticks to head
off or drive out these large, mammalian pests. So if what you're
saying is true it effectively refutes my whole hypothesis.

Unsuported, undocumented demented ramblings. Chimps throw rocks. This
has been known for years. There is nothing new about this, so what is
your point?

Do you have any evidence that A'pith didn't employ rocks and sticks in
the manner I indicate?

Another foolish negative question.

Answer the question you evasive twit.

Put something on the table besides imagination and I will.


Do you have any evidence that they did?

No. Now answer my question, you evasive twit: Do you have any evidence
that A'pith didn't employ rocks and sticks in the manner I indicate?

Do you have any evidence that they did? Or did you just make that up?


then they also couldn't have been using stone tools to drive all
those mean preadators out of their garden.

Are you saying that A'pith could not have used rocks and sticks? Are

Idiot, you have simply copied what the entire field has said for years.
What is new about that that you couldn't have gotten from Nova?

Oh, so now, all of a sudden, you realize that they could have used
rocks and sticks in the manner I stipulate. Right?

"You're a chicken*** phoney, afraid to quote me directly. Quote me
directly you stooge."

Answer the question you evasive twit.

"You're a chicken*** phoney, afraid to quote me directly. Quote me
directly you stooge."


you saying that even if they could they would not have been (or could
not have been) effective preventing the inmigration of large mammallian
pests and thereby preserving territorial resources? Are you saying
that even if it did preserve territorial resources in the manner I
indicate that it would make no difference because A'pith were typically
not confined to patches of treed habitat in the manner I specified and
therefore they would just meander over and across treeless habitat to ?
Are you saying anthing? Or are you, again, saying that you are saying
something but really you aren't saying anthing or, at least, not
anything relevant to the issue at hand?

I'm saying that you made up gardens. There is no more evidence for
gardens than there is the Hopscotch Theory.

Well, there's a lot of evidence of modern humans preferring garden
habitat. And, in fact, biblical understandings of human origins
indicate that we are a garden species. I suppose you could refer to
this evidence as circumstantial. Are you aware of any evidence that
human are not associated with garden habitat?

Are you aware of any evidence that human are not associated with
hopscotch? But that isn't proof that apiths were playing hopscotch or
tending gardens, is it?

Answer the question you evasive twit.

Stop asking negative questions you evasive twit.


<snip>

Cite your literature that says they were fast.

Cite your literature that says they were slow.

Fat chance, since you have decided that under no circumstances are you
going to cite anything. You expect others to cite, but you have no
intention of citing anything. IOW, you are just a pompous ass.

It is only ever necessary to site something if it is disputed. You
have dismissed much of my thinking. But you haven't disputed any of
it.

Gardens are negative evidence, sci-fi. You have been watching too much
TV.

But you admit, don't you, that you have no evidence-based dispute with
this assertion?

Of course, no one can refute negative evidence, hopscotch or gardens.

Your argument, retard, that it was slow is based on "negative
evidence," you idiot.

Who's it? You failed once again to provide evidence that the person
cited was wrong.



So you don't dispute my hypothetical thinking you dispute the
hypothesizer, myself. Right?

Anyone can hypothesize/imagine anything, proving it is something qiute
different. As I explained to Paul, who doesn't understand anymore about
science than you do, imagination only gets you started. The burden is
on the hypothesizer to gather the evidence, not the other way around.

No. It's the burden of those critical of a hypothesis to dispute it.
When they fail, as you have done here, this is the best indicator of
scientific validity. (Once again, retard, we all use the same
evidence.)

Congradulations, you are the only person on the planet (besides the
other sci-illiterates) that believes that. Do you hear voices often?

No. This is the way all sciences word, dimwit.

Proposing negative evidence, then demanding others refute is is the
mind of a child at work.

So, in your imagination your inability to formulate a hypothesis of
early hominid evolution is not a sign of ineptitude but, strangely, it
is a sign of maturity. Is this what you're saying?

Making up claptrap is not science, it is imagination. If you want to
makeup just so stories, sell them to Art Bell, but don't be so
delusional to think your garbage is science.



Your evidence for gardens is?

Is there any evidence that they did not have gardens, or something to
that effect?

"Did not have"? That is classic negative argument. The burden is on you
to show some sort of evidence. Even weak evidence might work if you
have several independent lines of it. So other than you said so, what
is your evidence?

Obviously this is a wash, retard. So you only look even more stupid
(and desperate) to even bring it up. Obviously I have no direct
evidence of these gardens. And obviously you have no direct evidence
that disputes their existence.

Then cite anyone besides you that thinks so, besides the creationists
that is.

What would that prove?

Creating evidence where none exists is the ploy of a creationist. That
makes you one of them.

Show me where I, supposedly, created evidence you strawman baiting
desperate fool.

Your evidence for Miocene gardens is?


There isn't any, it is a negative
argument. Are you aware of any literature that disputes the assumption
that Lucy was making elaborate sand paintings, playing with string
cradles, or playing Hopscotch?

No.

Well then, we can just sit here and ponder gardens and hopscotch.

I'll leave that to you.

Can't refute the Hopscotch Theory eh? Didn't think you could.

I can't refute it


Because I made it up, it is a negative statement. But just as valid as
UFOs from outer space or Miocene gardens. First you claim Lucy couldn't
get more than 50-100 yards away from a tree for safety reasons. Then
you claim she had all these sophisticated weapons to beat them out of
the garden. Something does not add up here.

Your strawman tactics couldn't be more obvious.

Let's review your claim for that in more detail.

Message-ID: <1165161275.617844.228160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Lee : "Homo has little problem kicking any of the African
predators off of their kills, they don't have to hunt."

Message-ID: <1165167207.096598.158990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jim re: "This is cartoonish. Have you ever been hunting? Under the best
of
conditions one is lucky if they can get within a hundred yards of their

prey. Imagine trying to take down a buffaloe from a hundred yards with
a stone tipped spear."

Watch how he completely turns around what I just said "they don't have
to hunt"
to "Imagine trying to take down a buffaloe from a hundred yards with
a stone tipped spear."


Well gee, I didn't imply they were hunting with the statement THEY
DON'T HAVE TO HUNT, let alone with a "stone tipped spear."
His next line is the accusation: "Is there no limit to your strawman
tactics?"
The strawman just caught himself looking in the mirror, accusing
another of what he is most quilty of himself.

The only thing that exceeds this kid's ignorace is his arrogance.

.

Loading