Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


Lee Olsen wrote:
Jim McGinn wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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:



Tell me what you think it fails to explain.

Negative question. You have not explained anything, so how can anyone
explain where it failed?

IOW, you can think of no human adaptations that my hypothesis fails to
explain the selective origins of.

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

Quote me directly you strawman baiting evasive twit.

You evasive twit, just as soon as you quote where I said "peacefully"

I don't know what you're talking about.

, 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

Quote me directly you strawman baiting evasive twit.

You evasive twit, just as soon as you quote where I said "peacefully"

Ditto.

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.

Quote me directly you strawman baiting evasive twit.

You evasive twit, just as soon as you quote where I said "peacefully"

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.

Yes, but we all know the answer.

We??? You mean you and the voices you keep hearing.

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

You lose.

More imagination.

Put something on the table besides imagination and I will.

It's your choice if you are unable to respond.

More of your imagination at work.

Where is your abstract and the references you were asked for, unable to
respond?

For what?

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?

I answered your question. You will not answer mine.

No, you just repeated a negative question.

You know the answer and are afraid to say.

Who do you think you're fooling? Everybody reading this know what your
answer to the question is.

Your imagination at work again and still hearing voices.

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."

I'm not qoting you at all, retard. Read upthread. I'm asking you a
question. (It's not like everybody doesn't already know the answer.)

Could have? Could have? What part of the scientific method are you too
stupid to understand?

Oh brother. Here we go. Now you're going to pretend that the
scientific method excuses your evasiveness. Is there no limit to your
whackoness?

Stop asking negative questions you evasive twit.

There's no such thing as a negative question, retard.

Jim: "Tell me what you think it fails to explain."

Negative question. You have not explained anything, so how can anyone
explain where it failed?

So this is where you pretend to claim that you have no knowledge of my
hypothesis.

This usually means your desperation has run its full course and you
will no longer be posting on this NG. (Or, at least, not on any topic
that I might address.)

The truth is, Lee, you never had a chance in this discussion right from
the start. (Tell him Mikey.) Your first mistake was to engage me in a
conversation in the first place. And it was inevitable after that.
You never had a chance.

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.

What, are we all supposed to take your word for it that you have the
inside scoop on science. Put up or shut up.

Please give one example where you have backed up any claim with
factual, cited evidence during these discussions. Saber-toothed lions"
ring any bells? Because that is as close to reality as your capability
allows.

My thinking is consistent with all the evidence. And you confirmed
this by way of your inability to dispute it. This is how science
works. Get used to it.

Your evidence for Miocene gardens is?

Show me where I created evidence, dimwit.

Miocene gardens is a total fabrication, dimwit.

Its not evidence, retard. It's a hypothetical proposition. And you
can't dispute it.

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.

I can't figure out what your point is.

I'm sure you will figure it out eventually, after all, you did finally
realize lions weren't descended from saber-toothed cats. There is still
hope for you yet.

.

Loading