Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


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

Be specific retard.

You made the claim. You support it.

No, you made the outlandish claims. Your hypothetical delusions are
claims. You do not understand the scientific method or logic at all.
Making up just so stories about how you wish hominid developement
occured is simply science fiction.
Suppose your neighbor wonders why you are psychotic. He reasons that it
is because you must be a child molestor. It explains everything
perfectly, great explanatory power, but still quite wrong and this
reasoning would not work in a court of law or in science.

Evolutionary theory is a difficult subject. Unfortunately you can't
get better at it unless you approach it in a dispassionate,
intellectually honest manner. There are relatively few people that
possess the requisite objectivity to progress in this discipline.



No, I've said it all along, you are a loon.

You really don't understand any of this stuff, do you?

So, Gerrit, Su, Jason, Laden, me, et al---- we all don't understand,
but you do?

Science is as science does.



I know how difficult it must be for a sci-fi writer to conform to
actual scientific methods, because it tears hell out of your lunacy, so
you simply don't recognise it. I understand.

Go ahead. Tell us about your understanding of scientific methods. I'm
sure it will be very similar to the nonsense Gerrit submitted the other
day.

So, Gerrit, Su, Jason, Laden, et al---- just don't understand, but you
do? You can't support the simplest of claims, you make retractions a
rate seldom seen even on sap. Your arguments are nothing more than an
endelss barrage of name-calling, lies, and misinformation (hence the
retractions). You are pathetic.

You never stood a chance, Lee. Everybody on this NG knew that except
you.






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.

I do have knowledge of it. You just claimed gardens were a part of it.

Your point?

Nobody cares about just so stories. Your hypothetical meanderings mean
nothing other than proof you haven't read the literature.

What literature did I, supposedly, not read. And how would it help me.
Be specific.





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.

Says the loon who has such a poor understanding of the literature that
he had to retract his made up "saber-toothed lions" and Homo not on the
savannas until the "advent of jeeps and guns" If you made that up, you
made it all up. Stupidity like this does not get a second chance. Your
delusional imagination will be pointed out as long as as you keep
posting it.

It's always the same thing with you anthro-wackos. You're sure your
right. You don't know what you're right about and you don't know why
you are right about it. But you are sure you are right and anybody
that disagrees with you is wrong.

Here is a statement from your first post in this thread:
McGinn: "If human ancestors were not regularly venturing across
treeless habitat chasing down prey and defending themselves against
predators then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and
arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5 mya?"

If this is the kind of evidence that you are claiming as support for
your sci-fi hypothesis, then where are all these weapons?

Learn to use a search engine.



It's obvious that to you PA is a religion and its beliefs are sacred.
Beyond dispute. And, therefore, it's appropriate to employ creative
reinterpretation of scientific methods to preserve the illusion that it
is beyond dispute. This is what you are demonstrating to the world in
this thread.

I'm not a PA and never said I was. But it is quite true qualified
people looked at your hypothesis and did not accept it.

That's not my recollection. My recollection is that qualified people
looked at my hypothesis and could not dispute it. Maybe you should
actually read it.

That saves me
the trouble of reading a paper that hasn't passed peer review.

So you admit that you prefer to avoid hypothetical thinking that is
different than your own? Right?

I could
dismiss it anyway on the grounds that you are not familiar enough with
the literature to be making grand hypothetical theories on human
evolution in the first place.

It's comical that you're going to try to pretend to have scientific
reasons to dismiss hypothetical thinking. It don't work that way,
jackass.








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 thinking is consistent with your lack of knowledge of the
literature.

Uh?

If you knew the literature you could cite from it. Give us a citation
that:

McGinn: "stone weapons (spears, bow and arrow) serve that show up in
the fossil record starting about 2.5 mya?"

What weapons showed up at 2.5 MYA? Be specific.

Do you dispute it. No. Then why should I bother?






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.

Hypothetical proposition is pure science fiction in your case becuse
you have proven you are not even remotely familiar with the literature.

So, we're all supposed to take your word for it. Fat chance that.

"all"? You are hearing voices again, you seem to be very much alone in
your hypothesis as far as peer acceptance.

We're supposed to take your word on that also?



Science has rules. Follow them.

Hypothetical rules, no rules are better (makes it a lot easier to
publish junk that way).



You say you are, but you are lying, or else you could back up your
claims like "saber-toothed cats" with a citation. It is clear you tried
to lie your way out of this before succumbing to the truth.

The very fact that you can't get your work published in a peer-reviewed
journal is proof you don't even believe it yourself.

So, for you its a matter of belief? For me it's a matter of evidence.

Keep a list, you will be making more retractions before this is over.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... reasoning would not work in a court of law or in science. ... There's no such thing as a negative question, ... nothing other than proof you haven't read the literature. ... My thinking is consistent with all the evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Can Creation and Evolution be linked?
    ... that it is not science. ... those who study early literature have researched the question of ... whether creation myths were believed to be literally true or wether ... Insisting, without evidence, that until scientists came to rescue people ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can Creation and Evolution be linked?
    ... that it is not science. ... those who study early literature have researched the question of ... whether creation myths were believed to be literally true or wether ... I don't think you should believe, without good evidence, that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I have again answered Dr. Alan Sokals challenge ("the Sokal hoax")
    ... Bricmont in their splendid book Intellectual Impostures, ... This is from Medawar's 1968 lecture on "Science and Literature", ... wielding power over young academics who might secretly aspire to an ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Fund Publication Sale 15% Off Over 1700 Books PART TWO
    ... We have a large collection that includes science, mathematics, ... psychology, literature, biography and much more. ... the Men Jesus Chose and the Message ... Literary Criticism: Criticism of the Works of Novelists, Poets, ...
    (rec.arts.books.marketplace)