Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


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.



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.

I didn't expect a senile retard to remember what he wrote.


, 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.

So you lied, what can I say?



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

For what?

Your sci-fi hypothesis you keep babbling about.


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.

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

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


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.



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?

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.




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?



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.

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.




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?




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.

Science has rules. Follow them.

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.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading