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:
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:


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

Far too dificult for you obviously.


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.

Well, the honesty part leaves you out in the cold as a possible
candidate:
Message-ID: <1165113030.317266.276860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
McGinn: "By the way, Lee, don't think I haven't noticed your
backtracking. Previously you agreed that hominids could not survive the
predatory realities in treeless habitat."

Notice no quote was ever supplied, dishonesty at its very worst.

Message-ID: <1164954294.910708.242910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Yet here is what McGinn demands from others: "You're a chicken***
phoney, afraid to quote me directly."

Dishonesty is the only argument you ever had about anything.




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.

Without those scientists, (and others like them) and the information
they gather, you wouldn't have a secondary sources like NOVA to watch
in order to get the information for your science-fiction work.





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.

Another empty lip-service accusation, and just as dishonest as your
comment about me "backtracking"

Your inability to publish anything in a peer-review journal
demonstrates your total incompetence. You can't cite from any
legitimate work, what a phoney you are. The reason you are completely
unable to supply a set of references with you sci-fi hyp, is because
you are too embarrassed to show you actually got your inormation from
Saturday morning TV.
Your ideas are at the level of the Flintstones--- McGinn: "IOW, it
makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat..."

You are the laughing stock of this list.



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.

CK Brain, Dennell, Olduvai 5, O'Connell, et al. How would it help you?
McGinn: "IOW, it makes about as much sense to emplace human ancestors,
including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat..." It would prevent total stupidity
from entering into your train wreck posts. You are an advertisement for
ignorance.







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.

Specifically starting at 2.5 mya. Me specific, do you mean rocks? I
wouldn't disagree with that, because rocks are all a hominid needs to
drive predators off of kills. And please don't say I don't know this.
It is hypothetical thinking (good as gold), far more sound than your
lunatic-garden idea.




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.

The Atlantis hypothesis has not been disputed either, is that supposed
to mean something
other than you are an illiterate nut-case?


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?

No, it means when someone claims he has read the literature and then
comes up with
McGinn: "IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat..." It tells me that your claimed
hypothetical thinking is nothing more than rambling of an idiot.


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.

No, it means when someone claims he has read the literature and then
comes up with
McGinn: "IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat..." It tells me that your claimed
hypothetical thinking is nothing more than rambling of an idiot.















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?

Negative argument. How can I dispute it when you can't even tell me
specifically what weapons you are talking about? You evasive twit.







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?

McGinn: "IOW, it makes
about as much sense to emplace human ancestors, including homo,
neanderdudes, and even early humans (before the advent of jeeps and
guns) in treeless savanna habitat..." This tells me that your claimed
hypothetical thinking is worth.





Science has rules. Follow them.

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

No answer.

.

Loading