Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence


claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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

Science doesn't work that way, no hypothesis/theory is indisputible.
They are always open to amendment. You have demonstrated an
incompetence seldom seen outside creationist circles.

Answer my question you evasive twit: You do admit, don't you, that you
have not presented any kind of dispute of my assertions.

Negative-evidence arguments can't be refuted, particularly those coming
from an illiterate loon.

Niccolo Caldararo: "It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."



kind of dispute of my assertions. Are you saying that stone tipped

Are you demanding hard evidence in return to refute hypothetical
thinking, or are you demanding hypothetical theory to counter your
hypothetical theory? If the former, cite any scientist in the world
that would let that get past peer review. Any example of such a case
will do. Use your search engine if you can't remember any examples.

What are you blabbering about?

Your arguments are irrational garbage, plain enough?



spears would not be useful to a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species from getting access to their garden
habitat? Are you saying that a community of Apiths that wished to keep
inmigrating herbivorous species out of their garden habitat would not,
as a result of maintaining their general health and well being through
the depth of the dry season, be less likely to be a target for
predators during the dry season? Are you saying that predators would

"Are you saying"? Where did you get the idea that I was saying any of
that? Did you hear voices again? Do you see any quotes where I said
that? I thought you said honesty was required in these discussions?
"You're a chicken*** phoney, afraid to quote me directly."

Answer the questions you evasive twit.

I'll make this so simple even you will be able to understand. I am not
"saying" anything where you can't quote directly. Your reading comp
skills are simply not good enough to be doing any paraphrasing or
thinking on your own.



Hypothetically your scenario wouldn't work. As soon as the predators
found the herbivors, who feed at night in the gardens under the trees
when Lucy is asleep, the resulting carnage from the chase and struggle
would tear the garden apart, leaving Lucy's community to starve to
death.

Let's not be ridiculous. Why would you assume this would happen
typically?

You mean let's not be as ridiculous as you. Were is the evidence for
your typical gardens? The evidence would be impossible to miss at
archaeological sites if they occured at all.


What if the garden was infested by aphids, would the apiths be
intellegent enough ( as moden humans who do plant gardens), to invent
bug spray? Or would they simply lose their garden to the bugs and
starve to death? Hypothetically thinking they would obviously starve to
death.

What's your point?

Your garden hypothesis is dead. I don't expect you to understand why,
it is pretty complicated.



Your scenario has been completely falsified.

Youre an idiot.

Not much you can do about counter-hypothetical thinking is there? Well,
you just keep up the ad hominem attack, it's the only argument you have.

.