Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence

claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lee Olsen wrote:
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.

There is no such thing as negative evidence retard.

Having an especially bad day aren't you? Did you wake up this morning?
If you did, your posts certainly don't reflect it

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist12/writing.html
3. Begin to frame your thesis. Consider why you have phrased your
thesis the way you have. Think carefully about the evidence that will
support your thesis. What about negative evidence? Do not simply ignore
material that contradicts your thesis. Think about why you were not
convinced by negative arguments or evidence. How can you discount them?
Do you need to modify your argument to account for some of the negative
evidence? (Be careful though, you do not want a wishy-washy argument.)



BTW, you base your assumption that Homo Erectus regularly occupied
treeless habitat on zero evidence. Like I said previously, there is no
evidence that the stone tools associated with HE were laid down in
treeless habitat. None. Zero. Zilch. You might as well get used to
it. Nothing your gonna say will change this.

Says the retard who just claimed "There is no such thing as negative
evidence..."
Well, how much could you know with only the equivalent of a 4th-grade
education?



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."

So, not only do you refuse to answer my question but now you've taken a
turn to become a full fledged propagandist.

Caldarao is such a polished gentleman. What a guy to actually imply you
had something "worthy of developement." If fact, Su called your rag a
"manifesto" which I also thought was more than kind.






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?

IOW, as I suspected, you don't have a point.

Funny how you always go brain dead and can't understand anything when
confronted with a situation that you can't handle.




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.

IOW, you refuse to answer my questions. Right?

So, still insist on lying about my position eh? Not suprising, honesty
simply isn't in your nature.





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.

Would it? This is the first interesting comment you've made in this
whole subthread. Why do you say this? Please make an effort to be
specific and explicit.

I think you need to take a course in archaeology 101. For a
hypothetical theorist, you don't seem to be very well grounded in the
basics. Your garden idea is very testable. Instead of demanding
everyone else do your homework for you, like the lazy oaf you are,
start searching for any evidence of a garden, like seeds, pollen, nuts,
anything that would demonstrate an abnormal concentration not typical
in the normal background scatter of the area in general. Check back if
you find anything.





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.

This is a stupid premise. If aphids were a constant and everpresent
occurrence in these earliest of gardens then that would invalidate my
premise. Do you have anything other than your imagination that
indicates this to be the case. If not then why did you bring it up?

I didn't say there was any evidence for aphids dimwit, it was merely
hypothetical thinking. Do you have any evidence that there wasn't any
apiths or bug spray in these gardens?





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.

.