Negative Evidence: Lee's version of vagueness


Lee Olsen:

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"One fact remains. My hypothesis is still completely unrefuted."

Lee Olsen:
The Atlantis Hypothesis is still completely unrefuted also. Negative
arguments can't be refuted.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Negative arguments? I didn't know arguments can be positive or
negative. Explain to us how my argument is negative and yours is,
presumably, positive.

Lee Olsen:
Just as soon as you refute the Atlantis Hypothesis.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

Rich Travsky wrote:
Let us say that a positive argument directly supports a conclusion,
while a negative
argument undermines an opposing conclusion.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hmm. Strange definition. Does everybody else stand by this
definition? Gerrit? (We all know he's afraid to answer.) Lee? All the
rest of your whackos?

No response.

Lee Olsen:
Jason Eshleman got exceptional grades in school, earned a PhD, makes a
living as a scientist and gets papers published in peer-reviewed
journals. He's proven he can do it; the difference is, you have not.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
And yet like yourself he has no hypothesis on early hominid evolution.

Lee Olsen:
It means he is too smart to make "arguments from ignorance" and
then draw inferences from them.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
My arguments are based on all the evidence.

Lee Olsen:
Notice the similarity between
Jim: "My hypothesis is still completely unrefuted."
Marc: "still no argument against"

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If Einstein was to have made the same statement would that have made
his thinking invalid?

No response.

Lee Olsen:
References?

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
For what?

Lee Olsen:
The evidence that your arguments are based on.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
My arguments are based on all the evidence. It's publicly available.
Try a library. Or search on the internet. Go for it!

Lee Olsen:
Here is what my library and the internet says:

Leakey, R.
(1994:55): "Two independent lines of research converged on the
conclusion that early Homo was an efficient runner, the first human
species to be so."

http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo
" In fact, he walked and ran with better mechanics than we do today.
The mechanics of his femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are
superior to those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children with larger
brains."

All this confirmed by the work of Donald Mitchell (cited in the book
Quarry, by Noel T. Boaz).
"He showed that even the slowest human runners could, with even a
slight head start, outrun lions, cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and wild
dogs, not by speed, but by out distancing them."

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
This is a ridiculous assertion. A'pith maintained tree climbing
adaptations. They were not adapted to long distance walking/running.
Also, this isn't evidence. It's interpretation of evidence, and really

bad at that. Lucy was surrounded by large predators and their treed
locality is surrounded by the treeless habitat where these predators
roam. They weren't travelling far.

Mitchell sounds like a quack. I suppose that humans could outswim
crocodiles also. How in the world do you expect anybody to believe
that humans run faster than cheetah.

Spiznet:
Actually it is stupid to say that men can outrun cheetahs etc "on
distance". If an animal was so inclined, like a croc, they would be
dead long before the "distance".

Lee Olsen:
All this confirmed by the work of Donald Mitchell (cited in the book
Quarry, by Noel T. Boaz). Page 138: "He showed that even the slowest
human runners could, with even a slight head start, outrun lions,
cheetahs, leopards, hyenas, and wild dogs, not by speed, but by out
distancing them."

Crowley:
The presence of some text in a book does
not necessarily make its statement true.

So are you willing to check it out?

You could go to Africa, Or there's a
wild-life park I know, where we can get
in one night, and give you a decent
head start on the lions.

Why is it that standard PA types always
seem to live on another planet?

Lee Olsen:
Why is it all the imagination nuts never can support their position
with anything other than hot air?

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Let me get this straight. You have early hominids running alongside,
and competing with, zebra, wildebeast, and gazelle in treeless habitat
and WE'RE the "imagination nuts."

1) Ad hominem 2) misquote 3) misquote. As usual, not up to 4th-grade
standards of reading comp.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
You envision hominid regularly
outrunning lion and cheetah in treeless habitat. Right? Did they run
in herds? Did they develop antler, horns? Did they graze?

When I first came across AAT I was perplexed wondering how anybody
could take this nonsense seriously. Then I came across this kind of
dimwitted conventional thinking and it became clear.

IOW, you have no rebuttal other than bathroom-wall name calling. I
understand you are doing the best that you can.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think you owe Marc a big apology.

Lee Olsen:
Unfortunately, you are not capable of thinking.

Donald Mitchell, ". . . showed that even the slowest human runners
could, with even a slight head start, outrun lions, cheetahs, leopards,
hyenas, and wild dogs, not by speed, but by out distancing them."

Crowley:
He is certainly a fantasist. Maybe, like you,
he lives on a remote and very different planet.

Of course, it depends on what he means by
a "slight head start". No one around here
would want to 'race' 20 miles against a pack
of wild dogs (or wolves) without having a
"head start" of at least 200 miles: i.e. if the
race was from Times Square to Yonkers, the
dogs would have to start in Pennsylvania/

Lee Olsen:
Not only are you ignorant, but you have reading comp problems as well.
"Slight" is not 200 miles in anyone's book but yours. I think the real
problem is your complete and total ignorance of the basic habits of
these predators.

Crowley:
Yep. Predators such as lions, cheetahs,
leopards, hyenas, and wild dogs, are
known for their generosity of spirit and
their dedication to 'fair play'.

When the come across prey that is young,
infirm or injured, or handicapped in any way,
they'll always say "Look, I'll let you have a
head start'.

That's how nature works.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
ROTFL. One things for sure. Lee will *never* answer this question:
Explain to us how my argument is negative and yours is, presumably,
positive.

Lee Olsen:
Google "negative evidence" it will net over 50 million hits.
If you don't have the intellegence to work Google, no wonder you don't
have the capacity to publish your hypothesis anywhere besides a
bathroom wall.

Pete Vincent:
If you do it properly, putting the quotes around it, you seem to
only get 380,000. ...All google searches of phrases with over
1 million hits are to be held suspect of people failing to
do the search properly. The other hits representing where
"negative" and "evidence" are found within a paragraph of each
other should hardly be held to count. I know you will shrug this
off as nitpicking, as 380,000 is still a respectable number, but
you should know how to do this correctly. In many cases of usenet
arguments structured as yours, inserting the quotes reduces the
hits to under 100.

claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Uh, lest I'm out of touch, we generally don't verify the scientific
validity of phrases by counting google hits. (Not that you're not
perfectly within your rights to pretend we do.)

There is no such thing as, "negative evidence." And nothing better
exemplifies this than the fact that Lee refuses to define it.

Go ahead, Lee. Define it. Make everybody's day.

.