Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:24:20 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 10, 1:59 pm, "J.LyonLayden" <JosephLay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:56 pm, claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 10, 10:07 am, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Lee, let's list the things that you refuse to discuss:
1) Selective origins of bipedalism in the earliest hominids. (Since
you can't explain it you pretend not to notice.)
Umm...what was there to explain again?
What part of the phrase, " The selective origins of bipedalism in the
earliest hominids." are you having trouble comprehending?
2) Why you and the rest of you conventional dimwits choose to believe
that the selective origins of hominid intellect have to do with tool
usage despite the fact that tools don't show up until hominid
evolution has been in effect upwards of 2 million years.
Umm...what was your point with that again? generally, tools show up
about the same time that hominids are seen with brains bigger than
chimps (homo habilis).
Thank you for that useless information. Now answer the question: Why
do you believe the selective origins of hominid intellect have to do
with tool usage. Its a simple question. Why not attempt an honest
response? What are you afraid of?
3) How HE supposedly ran down prey species in open habitat and outran
Sabertoothed cats and bear-sized hyena.
I guess it's more plausible that he outswam crocodiles and sharks?
Even this isn't true.
4) Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few thousand years
ago.
Yep that's a mystery. I have several theories, and none of them have
to do with mermaids.
Are you keeping these theories a secret. Oh, please, do tell.
5) The selective origins of hominid/human social/communal/cultural
behaviors.
Your point is?
My point, which you just confirmed, is that conventional theorist are
unable to do anything but dismiss this evidence. Thank you for you
participation.
It's obvious why you refuse to discuss any of this. If you did it
would raise questions that you can't answer.
I like to discuss these things, and I have some theories. And even
though those theories are alot more plausible than AAT, I don't claim
that they are fact like an ignoramous would. We don't have all the
evidence yet, so I can't be sure.
Real scientists are eager to discuss the things they don't yet
understand. Propagandists, like yourself, are only willing to discuss
the things that will preserve the illusion that they know it all.
What are you afraid of?
Real scientists are eager to discuss the things they don't yet
understand. Propagandists, like yourself, are only willing to discuss
the things that will preserve the illusion that they know it all.
Who are you referring to with this generic, accusational, "you?"
If the shoe fits . . .
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: Day Brown
- Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- References:
- What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: claudiusdenk
- Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- From: J.LyonLayden
- What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- Prev by Date: Wooly Rhinoceros
- Next by Date: Re: Savanna apes
- Previous by thread: Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- Next by thread: Re: What Conventional Whackos Refuse to Discuss
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|