claudiusde
Sat, Dec-16-06, 06:15
Lee Olsen:
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If Einstein was to have made
the same statement would that have made his thinking invalid?
No response.
Lee Olsen: References?
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote: For what?
Lee Olsen: The evidence that your arguments are based on.
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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.
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net wrote: If Einstein was to have made
the same statement would that have made his thinking invalid?
No response.
Lee Olsen: References?
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote: For what?
Lee Olsen: The evidence that your arguments are based on.
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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...@sbcglobal.net 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.