| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Wagler: Still no response |
 |
|
On Jul 26, 5:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 26, 1:00 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 26, 12:30 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 25, 9:25 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]Rick>s dispute of AAT seems to amount to little more than disconcerted
grumbings of somebody that lacks an alternative explanation.
Don>t take this the wrong way, Rick, but if you aren>t arguing from
the perspective of a viable alternative (to the question of how we
evolved from apes) then why should anybody care that you have minor
grumblings with AAT notions?
* Right. I should adopt your approach. Just construct a
* 'hypothesis' all of my very own out of invented facts and
* foolish misconceptions.
Ha! You>re such a fucking lieing idiot. Name one, "Invented fact"
Go ahead, you lieing jackass. Name one!
* You regularly talk of 8 million year old a>piths despite
* there being no fossils older than about 4.3 million
* years.
How, exactly, does this involve "invented facts?" I>m not presenting
this as a fact, you idiot, I>m presenting it as an assertion/
conjecture that is based on interpretations of facts that confirm this
assertion/conjecture (fossil evidence, including evidence that is
indicative of climate and changes thereof) and on a lack of facts that
contradict this assertion/conjecture.
No response.
Still no response.
[/quote]
Still no response.
[quote]Moreover, I>m not saying that the 8 mya assertion is set in stone. I
am saying, however, that the correct point in time will be at the
point in time that monsoon (sometimes called monsoon-forest habitat)
climate first emerged in east Africa. (My reasons for which are
obvious to any that has read my hypothesis.)
Isn>t it true that you have no fact-based dispute with any of this?
(Answer the question you evasive twit.)
No response.
Still no response.
[/quote]
Still no response.
[quote]So particular types of organism are called forth
by climate change?
Yes, or, more specifically, as a result of the process of natural
selection.
Must have had fun with this
on sci.bio.evoluition.
?
No response.
[/quote]
Still no response.
[quote]If I thought you knew what the word meant I>d
call you a metaphysician.
If you believe organisms do not evolve differently under different
environmental/climatic conditions then you are a metaphysician (and an
idiot).
* In extending the time range of a>piths by 3.5 mm years
* you are claiming much more than this.
Really? Like what? Or is that a secret?
[/quote]
No response.
[quote]* You have no factual
* basis for the claim,
You don>t consider fossil evidence to be factual?
[/quote]
No response.
[quote]* only a ridiculously over-the-top
* climate forcing model.
I dont' know what you mean by, "climate forcing."
[/quote]
No explanation offered.
[quote]I>m talking about
natural selection. See my hypothesis for details.
You should have no trouble finding my hypothesis by doing a search.
* You might check out teleology and
* contingency as applied to evolutionary biology in the
* unlikely event you get around to figuring out what metaphysics
* is.
You>re an idiot. You appear to not have a clue what you are talking
about.
[/quote]
No response.
[quote]* You constantly claim that no one has a factual dispute
* with your 'hypothesis'.
Yep.
[/quote]
No response.
[quote]* A) This is blatantly untrue
Keep in mind the rest of us don>t have direct access to your
imagination.
[/quote]
No support offered.
[quote]* and B)
* people>s rejection of your woolly-minded braggadoccio
* is on a deeper level than facts.
Deeper level?
[/quote]
No explanation offered.
[quote]* But enough of this yanking your chain. Make sure you
* take *all* your meds, not just some of them.
* Bye-Bye
You should a hobby that doesn>t involve complex things, like facts.
[/quote]
No response.
Wagler, you>re a phoney. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
On Jul 27, 12:35 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:73564477-8ccc-459a-b79b-8d57ef8ba20a@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 26, 5:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 1:00 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 26, 12:30 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 25, 9:25 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Rick>s dispute of AAT seems to amount to little more than
disconcerted
grumbings of somebody that lacks an alternative explanation.
Don>t take this the wrong way, Rick, but if you aren>t arguing
from
the perspective of a viable alternative (to the question of how
we
evolved from apes) then why should anybody care that you have
minor
grumblings with AAT notions?
* Right. I should adopt your approach. Just construct a
* 'hypothesis' all of my very own out of invented facts and
* foolish misconceptions.
Ha! You>re such a fucking lieing idiot. Name one, "Invented fact"
Go ahead, you lieing jackass. Name one!
* You regularly talk of 8 million year old a>piths despite
* there being no fossils older than about 4.3 million
* years.
How, exactly, does this involve "invented facts?" I>m not presenting
this as a fact, you idiot, I>m presenting it as an assertion/
conjecture that is based on interpretations of facts that confirm
this
assertion/conjecture (fossil evidence, including evidence that is
indicative of climate and changes thereof) and on a lack of facts
that
contradict this assertion/conjecture.
No response.
Still no response.
Still no response.
Moreover, I>m not saying that the 8 mya assertion is set in stone. I
am saying, however, that the correct point in time will be at the
point in time that monsoon (sometimes called monsoon-forest habitat)
climate first emerged in east Africa. (My reasons for which are
obvious to any that has read my hypothesis.)
Isn>t it true that you have no fact-based dispute with any of this?
(Answer the question you evasive twit.)
No response.
Still no response.
Still no response.
So particular types of organism are called forth
by climate change?
Yes, or, more specifically, as a result of the process of natural
selection.
Must have had fun with this
on sci.bio.evoluition.
?
No response.
Still no response.
If I thought you knew what the word meant I>d
call you a metaphysician.
If you believe organisms do not evolve differently under different
environmental/climatic conditions then you are a metaphysician (and an
idiot).
* In extending the time range of a>piths by 3.5 mm years
* you are claiming much more than this.
Really? Like what? Or is that a secret?
No response.
* You have no factual
* basis for the claim,
You don>t consider fossil evidence to be factual?
No response.
* only a ridiculously over-the-top
* climate forcing model.
I dont' know what you mean by, "climate forcing."
No explanation offered.
I>m talking about
natural selection. See my hypothesis for details.
You should have no trouble finding my hypothesis by doing a search.
* You might check out teleology and
* contingency as applied to evolutionary biology in the
* unlikely event you get around to figuring out what metaphysics
* is.
You>re an idiot. You appear to not have a clue what you are talking
about.
No response.
* You constantly claim that no one has a factual dispute
* with your 'hypothesis'.
Yep.
No response.
* A) This is blatantly untrue
Keep in mind the rest of us don>t have direct access to your
imagination.
No support offered.
* and B)
* people>s rejection of your woolly-minded braggadoccio
* is on a deeper level than facts.
Deeper level?
No explanation offered.
* But enough of this yanking your chain. Make sure you
* take *all* your meds, not just some of them.
* Bye-Bye
You should a hobby that doesn>t involve complex things, like facts.
No response.
Wagler, you>re a phoney.
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up.
[/quote]
And you have no fact-based dispute with my assertion.
[quote]End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
[/quote]
You did nothing but establish that you can>t distinguish a fact from a
fact-base assertion.
[quote]In short, Jim, you>re an idiot and a rude one to boot.
[/quote]
Go to hell you intellectually dishonest evasive twit. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
On Jul 27, 1:50 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9691033d-1955-49ea-9099-6bd93a37fede@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 12:35 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up.
And you have no fact-based dispute with my assertion.
* There are NO 8MM year old a>pith fossils. That is a
* fact based dispute.
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We haven>t found any. But that doesn>t mean they aren>t there.
Do you have any evidence that these fossils do not exist?
[quote]
End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
You did nothing but establish that you can>t distinguish a fact from a
fact-base assertion.
* A 'fact-based assertion' with no facts to base the assertion
[/quote]
You don>t consider fossils to be facts? My assertion is based on the
fossil evidence, as I explained. Why not address my arguments
directly, you evasive twit?
[quote]* upon. Only in your world, Jim. Alas, those of us in the
* reality based community don>t have it so easy....
[/quote]
The fact is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If
you understood scientific methods/processes this would be obvious to
you. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rick Wagler
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:73564477-8ccc-459a-b79b-8d57ef8ba20a@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Jul 26, 5:09 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 1:00 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 26, 12:30 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
On Jul 25, 9:25 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Rick>s dispute of AAT seems to amount to little more than
disconcerted
grumbings of somebody that lacks an alternative explanation.
Don>t take this the wrong way, Rick, but if you aren>t arguing
from
the perspective of a viable alternative (to the question of how
we
evolved from apes) then why should anybody care that you have
minor
grumblings with AAT notions?
* Right. I should adopt your approach. Just construct a
* 'hypothesis' all of my very own out of invented facts and
* foolish misconceptions.
Ha! You>re such a fucking lieing idiot. Name one, "Invented fact"
Go ahead, you lieing jackass. Name one!
* You regularly talk of 8 million year old a>piths despite
* there being no fossils older than about 4.3 million
* years.
How, exactly, does this involve "invented facts?" I>m not presenting
this as a fact, you idiot, I>m presenting it as an assertion/
conjecture that is based on interpretations of facts that confirm
this
assertion/conjecture (fossil evidence, including evidence that is
indicative of climate and changes thereof) and on a lack of facts
that
contradict this assertion/conjecture.
No response.
Still no response.
Still no response.
Moreover, I>m not saying that the 8 mya assertion is set in stone. I
am saying, however, that the correct point in time will be at the
point in time that monsoon (sometimes called monsoon-forest habitat)
climate first emerged in east Africa. (My reasons for which are
obvious to any that has read my hypothesis.)
Isn>t it true that you have no fact-based dispute with any of this?
(Answer the question you evasive twit.)
No response.
Still no response.
Still no response.
So particular types of organism are called forth
by climate change?
Yes, or, more specifically, as a result of the process of natural
selection.
Must have had fun with this
on sci.bio.evoluition.
?
No response.
Still no response.
If I thought you knew what the word meant I>d
call you a metaphysician.
If you believe organisms do not evolve differently under different
environmental/climatic conditions then you are a metaphysician (and an
idiot).
* In extending the time range of a>piths by 3.5 mm years
* you are claiming much more than this.
Really? Like what? Or is that a secret?
No response.
* You have no factual
* basis for the claim,
You don>t consider fossil evidence to be factual?
No response.
* only a ridiculously over-the-top
* climate forcing model.
I dont' know what you mean by, "climate forcing."
No explanation offered.
I>m talking about
natural selection. See my hypothesis for details.
You should have no trouble finding my hypothesis by doing a search.
* You might check out teleology and
* contingency as applied to evolutionary biology in the
* unlikely event you get around to figuring out what metaphysics
* is.
You>re an idiot. You appear to not have a clue what you are talking
about.
No response.
* You constantly claim that no one has a factual dispute
* with your 'hypothesis'.
Yep.
No response.
* A) This is blatantly untrue
Keep in mind the rest of us don>t have direct access to your
imagination.
No support offered.
* and B)
* people>s rejection of your woolly-minded braggadoccio
* is on a deeper level than facts.
Deeper level?
No explanation offered.
* But enough of this yanking your chain. Make sure you
* take *all* your meds, not just some of them.
* Bye-Bye
You should a hobby that doesn>t involve complex things, like facts.
No response.
Wagler, you>re a phoney.
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to[/quote]
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up. End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
In short, Jim, you>re an idiot and a rude one to boot.
Bye, Bye
Rick Wagler |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rick Wagler
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:50 am Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9691033d-1955-49ea-9099-6bd93a37fede@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 12:35 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up.
[/quote]
And you have no fact-based dispute with my assertion.
* There are NO 8MM year old a>pith fossils. That is a
* fact based dispute.
[quote]End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
[/quote]
You did nothing but establish that you can>t distinguish a fact from a
fact-base assertion.
* A 'fact-based assertion' with no facts to base the assertion
* upon. Only in your world, Jim. Alas, those of us in the
* reality based community don>t have it so easy....
* Rick Wagler |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claudius Denk
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
On Jul 27, 7:19 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83ea4b8e-6d98-4e86-9cc4-cd85ceb86850@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 1:50 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9691033d-1955-49ea-9099-6bd93a37fede@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 12:35 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up.
And you have no fact-based dispute with my assertion.
* There are NO 8MM year old a>pith fossils. That is a
* fact based dispute.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We haven>t found any. But that doesn>t mean they aren>t there.
* But until they are found they are not part of knowledge and
* cannot serve as a basis for a "fact-based assertion" aka
[/quote]
They (the the theoretical fossils) are NOT the facts that support this
assertions. And I never said they were. Try addressing my arguments
directly you evasive twit.
[quote]* just
* making stuff up. After 4.3 MMya a>pith>s become a consistent
* and regular part of the fauna of East and South Africa for over
* three million years.
[/quote]
How, exactly, do you know it didn>t go back to, let>s say, 6mya or
even 8 mya?
[quote]* Before that? Now it is unreasonable to
* assume we have fossils from the first population of hominid apes
* that were distinct enough from its immediate ancestor to
* be worthy of being placed in a new genus or that we have the
* fossil of the last a>pith that ever lived so we can fudge these dates
* a bit.
[/quote]
Uh, my recollection is that Orrorin goes back to 6 mya or so. But it
really doesn>t matter when it happened as much as it matters how it
happened. My point is only that the emergence of monsoon climate and
the begginning of hominid selective processes will be at the same
point in time. My reasons for which are very clear to anybody that
has read my hypothesis. You have no dispute with anything in my
hypothesis. Instead you have a phoney dispute with the exact date and
you dispute is based on absence of evidence. Which is little more
than a somewhat desperate attempt to dismiss my hypothesis.
[quote]* But not by 3+MM years. At this point you are engaged in
* a simple appeal to ignorance.
[/quote]
You don>t even have a hypothesis as to how it happened. And your
hypothesis for when it began is based on absence of evidence.
[quote]
Do you have any evidence that these fossils do not exist?
* Do you have any evidence that you are not a notorious
* bank robber? Would having the police say that there is
* not a shred of evidence, even the merest suggestion that Jim
* McGinn of your town>s dealings with banks have been
* anything but perfectly legal, proper and above board
* serve to dispel the notion? No? You need more? What
* would that be? I can>t think of anything. Can you??
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]
End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
You did nothing but establish that you can>t distinguish a fact from a
fact-base assertion.
* A 'fact-based assertion' with no facts to base the assertion
You don>t consider fossils to be facts? My assertion is based on the
fossil evidence, as I explained. Why not address my arguments
directly, you evasive twit?
* Fossils that don>t exist
[/quote]
You>re delusional. Now you are misrepresenting my words. Why not
refer directly to my words so that overcome your confusion.
[quote]* - whether undiscoverd or wholly
* non-existent - are NOT facts. There is no use appealing to
* the fossil evidence for 8MM year old a>piths. There is none.
[/quote]
I never stated there was any. But there is fossil evidence of when
climate change began. Right? (Answer the question you evasive twit.)
[quote]
* upon. Only in your world, Jim. Alas, those of us in the
* reality based community don>t have it so easy....
The fact is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If
you understood scientific methods/processes this would be obvious to
you.
* Sure it is. It may not be conclusive ie little data is
* available so a firm conclusion is not warranted but
* absence of evidence is precisely that - an absence
* of evidence. What you are proposing is a classic
* appeal to ignorance - whatever cannot be conclusively
* disproven must be true. This is the netloon>s mantra
* but you seem more than comfortable with it.
[/quote]
The fossil evidence I was referring to was evidence of climate change,
not hominid fossils you mental retard. Try paying attention.
[quote]* As for the original Sagan quote read it in context in
* "The Demon-Haunted World" and see what he was
* really talking about. Read it and weep.
[/quote]
Science is complex. Maybe you should avoid it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rick Wagler
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:00 am Post subject: Re: Wagler: Still no response |
|
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:83ea4b8e-6d98-4e86-9cc4-cd85ceb86850@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 1:50 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9691033d-1955-49ea-9099-6bd93a37fede@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 27, 12:35 pm, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Respond to what? You did not back off your claim to
8MM year old a>piths and can provide no factual evidence
to back it up.
And you have no fact-based dispute with my assertion.
* There are NO 8MM year old a>pith fossils. That is a
* fact based dispute.
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We haven>t found any. But that doesn>t mean they aren>t there.
* But until they are found they are not part of knowledge and
* cannot serve as a basis for a "fact-based assertion" aka just
* making stuff up. After 4.3 MMya a>pith>s become a consistent
* and regular part of the fauna of East and South Africa for over
* three million years. Before that? Now it is unreasonable to
* assume we have fossils from the first population of hominid apes
* that were distinct enough from its immediate ancestor to
* be worthy of being placed in a new genus or that we have the
* fossil of the last a>pith that ever lived so we can fudge these dates
* a bit. But not by 3+MM years. At this point you are engaged in
* a simple appeal to ignorance.
Do you have any evidence that these fossils do not exist?
* Do you have any evidence that you are not a notorious
* bank robber? Would having the police say that there is
* not a shred of evidence, even the merest suggestion that Jim
* McGinn of your town>s dealings with banks have been
* anything but perfectly legal, proper and above board
* serve to dispel the notion? No? You need more? What
* would that be? I can>t think of anything. Can you??
[quote]
End of friggin' story, or, to rephrase you
challenged me to provide an example of one of your
invented facts and I did so.
You did nothing but establish that you can>t distinguish a fact from a
fact-base assertion.
* A 'fact-based assertion' with no facts to base the assertion
[/quote]
You don>t consider fossils to be facts? My assertion is based on the
fossil evidence, as I explained. Why not address my arguments
directly, you evasive twit?
* Fossils that don>t exist - whether undiscoverd or wholly
* non-existent - are NOT facts. There is no use appealing to
* the fossil evidence for 8MM year old a>piths. There is none.
[quote]* upon. Only in your world, Jim. Alas, those of us in the
* reality based community don>t have it so easy....
[/quote]
The fact is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If
you understood scientific methods/processes this would be obvious to
you.
* Sure it is. It may not be conclusive ie little data is
* available so a firm conclusion is not warranted but
* absence of evidence is precisely that - an absence
* of evidence. What you are proposing is a classic
* appeal to ignorance - whatever cannot be conclusively
* disproven must be true. This is the netloon>s mantra
* but you seem more than comfortable with it.
* As for the original Sagan quote read it in context in
* "The Demon-Haunted World" and see what he was
* really talking about. Read it and weep.
* Rick Wagler |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
