https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
I Envy JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
You are the one who lies.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
You are the one who lies.
Nobody mentioned lies but you.
"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
You are the one who lies.
Nobody mentioned lies but you.
"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence of lying in this post.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in talk.origins all this past month,
being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by jillery where the *internal* evidence
clearly showed that jillery was lying.
But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't involve you.
I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would like to know
why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
You are the one who lies.
Nobody mentioned lies but you.
"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence of lying in this post.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in talk.origins all this past month,
being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by jillery where the *internal* evidence
clearly showed that jillery was lying.
But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't involve you.
I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would like to know
why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.
On 4.11.2021. 21:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 9:09:05 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
wrote:
On 14.10.2021. 0:29, I Envy JTEM wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/658286076111339520
You are the one who lies.
Nobody mentioned lies but you.
"A lack of reading comprehension does not an argument make."
I mentioned that you are lying, for a reason.
Would you mind letting me in on your reason, Mario? I see no evidence
of lying in this post.
Sorry to be so late in responding. I've been deeply involved in
talk.origins all this past month,
being hit by torrents of *demonstrable* lies, including one post by
jillery where the *internal* evidence
clearly showed that jillery was lying.
But I believe that you do not like to know about disputes that don't
involve you.
I can very readily appreciate that, but I am unlike you, and I would
like to know
why you said that about JTEM at this particular time.
See what she wrote as response to your post. She is *creating*
imaginary questionable situations, and after that she states that those situations are questionable,
Evidence about stone tools is nothing like what she claims it to be, but they look questionable to a laymen when she presents them as
such. No, the evidence of stone tools isn't a photograph of a bunch of stones. This bunch of stones only *look like* stone tools from a
distance, to a layman. And it is she who is creating such a questionable situations.
And you mention to her, time after time, that evidence is nothing like that. She, after writing about this for decades, should
know much more about this, than this photograph of a pile of rocks. But
time and time again she acts like this photograph is everything that she knows about this. And this is the main subject that she holds on to, for decades, in this news group, yet, all this time she "discuss" only this
one photograph, and for the whole time she "claims" that this photograph
is questionable. And you tell her again, well, this isn't all. And
again, she acts like she doesn't hear you, and again she doesn't inquire
it just a bit more, even though this is her main subject, and after
decades she still stands firmly on this photograph, claiming that it is questionable. And yes, she is right, this particular photograph really
is questionable. Only, this photograph *isn't* the evidence about tool
use, although it may look like it to a laymen.
This is exactly like if somebody would claim that there are channels
on Mars, and present to you some 100 years old photograph
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
This is exactly like if somebody would claim that there are channels
on Mars, and present to you some 100 years old photograph
Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
Google: Calico early man site
Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.
I've also brought up the Nova episode on the "Meat Cache" which is significantly older than paleo anthropology says anything can be in
the Americas, and the "Cut Mark" identified there...
Nobody has retracted the claims about the BILLIONS (plural) of hand
axes at each of multiple sites in Africa...
If you ever get internet access you might try searching for this stuff
on the Google Groups archive.
And, yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
Google: Calico early man site
Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.
Ok, I'll address this
So, you are claiming that stone tools aren't stone tools, and you have
one example where rocks "bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric
tools", but whether they are or not is a point of discussion.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
Oh. So you're batshit crazy. Why didn't you just say so?
Google: Calico early man site
Amongst it's proponents was the famous Leaky, btw.
Ok, I'll address this
You didn't address anything at all. You just made up stupid shit
because that's what you do.
So, you are claiming that stone tools aren't stone tools, and you have
one example where rocks "bear a strong resemblance to prehistoric
tools", but whether they are or not is a point of discussion.
No.
I never claimed that. I never so much as implied that.
What I pointed out is that paleo anthropology claims that determinations
are made only in the must objective, empirical manner, while what they demonstrate is that it really comes down to where it's found, and also its age in many cases.
An example is the Calico Early Man Site where even Leaky saw "Tools"
and not broken rocks. Another example I gave was the Nova episode
where a distinct "Cut Mark" was identified using the imaginary methods,
and dismissed because of it's age and where it was found.
So there's two examples where objective, empirical methods said "Tools"
and paleo anthropology said "No, these methods suck and you can't go
my them."
If you want a parallel example outside the field, one that you still won't be able to grasp, there's how for some decades the FBI insisted that it could tell if two bullets came from the same badge, making it highly unlikely
that a different person/gun could have fired the bullet in a murder.
It was all rubbish.
Fact of the matter is they tested unfired bullets from a suspect because
they believed the suspect was guilty. They believed the bullets did match.
So they found similarities because that's what they wanted/expected to
find.
Same thing with so called "Tools."
When and where they expect tools, their methods are sound. They're
objective, not the least bit subjective, empirical. And, when/where the narrative says they won't find tools, those methods are junk.
In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist
I didn't say that stone tools don't exist, I said that they can't tell a stone tool from a broken rock. And they can't.
A parellel would be where the FBI claimed for many years that
they could tell when two bullets came from the same batch, and
they couldn't. This is not to say that bullets don't exist or that
nobody has ever been murdered with one.
"Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
"Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.
Of course you are wrong
they can tell exactly if some of the stones
is a tool.
Just because you cannot discern them on your
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
"Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.
Of course you are wrong
No. You're an idiot. I gave you two examples in this thread alone which
you acknowledged.
they can tell exactly if some of the stones
is a tool.
No. Again, I gave you two examples in this thread. Going by their totally object, empirical methods means a 25,000 year old "meat cache" in,
where was it? Colorado? And then the Calico Early Man Site which
would have to be pre modern man, it's so old.
Just because you cannot discern them on your
I've never been to the Calico Early Man Site, or Colorado for that matter.
You need to make it about me, your emotional state, else you can't deal
with things.
You can't engage in a civil discussion on facts, on evidence. You need
to make it about personalities. You did need to. You did do that. More
than once in this thread alone.
And, yes, I am calling you an idiot BECAUSE you did that.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
In the very selective examples that you present as a standard.
I agree that paleoanthropology, just like the whole science, is very
controlled, but to claim that stone tools don't exist
I didn't say that stone tools don't exist, I said that they can't tell a stone tool from a broken rock. And they can't.
A parellel would be where the FBI claimed for many years that
they could tell when two bullets came from the same batch, and
they couldn't. This is not to say that bullets don't exist or that
nobody has ever been murdered with one.
"Tools" are determined by a convergence of evidence -- more than
one piece of evidence pointing to human activity/tool use. The
fewer pieces of evidence, the less exact that determination.
"Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been
struck off naturally.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
"Bulbs of applied force are not usually present if the flake has been
struck off naturally.
What does "Not usually" mean?
Because at a 1-in-a-million chance there are 1,000 in a site with a billion rocks.
There are COUNTLESS sites with MULTIPLES of that figure.
The sky is the limit.
And this is assuming a 1-in-a-million incidence rate. If you knock that
down to 1-in-a-100,000 then we're talking 10x the number of false positives...
AND THEN consider that the "Not Usually" is a circular argument. It's
based on THEIR CONCLUSIONS. They some rocks are man made
tools so they have to be man made tools. They say they don't usually
get it wrong based on the conclusion that they don't usually get it
wrong.
So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.
So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument, which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.
So what?
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
So we have a fictitious claim -- "not usually" -- a circular argument,
which even at face value is deceptive anyway as 1-in-a-thousand
or 3-in-a-hundred or even 6-in-50 constitutes "Not usually," but they
all result is STAGGERINGLY huge numbers.
So what?
So you don't have an argument. You have a circular claim. They know
what happened "usually" because that's what they said. Their position
is proving itself. AND, they (you) use undefined term which itself does support the idea that they are misidentifying geofacts as archaeological artifacts.
"Not usually?" Honey, when you pick up a rock it's "Not usually" a paleo
tool shaped by early man.
Read it whichever way you want (which you do).
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
Read it whichever way you want (which you do).
It's an undefined term. Period. It's literally meaningless. Or, if you prefer, it can mean anything you damn well please. AND it's also
circular. It defends the accuracy of the determinations by insisting
that the determinations are accurate.
Put short: It's just plain stupid.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 209:41:16 |
| Calls: | 6,619 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,180 |