13 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I am not as duba$$ as you think.
i refuse to believe you are as dumba$$ as you make out, no one can be that dim,
I also noticed the ... in your quote where you cleverly removed some text that would have put that word "reconstructed" in proper context.
But both you and I know perfectly well that in the original context and even in your edited version, there is no suggestion whatsoever that anyone constructed a skeleton.
If you dont know what you are talking about just shut the hell up,
its easy, you cannot know everything, you are limited to experience and lifespan. It
will save you from appearing like a complete idiot, all it takes is a little modesty.
Man you put Atheism back years.
Why are you so convinced that I don't know what I am talking about? Its quite obvious that I know more about the topic than you do. You totally refuse to know more about it.
13 Sep 11
5 edits
No, I am not as duba$$ as you think.Just stop being a dick, just stop it. Ignorance is excusable, being a dick is not. I
I also noticed the ... in your quote where you cleverly removed some text that would have put that word "reconstructed" in proper context.
But both you and I know perfectly well that in the original context and even in your edited version, there is no suggestion whatsoever that anyone constructed a skeleton.
If vious that I know more about the topic than you do. You totally refuse to know more about it.
apologise to the science forum for this, I am good but i am gone, this type of idiotic
reasoning has no place here, perhaps someone can explain the text to you, i have had
enough.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs always when caught lying you resort to insults and leave. Now I know you were deliberately lying, not just mistaken. The fact is that the quote does not say that a skeleton was constructed - you made that part up.
Just stop being a dick, just stop it. Ignorance is excusable, being a dick is not. I
apologise to the science forum for this, I am good but i am gone, this type of idiotic
reasoning has no place here, perhaps someone can explain the text to you, i have had
enough.
13 Sep 11
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhich one of these words did i make up,
As always when caught lying you resort to insults and leave. Now I know you were deliberately lying, not just mistaken. The fact is that the quote does not say that a skeleton was constructed - you made that part up.
“How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws, without a
known pelvis, limb bones, or skull, sneak into this manward marching procession?”
Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and
Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/September 1979, p. 86.
in fact dont bother to reply, you're simply better being ignored, thank goodness for
Javascript,. All your posts are now blocked with the reassuring message,
[CENSORED: This post has been removed to preserve sanity levels]
ahhhhhh, luxury
13 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatno it has little to do with science, twithead is simply acting like a dick! but we know that
Golly, science is a bit fighty today...
from past experience. His imagination seems to extend to details that are non existent
as he attempts to project his ignorance onto others, a most despicable and sorry
creature, best treated at the end of a barge pole or as one does a fork tongued rattle
snake.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I would have to disagree a little, friend Robbie. I find Twhitehead to be a little angular in argument at times, but his reason is reasoned, his logic logical, his science sound. I may be wrong, but it also seems like you might be a little previous in heaping of insult yourself, perhaps? Also, you used a Hinds® epithet which is just wrong, for shame.
no it has little to do with science, twithead is simply acting like a dick! but we know that
from past experience. His imagination seems to extend to details that are non existent
as he attempts to project his ignorance onto others, a most despicable and sorry
creature, best treated at the end of a barge pole or as one does a fork tongued rattle
snake.
14 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Skeleton". You claimed a skeleton had been constructed, yet your supporting quote makes no such claim. I am not at all surprised you are ignoring me. You are one of those people who can never admit that you lied.
which one of these words did i make up,
14 Sep 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatsure thing cat dude, i readily admit that i can be sharp tongued and abrasive, even
Well I would have to disagree a little, friend Robbie. I find Twhitehead to be a little angular in argument at times, but his reason is reasoned, his logic logical, his science sound. I may be wrong, but it also seems like you might be a little previous in heaping of insult yourself, perhaps? Also, you used a Hinds® epithet which is just wrong, for shame.
obnoxious and spiteful, a fabricator and manipulator of scientific data i am not.
This was the scenario, i make a statement based on scientific data i know to be true,
twithead examines the statement, goes to wikipedia, finds nothing, goes to google,
finds nothing, lyingly and slanderously asserts that i made it up. I provide a
reference backing up my claim, what is he to do? he now finds himself in the
position of having to eat his own words. He slithers around trying to use feeble
semantic arguments that reconstruction was interpolated, a false lie, that there is no
suggestion that reconstruction actually means reconstruction, another false
statement, why? simply because his ego will not let him admit that he was wrong to
accuse me in the manner that he did. Now while i could have laughed it off and
kept silent knowing the man is a buffoon, i thought why should I let him get away
with slander? No he should be subject to some form of justice, for if he does it here
he may well do it elsewhere and called him out upon it! what did he have.
absolutely nothing, no reason, no science, no corroborative data, no supporting
references, if you search the thread, you will find none. He is therefore left to
repeat his first unsubstantiated assertion that I fabricated the quotation and
engineered the assertion, a lie which he continues to perpetuate despite any
references to the contrary. He is therefore a snake ( I apologise to all the snakes in
the world) and must be treated accordingly, at least by me. I would deem it a
kindness if he would extend the same to me - regards Robbie 🙂
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have not disputed that reconstruction means reconstruction, I have disputed that 'reconstruction' means 'reconstructed whole skeletal structures'.
he now finds himself in the
position of having to eat his own words. He slithers around trying to use feeble
semantic arguments that reconstruction was interpolated, a false lie, that there is no
suggestion that reconstruction actually means reconstruction, another false
statement, why?
The 'skeletal structures' part changes the meaning completely and was inserted by you.
what did he have. absolutely nothing, no reason, no science, no corroborative data, no supporting
references, if you search the thread, you will find none.
Because I don't need any. We are discussing whether or not what you claimed can be backed up in any way. You have failed to back it up. What should I need to provide references too? What corroborative data should be required?
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell, take a look at Chemistry or Physics, one doesn't find so much change in the basic theory there?
[b]BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?
How were we going to come up with the exact theory from the start?[/b]
14 Sep 11
Originally posted by shahenshahThere is no change at all in the basic theory of the evolution of man. Darwin set it out in his books over 150 years ago and it has not changed. What changes is our knowledge of the details of how it works and our knowledge of what actually happened in the past.
Well, take a look at Chemistry or Physics, one doesn't find so much change in the basic theory there?
As I pointed out earlier, our knowledge of gravity and its laws does not necessarily mean we instantly know the position of every planet or start and its future movements. Those get refined over time as more accurate observations are made. But a more accurate observation of an orbit does not imply a change to the theory of gravity.
Similarly, the finding of a new fossil tells us more about what animals live in the past and which descended from which, but it does not affect the basic theory of evolution one iota.
14 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are in agreement then, that there is a major change.... I saw another report on the same finding and the title was "game changer" ... see the link below http://news.yahoo.com/game-changer-evolution-african-bones-140125430.html
I haven't researched this particular case, but it is quite possible. My point is that 'what was previously supposed' was never put in stone and never assumed to be accurate. It was simply the most accurate guess based on the data available.
You may call it semantics, but you appeared to be saying that when new observations reveal that Jupiters orbit is n ...[text shortened]... a 100 year old star book then the theory of gravity must have changed and cannot be trusted.
While I never spoke on Jupiter, gravity, etc,
There is far less change in Chemistry and Physics and there is Biology, specifically evolution. eg Newton's laws don't seem to have changed.