Page 15 of 20

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:41 am
by Minimalist
:lol:

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:47 am
by Digit
:lol: :lol:

Roy.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:08 pm
by dannan14
uniface wrote: and data for facts.

Umm, since when is a datum not a fact?

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:53 pm
by uniface
Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian at the first formal presentation of the Solturean hypothesis :

http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/stanford.html

"This paper summarizes the results of six years of intensive research in which we assessed the available interdisciplinary evidence to see if the Solutrean Solution Model is supported or should be rejected. Our conclusion is that there is strong and compelling supporting data and the model merits serious consideration. In this regard, we address the issues and opinions raised by other scholars who published negative "peer reviewed" papers seeking to "deconstruct the Solutrean Solution" before we completed our studies."

Before they'd even seen the evidence and the way it fit together, it was already "wrong," and had to be scoffed out of existence. Because it was incongruous with their set of assumptions.

That's a prime example of knowing it all before you know anything.

And the greater the discrepancy is, the greater the certainty.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:58 pm
by Minimalist
What does that have to do with evolution, which has museums full of evidence to sustain it?

We understand that some groups will cling to theories long after evidence discrediting them has been amassed.

Evolution suffers from no such problem.


(Unless you want to start using the Creation Institute as "evidence.")

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:12 am
by Digit
Saved my digits for me Min! Ta!

Roy.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:00 am
by Leona Conner
Minimalist wrote:What does that have to do with evolution, which has museums full of evidence to sustain it?

We understand that some groups will cling to theories long after evidence discrediting them has been amassed.

Evolution suffers from no such problem.


(Unless you want to start using the Creation Institute as "evidence.")
Min, Min, Min, dawling you know creationism has all the "evidence" it needs. Right there in the bible and we know that it's true because it says it is. :roll:

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:35 am
by Digit
Here yar Uni...
Huxley's retort to 'Soapy Sam'...

asked whether he had a preference for the descent being on the father's side or the mother's side? This gave Huxley the opportunity of saying that he would sooner claim kindred with an Ape than with a man like the Bp. who made so ill a use of his wonderful speaking powers to try and burke, by a display of authority, a free discussion on what was, or was not, a matter of truth,

...so you see, somethings never change, but truth endures.
And you're still dodging the question, so may I ask that you either cease sniping at our views or offer your own, on evolution, for debate.

Roy.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:09 am
by uniface
Surely somebody here "gets" this beside yr. obt. svt. (?)

I call attention to the endemic tendency in people to conflate their own mental images of issues with the issues themselves, to the point that when they set out to discuss them, they only elaborate on what they think, personally. In response, you guys kindly demonstrate this.

I point out that the most vociferous convictions about a topic generally correlate with the the broadest, most superficial familiarity it. At which you guys thoughtfully provide illustrative examples of it.

I raise a contention, and you guys demonstrate the validity it by the tone and substance of your responses.

It's still about YOU. And what YOU think. And why YOUR opinion is better. And how annoying it is to have YOUR opinions disputed. Me Me Me Me Me at every turn. Me as motivation, Me as referent, Me as topic, and Me as arbiter.

The more Me hijacks an issue, the more attempts at discussing it can only turn into flame wars.

Or, so it seems.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:30 am
by Digit
It's still about YOU.
For you apparently so. For us it's about evolution. Also it is not about what we think, it's about the evidence.
Even if it was about what we think we still haven't heard from you any thoughts on evolution, only your opinion on what you think we think. So you're still dodging!

Roy.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:52 am
by Minimalist
I think Leona nailed it.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:15 am
by Digit
To be honest Min I do not think Uniface is a creationist, his entire approach appears from this end to be 'challenge everything, explain nothing.'

Roy.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:44 am
by Minimalist
Sounds like the 9-11 Truthers.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:51 am
by Frank Harrist
uniface wrote:Surely somebody here "gets" this beside yr. obt. svt. (?)

I call attention to the endemic tendency in people to conflate their own mental images of issues with the issues themselves, to the point that when they set out to discuss them, they only elaborate on what they think, personally. In response, you guys kindly demonstrate this.

I point out that the most vociferous convictions about a topic generally correlate with the the broadest, most superficial familiarity it. At which you guys thoughtfully provide illustrative examples of it.

I raise a contention, and you guys demonstrate the validity it by the tone and substance of your responses.

It's still about YOU. And what YOU think. And why YOUR opinion is better. And how annoying it is to have YOUR opinions disputed. Me Me Me Me Me at every turn. Me as motivation, Me as referent, Me as topic, and Me as arbiter.

The more Me hijacks an issue, the more attempts at discussing it can only turn into flame wars.

Or, so it seems.
Sounds like someone got a new thesaurus.

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:28 pm
by uniface
Some of us grew up in houses full of books and had a distaste for television.

Need I really point out that the Hypothesis of Evolution hinges on evolution being demonstrable from the fossil record ? And that it isn't ? Contrary to expectation, new species appear out of nowhere, without intermediary forms.

A good round dozen crocoducks at critical junctures would go a long way toward making it seem plausible.

In the mean time, it's a hypothesis incapable of proof (demonstration). Which makes it what ?