I believe in the aquatic ape hypothesis and people persecute me for it.

CEngelbrecht said:
What if it's several personal opinions? Where you agree with some and disagree with other people's personal sub-opinions on a complex topic with many details? Geological dates for said aquaticism, for instance.
Click to expand...
Depends who it is and how many. If it is someone who is not qualified or published in science then we can discount it. If it is an idea by a respected scientist that has been investigated and found to be lacking any evidence that can also be discounted.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
main-qimg-e3975d984546c42752453786935f5a45
Click to expand...
You're a special snowflake, you are!
 
Pinball1970 said:
Depends who it is and how many. If it is someone who is not qualified or published in science then we can discount it.
Click to expand...

Scientific breakthrough has never needed a paper trail per se. It is most often voices from the wilderness, 'cause the ivory towers grind to a halt out of conformity.

Pinball1970 said:
If it is an idea by a respected scientist that has been investigated and found to be lacking any evidence that can also be discounted.
Click to expand...

So are the savannah hypotheses out or not? #219
 
I wonder of perhaps we could split this thread into two:
  • one thread to discuss the various facts and evidence of AAH and persistence hunting,
  • and the other thread containing all the rhetoric and spurious screen grabs of pithy quotes, and ranting about inquisitions and conspiracies and how the scientific community will be eating crow when AAH finally rises to its rightful place.
Boy, that would be a lopsided divide, eh? But it would sure make a lot more sense.

Or better yet, since our OP doesn't seem to be making any distinction between the two - and prefers to dominate it with rhetoric, this technically is a primarily thread about conspiracies, with but a smattering of factoids thrown in to-taste. It should rightfully be moved to the Conspiracy forum where his concerns can be properly addressed.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I wonder of perhaps we could split this thread into two:
  • one thread to discuss the various facts and evidence of AAH and persistence hunting,
  • and the other thread containing all the rhetoric and spurious screen grabs of pithy quotes, and ranting about inquisitions and conspiracies and how the scientific community will be eating crow when AAH finally rises to its rightful place.
Boy, that would be a lopsided divide, eh? But it would sure make a lot more sense.

Or better yet, since our OP doesn't seem to be making any distinction between the two - and prefers to dominate it with rhetoric, this technically is a primarily thread about conspiracies, with but a smattering of factoids thrown in to-taste. It should rightfully be moved to the Conspiracy forum where his concerns can be properly addressed.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you want to talk facts and evidence? You have freaked every single time they've been brought up so far.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
No, it is. These aquatic ideas are right here right now better supported by conventional evidence and observation than is the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...
Rhetoric. Off-topic. Flagging for split to rhetoric thread.
CEngelbrecht said:
No, I let the scientific method do that. That's all we need.
Click to expand...
Good. Because the scientific method does not speak well of AAH.

CEngelbrecht said:
So you agree it was an authority that announced the death of the savannah hypotheses in London in 1995? ?
Click to expand...
Don't be silly. You are trying to have your cake by making such claims. We don't accept your claims.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Rhetoric. Off-topic. Flagging for split to rhetoric thread.
Click to expand...

Desperate attempt at censorship now. Only tool you have left at this point.

DaveC426913 said:
Good. Because the scientific method does not speak well of AAH.
Click to expand...

And then there's reality. That's exactly why it's not going away.

DaveC426913 said:
Don't be silly. You are trying to have your cake by making such claims. We don't accept your claims.
Click to expand...

Neither does creationists. It's beautiful how this one pisses them off too.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
Desperate attempt at censorship now. Only tool you have left at this point.
Click to expand...
Wrong, all your stupid conspiracy theory nonsense on my Homo naledi thread is still there for all to see.
It seems you have a paleoanthropology conspiracy thing going on, makes a change from COVID, 911, Lizard Royal family, flat earth, deliberate hurricanes etc I'll give you that.
With that I will leave you to it, I do not want to dilute your thread with crazy things like, scientific published literature, scientific method, scientific consensus, evidence etc.
 
What's also been proven is that it's de facto impossible to try and have any reasonable debate about all this in a palce like this. You won't even acknowledge that the savannah has been off the table as the cradle of man for thirty years already. At least paleoanthropologists will, still reluctantly, admit that much. Mumbling under their breath about "mosaic" now, but that's at least a tiny step away from them cave shadows.

You are still the naked ape. With skinfat to keep you warm instead of that archetypical mammalian fur. The exact evolutionary combination that scores of mammal species of varying aquatic level also ended up with. And yet you simply refuse to accept that just that observation straight from convergence, made by Alister Hardy, a leading marine biologist of his generation, as early as 1929, is anything but out right crazy.

And you repeating that nonsense like a mantra doesn't make it so. It doesn't become crazy just because it's about yourselves. And decades of continuous screaming that it is hasn't succeeded in making it look one iota more crazy to casual observers that read the likes of Elaine Morgan's own words without taking your word for it first.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
What's also been proven is that it's de facto impossible to try and have any reasonable debate about all this in a palce like this
Click to expand...
You set the tone for trolling from post one and every post since.

You were warned by us, many, many times that that was no way to engage in any good faith discussion.

And it was predicted that you would eventually try to put the blame on anyone but yourself for the tone.

And here we are, as foretold, you complaining about no reasonable debate.

Hypocrite much?
 
DaveC426913 said:
You set the tone for trolling from post one and every post since.
Click to expand...

You get what you give.

DaveC426913 said:
You were warned by us, many, many times that that was no way to engage in any good faith discussion.
Click to expand...

I can't assume good faith. You do not accept any evidence corroborating this one.

DaveC426913 said:
And it was predicted that you would eventually try to put the blame on anyone but yourself for the tone.
Click to expand...

You can dish it out, but you can't...

DaveC426913 said:
And here we are, as foretold, you complaining about no reasonable debate.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even work for Trump.

DaveC426913 said:
Hypocrite much?
Click to expand...

You're shouting at the mirror again.
 
CEngelbrecht said:
What's also been proven is that it's de facto impossible to try and have any reasonable debate about all this in a palce like this.
Click to expand...
Certainly not with people like you - angry know-it-alls who attack anyone who questions their superior intellect and understanding.

It must be so tough for you to deal with your lessers, people who can't see the brilliance of your theories, or can't accept the inferiority of their own intellects.

Thoughts and prayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top