Archaeologica.org

A number of invalid points there but I'm not going down the route of arguing pointlessly on a fixed view, sorry.

Roy.

Digit wrote:A number of invalid points there but I'm not going down the route of arguing pointlessly on a fixed view, sorry.

Cheap.

Cheap maybe, but the price of trying to be logical on that subject with you is too high.

Roy.

Elephants rely heavily on their memory. The Zimbabwean elephants went to eat those fruits for thousands of years. Through the valley. On foot. Every year again. So when the valley was inundated they simply kept following the same routes, on the same schedules as before, only swimming instead of walking. The Zimbabwean elephants knew/know what's waiting for them at the end of their marathon swim. And they want(ed) it badly. The Balinese elephants didn't know (remember) anything of the sort, and would have had to contend with salt water and strong tidal currents too. I.o.w. much different, and much more difficult circumstances and no reason (memory) to attempt the crossing to Lombok. That's why they didn't cross the Wallace Line.

Sorry, you're not snaring into one of your endless debates.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Sorry, you're not snaring into one of your endless debates.

You want simple truths?
Go ask Arch.

No, I want logical debates.

Roy.

Arch has simple fallacies!

Digit wrote:No, I want logical debates.

But when you get one, you slither out of it as fast as you can!

Sorry, you're not snaring into one of your endless debates.

Yep, with you I most certainly do!
I've as much chance of making you accept the lack of land bridge to the Andaman Islands as I have of converting Uni to the true faith!


Roy.

Rokcet Scientist wrote

Digit wrote:
No, I want logical debates.

But when you get one, you slither out of it as fast as you can!

Digit wrote
Yep, with you I most certainly do!

At least we have established that...

I've as much chance of making you accept the lack of land bridge to the Andaman Islands as I have of converting Uni to the true faith!

So it looks like your logic isn't up to par, is it...?

Or the objections are set in concrete.
I knew a chap on another forum who had an absolute belief in the existance of the Aether. So great was his faith that he had managed to construct a complete set of physical laws that explained everything in the physical world.
To be fair it actually hung together, all you had to do was accept the Aether and reject all other physical laws.
According to him the Apollo astranauts never landed on the Moon, they couldn't as it is anti matter and they would have been destroyed.
Instead the circled the Earth for 5 days before returning.
Explaining that, whether they circled or were geo stationary, they would have been visible in sunlight towards dawn and sunset, that telescopes and radar would have shown the lie, as would have D/Fing the radio transmissions. Also they would have inevitably have got out of phase with the Moon's rising and setting.
Did this faze him? Not in the slightest, he immediately fell back onto the same excuse that you and Uni use, that I can't 'think outside the box', that I am brainwashed by a scientific community etc etc etc.
Given the chance I'd lock the three of you away together with a supply of food and water and let you drive each other mad!

Roy.

Digit wrote:Or the objections are set in concrete.
I knew a chap on another forum who had an absolute belief in the existance of the Aether. So great was his faith that he had managed to construct a complete set of physical laws that explained everything in the physical world.
To be fair it actually hung together, all you had to do was accept the Aether and reject all other physical laws.
According to him the Apollo astranauts never landed on the Moon, they couldn't as it is anti matter and they would have been destroyed.
Instead the circled the Earth for 5 days before returning.
Explaining that, whether they circled or were geo stationary, they would have been visible in sunlight towards dawn and sunset, that telescopes and radar would have shown the lie, as would have D/Fing the radio transmissions. Also they would have inevitably have got out of phase with the Moon's rising and setting.
Did this faze him? Not in the slightest, he immediately fell back onto the same excuse that you and Uni use, that I can't 'think outside the box', that I am brainwashed by a scientific community etc etc etc.
Given the chance I'd lock the three of you away together with a supply of food and water and let you drive each other mad!

A variation on Capricorn One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One; 1977).
If you recall I also described, a few months ago, how, in 1970, I watched the second moonlanding, live. Together with a few Calvinist guys (as old as I am now), who, while they actually saw it happening in front of their eyes, flatly refused to believe it was true. Because "God would never allow the desecration of his divine creation".
To me that was an eye-opener (I was 18).

Exactly my point RS, but it pains me to point out that you accept unsupported views just because you like them, as does Uni, and frankly, I simply don't get it!

Roy.

Digit wrote:Exactly my point RS, but it pains me to point out that you accept unsupported views just because you like them, as does Uni, and frankly, I simply don't get it!

That's because you assume that I "accept unsupported views just because like them". Wrong assumption. I accept (some) unsupported views because they make logical sense to me. Not because I 'like' or don't 'like' them. Science has nothing to do with emotion.

I can't speak for Uni, of course.