You will not comment because you do not have the actual scientific facts to back it up. The fact is you don't know. -- CHADI'S FORUM

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday 19 [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: You will not comment because you do not have the actual scientific facts to back it up. The fact is you don't know.

Author:
Grad student in anthropology
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 20:51:42 12/02/02 Mon
In reply to: chadi 's message, "Go to the third previous message above and read before throwing your curses." on 20:33:23 12/02/02 Mon

I think you were expecting one of the regulars on here to just try to debunk you with their normal satire. Unfortunately, you made a statement that someone on here actually knows something about (I am referring to the 'human teeth' comment you made earlier). As for cursing, I only said "Dumbass" because you have no proof to back up what you said while I could site several sources on the evolution of teeth through food consumption. However, for someone like you who probably just reads one source and then believes it, might I suggest "Reconstructing Human Origins: A Modern Synthesis" by Glen Conroy, PhD. You might learn something that is actually based on research rather than assumptions.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Of course i will not comment on what says someone like you who considers archeology a "100% pure objectiveand acurate science". (NT) chadi 21:05:54 12/02/02 Mon

1. I was coming from a physical anthropological point of view, not archaeoligical. Although both are subfields of anthropology, what they deal with may or may not overlap. 2. Cannibalistic tribes are/were only those that ate a PART of the human body from an enemy, their diet did not even consist 1% human. -- Grad student in anthropology, 18:29:57 12/03/02 Tue
Also, post-processualism in archaeology has shown that archaeology is not 100% objective. Read up on history of theory of archaeology before you comment on something else you know nothing about. Might I suggest "History of Archaeological Thought" by Bruce Trigger? -- Grad student in anthropology, 18:38:57 12/03/02 Tue

Of course i have some actual scientific facts: haven't you heard of Cannibals? This is the best scientific fact that proves man is a meat eater. Just like spiders eat each other when kept alone. What a sarcasm! (NT) chadi 21:54:55 12/02/02 Mon

You can't say, "What a sarcasm." You have to say, "What sarcasm!" (NT) -- English Teacher, 22:09:45 12/02/02 Mon

Maybe we would better ask, "What sarcasm?" I can't seem to find which statement you consider to be sarcastic. -- English Teacher, 22:17:03 12/02/02 Mon

I know what sarcasm means (NT) -- chadi, 22:26:00 12/02/02 Mon

Obviously you do not since I was not being sarcastic yesterday. (NT) -- Grad student in anthropology, 18:32:32 12/03/02 Tue