Joined: Jan. 2009
|Quote (lkeithlu @ April 21 2011,19:39)|
|A message for Joseph: I received yours, went to your blog and was unable to comment (no way of posting) so the situation is no different. As far as your claim:|
"However seeing that I have already destroyed your main premise I don’t see what there is to discuss."
Uh, no. You did nothing of the sort.
If you can apply the ID paradigm to the hominid fossils, then do so. But, please realize: Anthropologists have to write volumes to explain the sequence of fossils as they see it, and draw on the physical parameters, ages and geographical distributions to do so. Your simplistic one -sentence answers do not take care of the details. So, pick a section of hominid sequence and apply the ID paradigm. Why is that so hard? Your cohorts at UD made it sound like it was no big deal, but I can't get them to mention a single fossil, bone length ratio, joint angle, strata, radiometric method, comparison with modern humans or apes, nada. All I get is religion and philosophy and that all anthropologists are wasting their life, not to mention being left out of the conversation for days at a time by a biased and draconian moderation policy.
So defend your friends' claim, since they won't.
Good luck with that. Joe is practicing cargo cult science. You give him
|Biometrics. Dating techniques. Stratigraphy. Anatomy . . .|
but all he can understand is
|The fossils are of organisms that once lived.|
Thre, they are explained.
You might as well try discussing modulation indices and signal-to-noise ratios with a Pacific islander who builds radios out of coconuts.
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. Okay? So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L