<<If you want to talk science, then let's cut the stuff about poetry.>>
OK. Only the "stuff about poetry" (as you characterize an entire, complex
argument) was discussed because of differences over Genesis. A healthy debate
ensued, I think. At least, I was moved to think, and I think that's a good
think...
<<If you say that science disproves
evolution, then you MUST play by the rules of science NOT poetry. I have
over the past few months cited numerous examples of human activity in fossil
man. You have rejected each one. My perception is that the data doesn't
matter to you at all. >>
Sheesh! Every time you get strong disagreement, we get the "data doesn't
matter" riff. Come on, I disagree with your VIEW of the data (I call it
"eisegesis of the natural world.") And I've offered argument, expert opinion,
and options. From whales to Neanderthals, citations and analysis. Many others
have done the same. To try and sweep all this under the rug with "data doesn't
matter" characterizations is simply not adequate.
This is an honest difference of opinion. I don't begrudge you yours. But you
do mine, viz:
<<you are engaged in "intellectual drive-by shooting. Nothing more, nothing
less.">>
Glenn, Glenn.
Sorry, but I live in L.A., and this isn't amusing.
So let's kick off '96 on a good note. USC won, God still reigns, and all is
right with the world.
Jim