> Tom Moore writes:
>
> <<Gee, that's what I was thinking when I read your post earlier. The
> "intelligent design emperor" isn't wearing anything, and darn he needs to
> lose weight.>>
>
> Listen, Chunky, if you're gonna get personal...
It's not personal, unless you are now claiming to be the "intelligent
design emperor." Are you?
>
> <<Contrary to what you said, you didn't not ask a question in your previous
> post. You _said_ it was damaging to evolution. You _said_ it was
> further evidence of design.>>
>
> I'm trying to figure out what it was I said that was "contrary," and further
> what it means that I "didn't not" ask a question. I assume that's a typo, and
> not public schooling, but I'm still unclear what your point is.
>
The point is, you're are the dogmattic one. You still have yet to show
why it's a problem.
> I did say the data, IF true, "deals a blow to traditional evolutionists" (so
> your characterization is correct here), but then I said it DOES NOTHING TO
> HARM Intelligent Design (in this you are not accurate, for I did not claim it
> was further evidence of ID).
>
I stand corrected regarding ID. On the other hand, you still have not
show why it's a problem with "traditional evolutionists."
> Now, about your pants...the problem with the responses thus far is that they
> all assume the data have to fit into the traditional model. Naturalists are
> stuck there, but with clothes long gone. All us theistic realists are at
> Brooks Brothers, looking sharp. Join us.
There is no assumption that they _have_ to fit a traditional model.
Indeed, the data do not contractic the traditional model. You again have
not shown why it's a problem. Indeed, you haven't even addressed how
they fit in _your_ model. From where I'm standing, it sure seems that
the Brooks Brothers you seem to be shopping at has been closed and empty
since the 1800's.
Tom