<<And prior to this you had believed Jim Bell's assertion about my belief in
an incipient humanity (remember? Jim thought that if I cited someone, I then
had to agree with everything they beleived. If they believed in an incipient
humanity then I must also. Really strange.).>>
What's strange your failure to grasp this dynamic. It's not what you HAVE to
believe, it's what you're using to SUPPORT what you believe. You recently
wrote, in apparent confusion:
<<So? They believe in evolution and you have no problem bringing them out to
support your anti-evolutionary position. Why is what is good for the goose is
not good for the gander?>>
Simple. You are goosing them for DIRECT evidence. I merely take a gander at
their INDIRECT evidence. This is an important distinction.
You cite, DIRECTLY, all this "evidence" of humanity (e.g., Broca's area, a
thing with holes you call a flute, etc.) You say, "See? Humanity! That's just
what the experts are citing the evidence for!" But no, Glenn, they are not.
They are citing it for INCIPIENT humanity. You know that. So none of them
actually lend you any support. In fact, they would heartily deny your view.
They see an ascending line of complexity in the record.
It's like the difference between direct and cross-examination. You are calling
these witnesses on direct examination. But they don't support you. The jury
looks confused. They are mumbling, "Hey, these guys don't actually believe his
case. So how come he's calling them to the witness stand? We can't possibly
vote for this guy. He ought to get himself a real lawyer."
I know one who's available...
Jim