>Glenn's "language possessing non-humans" is another play on words.
>First it was "sub-human", now it is "non-human". H. habilis could
>have had a rudimentary language and be regarded as in a sense
>"human", but not *fully* human.
>
There is no play on words here Stephen, you ascribe to me more language
ability than I am capable of. I would presume that my wife's uncle with a
brain size much smaller than yours or mine, who has limited language ability,
is not fully human. Is that what you are saying? I find such an implication
highly offensive.
>Anyone could make a "prediction" that he knows has almost no chance
>of being tested. Glenn's "prediction" is safe until they search the
>entire floor of the Mediterranean and prove that there are no 5.5
>million year old human implements there! :-)
What about the prediction that the genus Homo would exist back towards 5.5
million years? That is also a prediction and the Kanpoi humerus is almost
identical with yours.
>
>Based on where anthropologists are looking for human ancestors, there
>is no chance of Glenn ever being proved right or wrong. No
>expedition will ever be mounted to look for the remains or artifacts
>of human ancestors on the floor of the Mediterranean 5.5 million
>years ago. Even if an ancient tool was dredged up by chance,
>scientists would not conclude it was originally from there. They
>would more reasonably assume it was lost overboard from a ship
>enroute to an Roman or Greek museum!
Stephen, this displays an incredible lack of knowledge of geological
methodologies. If they pulled a core up, and a tool was embedded in the core,
there would be no way that the tool wasn't there in situ. The drillers know
the depth of the drill string, they know from tension and penetration
measurments at what depth the core is being drilled. Before you say such
things you should do a little research.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm