<<It is nice for us to have agreement for once.>>
But we agreed just the other day, with Kurt Wise's article. You know the one
that you quoted from, and which says, among other things:
"Thus, whereas the mosaic nature of claimed "transitional forms" presents a
challenge to evolutionary theory, that and the existence of stratomorphic
intermediates ARE consistent with progressive creation and global deluge
theories." (p. 228)
Yes, agreement is very nice.
I quoted:
>That would place him [Java Man] in the era of modern humans---and argue
>against >an ancestral relationship."If these dates are right," said Philip
>Rightmire, an >anthropologist at the State University of New York at
>Binghamton, "the >multiregionalists will have to do some fast thinking."
Apparently Glenn hasn't thought fast enough, except to disagree. You jump on
the term "racial variants." But this does not mean interbreeding. What is the
sorce of variation? From an evolutionary point it is one thing; from a
creationist point it is another. Why do you always assume the Naturalistic
version of data? Isn't that what the term "bias" was invented to convey? Isn't
that just what Mr. Phil Johnson has said is going on all the time? Why do you
keep confirming his hypothesis by example?
Jim