Well, can you tell us about this new interpretation? I am all ears!
But everytime I ask you for an explanation, you duck. Please this time give
us some framework onto which the data I talked about can be placed.
Regardless of whether you think any of the fossil men were men or not, they
did do things that we consider human.
Jim wrote:
>>There is no naturalistic explanation for the sudden leap in modern man,
even if dated earlier than some believe. Glenn's flaw is in assuming
naturalistic common ancestry. <<
Jim, I didn't even mention common ancestry in my post. I talked about
cultural data, fire, walls, etc. What does that have to do with common
ancestry? I would loan you my reading glasses but you are a little distant.
:-)
Jim wrote:
>>Which leaves us an option Glenn fails to consider, and one Goodman
proposes: the non-naturalistic explanation [Goodman prefers the term
"interventionism"].Why does Glenn exclude this option? Not because the data
compels him, but because his prevailing bias is Naturalism. <<
It really is frustrating when I say things over and over and people don't see
it. In the August archives somewhere around the 10th of the month, are two
posts entitled New view. pt 1 and pt 2. In there I outline a view of Adam,
that no naturalist would consider natural. It IS an interventionist view.
Those who have bothered to read that or my book before criticising me would
know that the way I treat Adam is most certainly not naturalistic. I think
you need to go back to class for remedial education. You are arguing out of
your preconceived notion that anyone who believes in evolution can't believe
in interventionism. You are wrong! I wish I weren't leaving cause I would
love to continue this. But alas I can't.
glenn