<<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...
<<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.
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).
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.
Jim