You wrote:
>Since Glenn slipped in another of his backhanded references to me, I had to
>come out of hibernation:
>
Glad to see you are finally waking up. :-)
><<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.
>
OK. Let's have it your way. Any ole ape can make a flute. And all beings who
do not share with us our superior creativity and our superior technology are
not human. I guess you would say that the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari are
not human. Neither are the few Australian aborigine's left who still make
stone tools with no more sophistication than Homo erectus used. The fact that
they have a Broca's area and make thinks with holes called flutes is not proof
of their humanity at all. Their language? Well it certainly is not as complex
as ours. We have all those technical dweeb words that their language does not
have. They must have an incipient language as you seem to want. What do you
propose we do with them, put them in zoos?
>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 guess we will never see you cite Tattersall again since he does not support
your position. I must confess I will really miss seeing Tattersall cited by
you. But hey, no one said life would be easy. :-)
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm