Stephen claimed numerous times in his posts:
Tue, 07 Jan 97 06:55:48 +0800
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
Sender: owner-evolution@udomo.calvin.edu
To: "evolution@Calvin.EDU" <evolution@Calvin.EDU>
Subject: Re: Morton v. Ross
>Glenn also ignores my posts which indicate that Marshack is not now
>claiming that the "golan Venus" is the first example of art. He is
>now claiming that for an etching dated only 54 kya,000-year old, from
>Quneitra, Israel (see "Early Etchings", Discover, Vol. 17, No. 7,
>July 1996, p26)
and on
Tue, 07 Jan 97 06:56:55 +0800
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
Sender: owner-evolution@udomo.calvin.edu
To: "evolution@Calvin.edu" <evolution@Calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Morton v. Ross
>>>As I pointed out, even Marshack seems to have recently
given up on the Golan Venus. Here is the whole brief article again:
[discover article snipped]
Fron Glenn there has been an "overwhelming silence" about this. He
seems to be in denial mode. :-)>>>>>>
As I mentioned I had responded to this several times before but I weary of
responding over and over to the same point only to have him say I ignore him.
That tactic is unbecoming.
On
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:18:37
From: grmorton@gnn.com (Glenn Morton)
To: sejones@ibm.net,evolution@Calvin.edu
Subject: Art and boats of H. erectus.
I wrote in response to Stephen (go look at it in the archives):
>I do not have the Discover that you speak of but from what you write,
>Marshack didn't even mention the Berekhat Ram figurine. How can a lack of
>mention be considered his most recent thought on the issue?
This is a response and thus I did not ignore him. I find this type of
sophistry below the level at which a Believer should argue. This is rude and
discourteous. One is not required to agree in order to 'not ignore him'.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm