Let me point out that given the original neanderthal, the one with rickets,
and the La Chappelle neanderthal, the one that Marcellin Boule
reconstructed, the conclusion at the time was not a fraud. Fraud means
that one knows what he is doing is false but does it anyway. There was
data supporting the apish view of neanderthal but it turns out to have been
wrong.
I would suggest that you are too quick to impute motives such as fraud and
lying to others.
>>>>First off, are you really suggesting that the dove flew around the entire
>> planet earth and thus knew that it couldn't find a place to land? How long
>> would such a flight take a dove<<<<
>
>The dove didn't....aw, this remark is not worth even commenting on.
>
You appeared to be claiming that the dove was proof of a global flood. I
merely pointed out that it wasn't.
>>>>Glen. This simply isn't true. Macroevolutin is well regarded by almost
all
>> academics. Can you cite a single, non-christian academic that says that
>> evolution did not occur? <<<
>
>No, this simply isn't true. I have a representative, but by no means
>total, list of anti-evolutionist scientists. Most are gleaned from
>Hayward's book CREATION AND EVOLUTION. Dr. Leslie Orgel, New Scientist,
>4/15/82, pp. 149,
Orgel??? an antievolutionist????? I think it is an atrocious
misrepresentation for anyone to claim that Leslie Orgel is an
antievolutionist considering that he is one of the leading origin of life
researchers. He was coauthor with Joyce of "Prospects for Understanding
the Origin of the RNA World" in The RNA World ed. R. F. Gesteland and J. F.
Atkins, circa p. 19
He may question certain mechanisms and he is willing to think of
alternatives, but I would assure you that he is not against evolution.
The French GENERAL HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES, Vol. 4.
>published 1966. To quote Hayward, pp. 21. "Because English is fast
>becoming the international language of science, English-speaking scientists
>have little incentive to learn foreign languages. Unfortunately, this
>makes it easy for them to become inward-looking. They tend to forget that
>a great deal of valuable scientific work is still being published in
>foreign languages. This probably explains how most British and American
>biologists acquired the curious - and incorrect - notion that 'practically
>everybody accepts Darwinism'.....Now do not try to deflect this by claiming
>Hayward is a Christian. His theology makes no difference. In fact, why do
>you infer that an anti-evolution deduction is wrong because the scientist
>is a believer? I can also cite all your cases are wrong because your
>sources are non-believers. That gets us nowhere.
You, and unfortunately Alan, miss entirely the point. They may disagree
with the mechanism of evolution, a Darwinistic gradualism, but they don't
doubt evolution. Darwinian gradualism is not the only view inspite of what
certain people write.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm