Re: Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY
Ed Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:51:03 GMT
On 9 Jan 1997, Brandon M. Gorte (email@example.com) wrote to
>Brandon M. Gorte (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>: Ed Conrad (email@example.com) wrote:
(He should've put a SNIP here.)
>I just found this on one of the sci.* groups. Ed's still doing it, and I
>failed to realize it.
>Please leave the sci.* groups alone Ed.
Contrary to your strongly biased and totally erroneous opinion, the
subject matter up for discussion -- the origin and antiquity of man --
is certainly not off target as subject matter for the sci.groups such
as sci.bio.paleonology, sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo or
And, quite frankly, the subject matter would be more than appropriate
in quite number of other sci.groups as well.
There is NOTHING more important in scence than to try to answer, as
honestly as we possibly can, the time-honored question of who we
really are and how we really got here.
Unfortunately, the existing theory of man's inhuman origin simply does
not hold up because of the TOTAL absence of scientific evidence.
The only thing the ``theory" of evolution" has going for it in the
case of man's origin is rhetoric, and all the rhetoric in the world is
powerless to transform theory -- Webster's: ``an idea, an opinion, a
guess..." -- into solid and undisputed fact.
Therefore, it remains nothing more than a theory without
any basis in solid fact.