Re: Morgan and creationists

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Richard Foy: "Re: Percentage values commonly given for differences in DNA etc, may be meaningless."
• Previous message: Mark A. McConaughy: "Re: SHIFT DETECTED in MacRae's position"

>Elaine Morgan wrote:

>>
>> I quite accept that their watery graves do not prove they or many
>> of their relatives didn't live
>> in some other place where their bones would not have been preserved.
>> But don't try to tell me their watery graves prove they did *not*
>> live by the water. They leave the question wide open.

True. So why do you insist on making a big deal from this ambiguous (and
essentially statistically meaningless) evidence? Why was the subject of aqueous
depositional environments even brought up by your side in this discussion to begin
with?
Elaine, it would REALLY help our discussions if you would take the time to
actually READ-up on some of the taphonomic literature before you start whining about
why such ambiguous evidence doesn't disprove your side's ideas. It's ambiguous
evidence, for *hrist's sake...

<pb>

--

Still blazing away in the badlands of Montana.

• Next message: Richard Foy: "Re: Percentage values commonly given for differences in DNA etc, may be meaningless."
• Previous message: Mark A. McConaughy: "Re: SHIFT DETECTED in MacRae's position"