Archaeologica.org

But that's exactly what they were (and, I suspect, are) doing, Roy.

The old home medical books I read as a child, passed down the generations, were emphatic that malaria was caused by breathing swampy air in the summertime.

The tone of professional pomposity never changes.

It must be hardwired.

I have often said that any facts stated in archaeology should be prefaced by the phrase, "as far as we know now". Just because we haven't found one older that "X" years old doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to that. This goes for atlatls, clovis points, bows and arrows or whatever. Science is not immutable.

But that's exactly what they were (and, I suspect, are) doing,

Nope! Some frauds exist/ed, doesn't mean they all were. Your refusal to accept Darwinism neither makes it wrong nor right, the reasoning behind it wouldl decide whether it is mis information, prejudice or fraud.

Roy.

Roy, they had the script written before any of the evidence began to be collected.

What does that tell you ?

That Darwin was right.


However, in the interests of fairness feel free to present any evidence you can scrape up that indicates that life began 6,000 years ago in the Middle East.


(P.S. - If you "evidence" starts with "IN THE BEGINNING" you are going to catch hell.)

What does that tell you ?

That you are showing somewhat more bias than they?

Roy.

It shows me that when the plot outline is written before any of the evidence is even collected, and every subsequent revision in the account is congruent with it, the nature of the endeavor is pretty transparently obvious.

What plot outline please? Authored by whom? Could we have some specifics please?

Roy.

Stooped-over cave men, still recognisably apelike in physiogamy, communicating by grunts and screeches, shambling along with a technology inadequate to support life in an ice-age environment but managing to do so anyhow by virtue of faith in the story line.

From there (the most un-promising beginnings imaginable), progress toward the crown of creation -- the Victorian atheist stock market sharper -- through the magic of natural selection.

The stuff you've read all your life and all but take for granted, in other words.

Firstly I know of no one on this forum nor any other that subscribes to a description that is now many years out of date nor in any current works. The 'party line' you referred to has changed as 'they learned something new'.
It's called progress.
Natural selection is most certainly not magic, but simply the best working explanation that we currently have. But still you seem very reluctant to offer an alternative or an explanation for your objections.
To clarify my stance as opposed to simply saying 'you're wrong!' my support for NS is based on the fact that it is the best explanation to date, has never been seriously challenged and has survived for many years.
Now if you wish to offer a serious challenge I will certainly give it serious consideration.
The ball is now, in your court.

Roy.

I think you should read Origin of Species and Descent of Man, Uni.


You've been listening to too much Answersingenesis stuff.

It doesn't follow that if somebody doesn't like the Cowboys, he must be a Steelers fan.

There are other teams on the league as well.

Ditto Darwin "versus" Genesis.

The "best explanation" of something utterly incomprehensible is a joke. Nobody knows, and nobody can know. In light of which, it doesn't even reach the level of angels on pin heads (which was at least a coherent debate of the concepts substance and extension (medieval physics).

Well you may find NS incomprehensible Uni but one of its greatest assets is in its great simplicity.
What have you actually read on the subject?

Roy.

I suggest Dawkins' "The Greatest Story Ever Told."


Really, reading Darwin at this point is as pointless as reading, oh, the bible. His brilliant idea has been surpassed by forms of evidence that Darwin could not have imagined.

Still, he prediction that the fossil record would show that life evolved from early to modern forms has been born out. As Dawkins' notes, one fossil out of order... say an australopithecus laying right next to a T-Rex...would be enough to negate the Tof E.


Let me know when you find that fossil. (And none of your creationist frauds, now. We're on to that trick!)

There are other teams on the league as well.

Good grief! You're a scientologist!!!!!