Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:14 pm, Nashton <n
...@na.ca> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> So you agree with the article when it says:
>>> "Homo habilis is a species of the genus Homo, which is thought
>>> to have lived from approximately 2.5 million to 1.8 million years
>>> ago."
>>> ?
>>> You agree that these are other species related by descent with
>>> modern homo-sapiens?
> .
>> So you agree that Darwinists cannot make up their minds re the evolution
>> of modern man?
> Without more information they are unable to decide between
> two reasonable alternatives in this case.
Make a decision based on the quality of the prevalent theory. You don't
need another theory to compare. You just want to shift the discussion
towards the creationism vs Darwinism debate.
>> Was this not the OP?
> No, his claimed seemed to be that an absence of
> perfect information, was somehow a problem for
> evolution in this case.
Not perfect, we're talking ever changing theories and postulates that
have shaken the foundation of everything science has accumulated in the
past century.
>> Why do you find yourself incapable
>> of addressing the OP's question?
>> Are you stumped, perhaps?
> Yes!
Interesting.
If he thinks the evolutionary model is defective
> then that must mean he has a better model that can
> tell us the TRUE story of Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
It wasn't about comparing theories.
> This is very exciting!!
> So I have asked him for his improved account of this
> situation, since my model won't give me a certain
> answer in this case.
You have answered his question with a question. This is the oldest trick
in the book of "How to evade a question effectively."
> Do you know why he won't provide me with his
> better and more detailed answer?
I still don't know why you're still not discussing the points of the OP.
|
