[RobRoy]

>>I take it then that you reject the whole of fossil evidence based on a small number of fakes.<<

No more than people throw out the whole of what Ann says because they think she is wrong about a couple of things.

Besides, it is not the evidence I contest. It is the conclusions.

[RobRoy]

For example, why is a brontosaurus no longer called a brontosaurus? It is because new evidence showed that the "experts" conclusions were wrong.

We don't know what we don't know, and it is intellectual arrogance to believe otherwise.

[Boxen]

No more than people throw out the whole of what Ann says because they think she is wrong about a couple of things.

The fact that other posters do the same thing is no justification. I would chide them as just as I chide you.

With this statement, you seem to confirm that you do reject fossil evidence.

Besides, it is not the evidence I contest. It is the conclusions.

And in this statement, you claim that you do not take objection with fossil evidence. Which statement am I to believe?