why do you attempt to reason with a bag of rocks?
Possibly because this used to be a place for reasoned discourse.
Happy Anniversary!
you call that ‘reasoning’?
First of all, he claims it is a ‘classic example’ of hte ‘difficulties’ associated with transitionals, when the plain simple fact is that nearly every single scientist rejects ergaster for perfectly valid scientific reasons, yet is is ONLY a couple of scientists tryign to make a name for htemselves who are tryign to get the rest to go along with htem by ignoring that there are NO transitional features worthy of seperate classification,
Secondly, he claism it’s ‘no big deal’ (apparenrly meaning if it doesn’t ‘stand hte ‘test of time’), Yet it MUST be a big deal if Coyoteman keeps attempting to sneak this silly example through as a ‘transitional’ when he clearly knows that it isn’t
Thirdly, if you follow his posts, in other htreads as well, and still coem to hte conclusion that he is ‘reasoning’, then apparently you have a very low threshold for what you consider sound science.
I am trying to keep rationality a part of these discussions, which otherwise are increasingly dominated by fundamentalism, superstition and other forms of irrationality.
And I am used to teaching. Judging from the mail I receive there are many here who benefit from my posts.