You are nuts. One TR loses a tooth and you condemn the whole species to eating leaves because a dentist says so.
Testable or not, your unexplainable forays into this question’s relationship to religion is wholly unfounded.
You really aren’t capable of arguing a cogent point.
Oh. You're a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist? You may say my proposition is not suitable to you, but this sounds like ad hominem argumentation to me.
One TR loses a tooth and you condemn the whole species to eating leaves because a dentist says so.
Sounds like carrying what I said in gross exaggeration beyond the point made, that indeed the paleontologists' opinion is conjecture delivered as incontrovertible fact. Truly, you are painting my conjecture black as me saying that there are no other admissible points that "have been debated for a hundred years". You need to reserve your paintbrush for the paleontologists who, through an unwarranted leap of faith in their own confidence extend a solid fact into a shaky theory presented as undebatable, and other views must be dismissed.
Testable or not, your unexplainable forays into this question’s relationship to religion is wholly unfounded.
True scientific procedure always involves observability, reproducibility, testability, and falsification. That which is not leaves the theory open to question. These paleontologists are taking one anecdotal point and expanding it beyond probability and conjecture into "scientific fact" without applying the hurdles above. But also in this case, the topic in question is an area in which there is an overlap of paleontology with creation science. Dr. Martin's relevant research into how scientific fact plays into the Biblical account is an alternate view of the explanation. This is a quite valid point to bring out. You say this has no relevance. I say with equal force that your opinion is wrong, and that Martin's work and my bringing it to attention here does bring a greater illumination.
You really aren’t capable of arguing a cogent point.
I think you mean that I do not see things the same way you do, and therefore must be not only wrong, but incoherent. In my discussion, I have applied conjecture without demanding more than acceptance of its credibility as an alternative. Personally, I don't think you are capable of making a cogent point, let alone defending one without name-calling and adumbration. So let's leave this type of rock-throwing response alone for a while, eh?
If you are an evolutionist would you mind going to considertheprobabilities.com and try to answer the questions in section 3? I have not had one evolutionist proffer any answers thus far.