[atlaw]

You missed my point. I was challenging shawne (a creationist) to provide an explanation as to why he accepts inland seashells as inferential evidence of continental drift. My statement (for shawne's benefit) was in the spirit of a devil's advocate. If you trace back in the thread, you will find a rather interesting discussion in which shawne accepts inferences for continental drift, but rejects inferences for evolution.

[BMCDA]

If you trace back in the thread, you will find a rather interesting discussion in which shawne accepts inferences for continental drift, but rejects inferences for evolution.

He did that already. Nevertheless, I think it's an excellent post, especially for those who even reject continental drift.

[Ichneumon]

You missed my point. I was challenging shawne (a creationist) to provide an explanation as to why he accepts inland seashells as inferential evidence of continental drift. My statement (for shawne's benefit) was in the spirit of a devil's advocate.

Yes, I had already figured that out by my post #405. I had even snapped to the "devil's advocate" label. That's what I get for reading parting of the thread backwards (I sometimes start with the most recent posts.)

If you trace back in the thread, you will find a rather interesting discussion in which shawne accepts inferences for continental drift, but rejects inferences for evolution.

Yes, and it's too bad he abandoned it so early. If he had kept with it, he might have taught himself something about epistemology.