Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8998 total)
67 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, Sarah Bellum (5 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,547 Year: 11,295/23,288 Month: 547/1,763 Week: 186/328 Day: 13/88 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How creationism explains babies with tails
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4691
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 59 (527466)
10-01-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ApostateAbe
09-19-2009 4:15 PM


So there's the opinion of Dr. Eugenie Scott, who is a well-qualified physical anthropologist, and then there is the evidence. I can't explain why Dr. Scott thinks as she does, but her opinions are not the deciding factor, nor are the opinions of any single expert or textbook. If we must rely on expert authority, then it is best to rely on the consensus of expert authority, which weighs heavily on the side of human "tails" being tails without the quotes.

I think the whole debate hinges on this excerpt.

If one doesn't have to interpret it as a tail, and it's down to a "consensus", then really it's up for debate.

If it's down to induction, most tails, from what you say, aren't tails.

Are these "real" tails? I still have no conclusion on that because different people tell me different things.

.....(Just my opinion, I'm not here to debate).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ApostateAbe, posted 09-19-2009 4:15 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ApostateAbe, posted 10-01-2009 9:11 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020