Evidence for Design (2)

[Ursus scientia]

Sorry: not only is that archaeology (I'm a biochemist) it also seems incredibly contraversial. As I'm unfamiliar with the field, I'm going to have to either suspend judgement or assume the experts who have reviewed this book have made the correct judgement by dismissing it as bunkum.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry: not only is that archaeology (I'm a biochemist) it also seems incredibly contraversial. As I'm unfamiliar with the field, I'm going to have to either suspend judgement or assume the experts who have reviewed this book have made the correct judgement by dismissing it as bunkum.

please cite expert reviewers so we may critique their assessments.

After all the first conversation we had was about how you were not qualified to have these discussions.

 

[Ursus scientia]

I'm not qualified to address this rather specific series of paragraphs.
If I wasn't qualified to talk about evolution, I'd be neither here nor a good student of biology.

Critics are Wade Tarzia, Jo Wodak, Tim Murray, David Oldroyd, Kenneth Feder, Colin Groves and Tom Morrow. I've not enough posts to embed links yet, sadly!

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Evidence for Design (3)"