From: Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Date: Wed May 27 1998 - 17:58:09 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> EvMick wrote:
> > I see nothing in that question which presupposes creationism....or any other
> > ism.
>
> Be reasonoable. Surely you must know of the classic battle between the
> theories of evolution and creationism to explain these fossils. If you
> keep supplying evidence to discount one, you appear to be supporting the
> other. Why does this suprise you? Unless you are referring to a third
> theory that the rest of us have not heard about?
>
Harvey, your statement is equivalent to saying "If you're against the
democrats, you must be a Republican." This is not a good mailing list
for that sort of assumption. This is my last post on the meta-subject
of what Ev meant. Now let's talk about allometry.
I just did an altavista search on "allometry" and got the following page:
http://earth.ics.uci.edu/faqs/sauropods/sauropods-allometry.html
With the following title:
Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters: Allometry
This was a bit more specific than I was looking for!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:08 MST