A simple challenge for atheists

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If I go down I'm taking you all with me.

[bob96]

Where did you get your science degree, again?

It's not my degree:
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

[The Valkyrie]

If I go down I'm taking you all with me.

Bet you say that to all the boys . . .








*Runs*

[Esquilax]

Where did you get your science degree, again?

It's not my degree:
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

So, did you read the entire article, or just stop at the point where you could dishonestly quote mine it? Because the full article goes into a bit more detail, and the person you're quoting comes to the conclusion that the ancestry of Australian native humans was different than previously thought, and older too; he cites numerous pieces of evidence to show that this is the case. At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution. So, I guess you were lying, then? Or did you just stop reading three lines in for fear of seeing the man disagree with you?

Also, no comment on the rule breaking, then?

Edit: Oh, can I also mention that the quote you're using is thirteen years old, and not at all from a peer reviewed scientific work, so even if you weren't lying through your teeth, your source wouldn't be as good as you think it is.

[bob96]

Sorry for breaking the rules. I interpreted the following exception as saying it's acceptable to post links if using it as evidence in a discussion, if relevant.

30/30 Exception
One very important exception to the the 30/30 requirement is when external links/videos/images are used within discussion or with the intention of discussion. "...we do of course allow you to link to external sources when it is warranted. For instance you can post external content if using it as evidence in a discussion or you can post a YouTube video if it is relevant to an ongoing discussion.

[Esquilax]

Sorry for breaking the rules. I interpreted the following exception as saying it's acceptable to post links if using it as evidence in a discussion, if relevant.

Yeah, and if you hadn't gone out of your way to obfuscate your links by breaking them up and not tagging them properly, I might actually both A: believe you thought you were in the clear, and B: have let the links slide. But trying to sneak it past us just makes us suspicious, and personally, just irritates the hell out of me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The format you posted the links indicated evasion. If you thought we would overlook it, why post it in the format you did.

As always, the rules are enforced at our discretion, being the staff and hence responsible for running and maintaining it.

the matter is now closed as far as we're concerned. Let's continue with the discussion.

[bob96]

Sorry for breaking the rules. I interpreted the following exception as saying it's acceptable to post links if using it as evidence in a discussion, if relevant.

Yeah, and if you hadn't gone out of your way to obfuscate your links by breaking them up and not tagging them properly, I might actually both A: believe you thought you were in the clear, and B: have let the links slide. But trying to sneak it past us just makes us suspicious, and personally, just irritates the hell out of me.

I apologise.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Thanks. Let's continue with the debate/discussion if you're happy to do so.

[Esquilax]

Yep, I'm quite happy to consider that matter closed so we can move on to the actual meat of the discussion, like the pretty obvious quote mine you made above.