(January 27, 2015 at 5:45 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(January 27, 2015 at 5:41 pm)bob96 Wrote: Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.
I never said he did.
But you used his quote as an example of one the 'problems' you have with evolution, when the scientist himself that you're quoting doesn't even imply that it is a problem at all.
What was the point of quoting him at all? What exactly were you trying to say?
A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution. The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.