> Au contraire, I am a scientist, not a believer.
> A scientist is like an honest judge who must rule that hearsay is not
> admissible. No evidence, no case.

"Hearsay" is the testimony of those who came before, and without it,
science is impossible.  No scientist can repeat every experiment that has
been done, so he or she must accept the testimony of those who have done
the experiments and made the observations.  That is "hearsay," and it's
the foundation of science.  If you don't accept that, then whatever you
may be, you're not a scientist.

William, you have stated on several occasions that "the bones" show that
paleolithic people ate only raw meat; no plant food or cooked meat at all.
 Do you have those bones?  Have you been to see them?  Have you done
isotope analysis of them?  If not, then everything you claim to know about
them is hearsay.

Indeed, I've more than once asked you to cite the source for this claim
that you make about the bones.  You've yet to do so.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence for human evolution.  It may not
amount to *proof*, but of course evidence and proof are not the same
thing.  Proof is seldom, if ever, available for any scientific hypothesis.
That doesn't stand in the way of there being evidence for the hypothesis.

Todd Moody