Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"

"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Here it is. I refuse to cling to one particular
conclusion without evidence, so you automatically
assume that I cling to the opposite conclusion.

Pardon me for missing the nuances of your
communication style.

Sorry, I didn't know that in your neighborhood they
define "nuance" as "Anything that isn't spelled out
in black & white and accompanied by pictures."

I'll try to keep that in mind for the next time.

When you said that you had no reason to assume that
the mammalian LCA had hair....that sounded
suspiciously the same as saying that you believed
that it didn't have hair.

"Had hair" would be a conclusion. "Didn't have hair"
would be a conclusion. I have frequently argued against
conclusions.

To paraphrase....you do not assume that the mammalian
LCA had hair, yet you do not take the position that
it was hairless either....

Right. Why should I? I don't need to. There is nothing in
my life that requires an answer, so why bother? I might
as well try to remain as open as possible.

I can understand why that would enrage so many people
here...

Your position is that we cannot know with any more
certainty than a coin toss....

That would be yet another of your (baseless) conclusions.

It's amazing how you can't tell them apart from actual
observations....


.

Quantcast