Scott Creighton wrote:

> SC: Hence the need for hard science to settle the issue. End
> of.

Not Allen’s notes, then? So why did you mention them?

Moving the goalposts?

The ploy here is a very old one indeed. The usual rhetoric of “hard” science is deployed in support of the dogma that the only evidence which counts is the evidence we don’t currently have.

And of course, “hard” science would settle this just as it did in the case of the Turin Shroud. As in, not.

M.