Re: AAT: I just rediscovered my news filter
David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
13 Oct 1995 13:55:41 GMT
In article <45lna6$a2s@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk writes:
>agdndmc@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Domingo Martinez-Castilla) wrote:
>>
>
>>this AAT thing is getting incredible proportions, well beyond the relevance of
>>the topic. Why is it so important? Because some interested people are pushing
>>it where apparently there are less resistance, namely this news group. They may
>>be right or not,
>
>Well when someone comes up with a vaild objection to the theory that
>rings true, then I guess people will shut up about AAT. Noone has done
>this yet.
You know, this is _exactly_ the same thing said by most of the
"scientific creationists" (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one)
I've known.
Just because an objection doesn't "ring true" to a true-believer,
doesn't mean it's invalid. In fact, whether or not an objection
"rings true" is an almost meaningless criterion. "Rings true" is just
another way of saying "plausible" and plausibility has only
coincidental relationship to reality. Reality can get away with some
of the most _amazing_ coincidences (things no one would _ever_ put
into fiction because no one would be willing to suspend disbelief).
Contrariwise, some of the most plausible ideas at first glance turn
out to be utterly false.
Instead of basing your belief on whether something "rings true"
on a gut level, why not read some of the literature that has been
referenced here time and again to see what the facts of the case are?
David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com
--
Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831
|