Re: Plea for restraint... was re:AAT etc.

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
14 Oct 1995 20:04:40 -0400

r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) writes:

What you write, you must realize, can be practically copied
and used against your side. So you've said nothing for your
cause or against AAT. e.g.

> Interesting that arguments against the validity of AAH are "off
>the main thrust."

Interesting arguments against AAT (or for SST or MST) are "off the
main thrust". Or I could say "who said so?" Since when do people
try so hard to hairsplit in verbal discussions when using
words like theory, hypothesis, argument, scenario, description, etc.

>And that _you_ don't find them convincing does not
>mean that they are invalid.

And that you don't find AAT arguments convincing does not mean that
they are invalid.

>The same argument is used by creasionists
>as to why "creationism" is true.

The same arguments against AAT are used by creationists against
evolution.

>David L. Burkhead

You see David, if you insist on getting the last word in all the
time you invite people to respond in kind, sooner or later.

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey