Re: AAT Theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J. Moore: "On predation."
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: naked bipeds"

jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk wrote:
>chris brochu <gator@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Why is an aquatic phase needed?
>
>This is why the AAT feels so much resistence. You have explanations for most of the features of
>the human body, you don't need new aquatic ones. It doesn't really matter what the truth is as
>long as we have an explanation.
>

Since "It doesn't really matter what the truth is as
long as we have an explanation" then the Creationists
are justified in using the Bible's explanation:
"God did it somehow, sometime and I know it because
the Bible says so." Now, thats an explanation that
contains no truth, but it is an explanation so its
OK.

Can anyone out there THINK?

Lionell

• Next message: J. Moore: "On predation."
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: naked bipeds"