Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Some evidence for creationism. - (nf)
Message-ID: <21200002@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Sep-84 09:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.21200002
Posted: Tue Sep  4 09:42:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 11:45:20 EDT
References: <1264@browngr.UUCP>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:browngr:-126400:uokvax:21200002:000:803
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    Sep  4 08:42:00 1984

#R:browngr:-126400:uokvax:21200002:000:803
uokvax!emjej    Sep  4 08:42:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.origins / browngr!dk /  3:25 am  Sep  1, 1984 */
As a scientist or historian, one must find the most probable explanation for
all pieces of evidence.  It certainly seems more probable to take history
on face value, instead of contriving a story about people spreading myths and
lies.  If you think otherwise, let's see you convince a million people that
they have seen something they have not seen.  Or let's see you convince a
million people that their parents have seen something that their parents refuse
to admit having seen.
/* ---------- */

Oh? Convincing people of something is a trivial job, if it is something they
want to believe for some reason (such as making them feel wanted, among a
privileged few, or justifying something they wanted to do anyway).

						James Jones