Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <481@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 23:29:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.481
Posted: Sat Aug  3 23:29:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Aug-85 00:36:14 EDT
References: <404@iham1.UUCP> <14600033@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 26

> You complain about the ambiguity of the data above.  Yet some of the very
> theories you are backing with your life have even more ambiguity tied to
> their evidence than that above.  Why is it that you can be so open minded
> with some theories that have questions left open, and so closed minded on
> other theories that may still have questions?  Or are you basically bias
> against anything that hints at Creation?

IF the creationists actually have evidence FOR creation, they haven't
presented it.  As a scientist, I would be interested to see it.  What
Creationists don't seem to understand, however, is how to distinguish
evidence from the bogus ideas that pass for evidence in Creationist
circles.  Until they do so, they will be doomed to be laughed at by
scientists who can tell the difference.

It's not a matter of being open or closed minded.  It's a matter of
the quality of the evidence.


-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)