From: Glenn Morton (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 20:36:27 EDT
Blake wrote of may stating that I had never heard a fact speaking for
>From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:20 AM
>What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
Glad you liked my novelty. But it was not meant like you are taking it.
The point is that facts do fit into theories and hypothesis. Some facts can
be explained in many different ways. But, the more facts you have to fit
into a coherent theory, the harder it is to 1. find that theory, and 2 the
harder it is to salvage all the other theories.
The YEC movement often makes use of the concept that facts must be fit into
theories in order to wiggle out of conclusions. The thing they miss is that
with lots and lots of facts, the viable theories shrink tremendously. That
is why you will see YECs explaining fact A with theory A and fact B with
contradictory theory B. Only by explaining things in the 'local' method can
they explain anything. To build a logically consistent, coherent theory from
ALL the facts at one time, would drive them towards the theories which are
I won't be drawn in to the wierd direction you took off of my comment that I
have never heard a fact speak for itself. BTW, the approach I took is not
really novel to me. I stole it from Lewis Binson I believe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 20:36:54 EDT