Dear Jack,
I didn't mean to imply that different lines of
rational thought might contradict each other, I don't see that truth can
contradict truth but I think no matter how rational or objective our thoughts
might be none of us are infallible so apparent contradictions will occur. When
they do I think we should be ready to question and investigate both the new idea
and what we think we know. We should never allow ourselves to be 'blown about by
every wind of doctrine'. It may take many years to solve the problem as in
my case with creationism, virtually a life time.
As I understand it proof can never be absolute it
depends on what an individual is prepared to accept as proof (the page mentioned
by Tom DeVrie recently is interesting on this). I think I could clutter up
Paleonet with a whole book and perhaps not convince anyone. So I think your idea
that I should prove my ideas right is a bit impractical. I think that if we want
to be sure of something there is no substitute for personal investigation. If
you have specific questions on particular points that's OK. I haven't tried to
put in a link before but I'll give it a go and hope it works.
Peter Hosier
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 4:14
PM
Subject: RE: paleonet Thanks for
replies
> Hello Peter,
>
> You wrote:
> <snip>
.
>
> If anyone can find anything clearly wrong with anything I
say I would like
> to know about it provided that you give real reasons
that I can chew over.
>
> Peter Hosier
>
>
<>
> Have you said anything that is clearly right? I think you are
right in
> implying that many lines of thought may be rational and yet at
odds with
> other rational lines of thought. Creationists are not
necessarily
> irrational. But the question is on what premise does the
rational thought
> follow? False premise, false conclusion - however
rational it may be. Rather
> than have someone show where you may be
wrong, a better way would be for you
> to show where you are right.
>
> Cheers,
> Jack
>
>
>
>