Re: Comments

"Crwydryn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:11:03 +0000 (UTC), "Pat"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You evolutionists are generally very well educated, and the
creationists in
> >contrast don't seem that well educated. It reminds me of very
clever lawyers
> >in a court that can make anything seem plausible. Just because you
seem to
> >win the arguments against people who are not educated enough to
argue back
> >does not make you right.
>
> Pat, this is a poor analogy.  A better analogy would be if Bob has a
> plan to make a million bucks by exploiting a loophole in the laws
> prohibiting pyramid schemes, and is arguing about it with his friend
> Chuck who happens to be a lawyer specializing in prosecuting fraud
> cases.  Bob tries to argue his case ("yeah, but it's not *really* a
> pyramid scheme so I'm in the clear!") but Chuck just dissects Bob's
> plan and cites each and every clause of the legal code the plan
> violates.
>
> The average Joe (who knows about as much about the law as Bob does)
is
> likely to find Chuck's explanation daunting, no matter how direct
and
> simple it is.  Who do you think is likely to be right?

The average Joe will also find Bob's explanation convincing.  When he
approaches Chuck with his plan, Chuck can explain in detail what is
wrong with the plan.  Average Joe will go away frustrated because he
thinks he just doesn't know enough to explain to Chuck how the plan
works.  Nice analogy.