Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: the missing link is evolution - (nf)
Message-ID: <255@opus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 00:10:47 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.255
Posted: Tue Mar 27 00:10:47 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 01:25:33 EST
References: <6252@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 25

With trepidation, I toss in my 2 cents worth (or less) on this.  Miller has
given a small list of allegedly out-of-order fossils showing evidence of
human presence at the "wrong" time for evolution - i.e., allegedly
indicating the presence of humans too early to be consistent with the
evolution model.  The fallacy should be obvious:  How long is the list of
fossils which ARE consistent with predictions of evolution theory?  Well, a
good clue is that it's not something that you're going to be able to post
to net.misc!  The preponderance of evidence still supports evolution
theory.  That there are anomalies in the evidence simply demonstrates that
we don't understand everything - small surprise when you're trying to
reconstruct a story of global proportions from evidence millions of years
old...

[Brief interlude.  If you are religious, contemplate the marvelous wonder
of the complexity of the universe.  Give your God a little credit for not
making something so simple that you can understand it all without taxing
your marvelous brain that God also supposedly gave you.  EOF]

On the other hand, the proponderance of evidence still provides no support
for creationism...

One thing I have missed by tuning in late on this discussion - are "little
green men from Ork" or whatever a euphemism for God?
-- 
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd