Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplvle!guest
From: guest@hplvle.UUCP (guest)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Why do I do these things?
Message-ID: <6600003@hplvle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 22:21:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplvle.6600003
Posted: Tue Sep 18 22:21:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:54:21 EDT
References: <13200001@hplvla.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Loveland, CO
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:hplvla:13200001:hplvle:6600003:000:1145
Nf-From: hplvle!guest    Sep 13 18:21:00 1984

< is the net bug a white moth or a black moth ... depends on how much smoke... >

George, that`s a lot of crap.  You make a fundamental error in assuming
some dichotomy between an "evolutionist" explaination and a "creationist"
explaination.  If you accept that there are ONLY two possibilities, then
you will be prone to accept the "creationist" viewpoint when (if) they
find a legitimate hole in what they SAY the "evolutionist" viewpoint is.
Fact is, real scientists LOVE to find holes in existing theories...that`s
how they do thier work.

Before I will accept "creationism" (the definition of which seems to
change depending on the sophistication of the audience Gish and co.
are addressing) it must supply a coherent theory which
1. explains the anomoly which "evolution" and the rest of conventional  
science fails to explain (pick a legitimate anomoly, please) and
2. explains the REST of the body of scientific observation in a manner
which is at least as convincing as conventional science.

A fool can ask more questions...

Let`s discuss this over lunch some time and leave the net less polluted

David L. Rick
hpfcla!hplvla!drick