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