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!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Rules question Message-ID: <813@opus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 21:54:30 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.813 Posted: Mon Sep 17 21:54:30 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:30:53 EDT References: <292@uwmacc.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 24 > The statement "God created" clearly may be interpreted in a > religious manner. Is it allowed as a starting point? That is, > is it scientifically acceptable to the evolutionists on the net > to postulate a Creator, and then make predictions using naturalistic > processes on the basis of that postulate? Or is that, too, a > religious statement, and therefore disallowed? What are we discussing, Paul? Some while back there was an attempt (mine) to get some info on "scientific creationism"--specifically as opposed to "religious creationism". Clearly, "God created" isn't a valid starting point for that sub-discussion; you can't get much closer to "religious creationism" than starting with "God created". Similarly, if you ask if it's "scientifically acceptable" to say that, the answer is "no"--unless you have a Creator which is limited to naturalistic processes, in which case I'll bow out here because I don't understand your concept. > If it is disallowed, how about, then, if I postulate, say, "it > just came out of nothing"? Is that religious, and disallowed? That's not (inherently/obviously) religious, but it's not a good postulate. "It just came" presupposes a lot. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.