Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: A new voice. Message-ID: <596@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:30:18 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.596 Posted: Fri Jul 5 16:30:18 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 06:34:12 EDT References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <2208@ut-sally.UUCP> <351@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 54 In article <351@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > The point here is that the Universe had a non-natural beginning. > Since matter is not being created today, natural processes can > not explain the origin of the Universe. First off, your second sentence is blatantly wrong on several counts. 1) It is generally accepted that particle-antiparticle pairs can be created. 2) You are merely assuming that matter is not being created today. There is still much debate (though some of the older theories have fallen by the wayside.) 3) Bubble theories of the universe are of natural processes. New bubbles that we cannot currently observe may be springing up right now. > For the big bang to occur there first had to be something to explode! This reminds me of Lord Kelvin's conclusive proof that the sun was recently created: even if the sun was made of coal, he calculated that it would burn out to a cinder in too little time for gradualism to shape the earth. Obviously he didn't know about radioactivity or fusion. Likewise, you disregard the possibility that we might yet discover unknown natural forces, and prefer your superstitious beliefs. > All of this points to a supernatural beginning. At the most this points to some ignorance and (on your part) alot of wishful thinking. > It does not mean that it was the Christian > God who did it. Creation science is not interested in naming the > creative force, just showing that there was a creation. You will also find it hard to persuade me that the goals of creationists are anything so innocuous. Most major creationist publishers and organizations have clearly stated their political and religious agenda. > > Steve's reply to this seems to be satisfactory. But again I will > > restate: The fact that we can trace the universe back to a > > "beginning" is in no way inconsistant with evolution, in fact > > evolution requires this to be true. > > > Yes, but it requires a beginning that can be attributed to > natural processes since it rules out the supernatural. Cosmogeny -> abiogenesis -> evolution. Even if somehow the first two of the sequence were shown to be due to a hypothetical creator, evolution could still be the true explanation of how the variety of life came about on our planet. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh