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: A new voice.
Message-ID: <595@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 14:50:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.595
Posted: Fri Jul  5 14:50:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 05:30:52 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <300@azure.UUCP> <350@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 32

In article <350@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovitch) writes:
>  This is just not so! The central hypothesis has been attacked over and
>  over. When it is, however, netters change their tune and claim that
>  evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creation.
> 
>  Mutation has been shown to be a poor mechanism for Evolution. Transmutation
>  has never been observed and most all mutations have proven harmful. The
>  variations within species are predicted by the creation model. Even
>  Evolutionists have admitted the problems involved with Evolution occuring
>  by chance mutation. Natural selection has serious problems as well.
>  It has been stated that N.S. predicts everything, therefore it predicts
>  nothing.
> 
>  Evolution really has more problems than you are willing to believe.

I've seen convincing refutations of almost every attack you and others have
presented on the net, with hardly any rebuttal on the part of creationists
or apology by creationists for grossly fraudulent attacks.  

Almost every citation used by creationists is quoted out of context or
has been rebutted in the scientific literature: if you don't believe me,
choose a citation from Science, Nature, or any non-creationist science
publication that is used in one of Kulak's upty-zillion reasons not to
believe in evolution.  Read it, or look it up in the scientific
citations index (a wonderful tool that lists papers citing works by each
individual author. Then look up those responses, and read them.)  I've
followed up several examples, and the duplicity of creationists shocks me.

Evolution is far more convincing than your theology can tolerate.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh