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