Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <350@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 20:08:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.350
Posted: Sat Jul 13 20:08:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 20:58:17 EDT
References: <349@scgvaxd.UUCP> <81@rtp47.UUCP> <352@scgvaxd.UUCP> <536@psivax.UUCP> <357@scgvaxd.UUCP> <45@uw-june>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 28


 
>>[Stanley Friesen]
>>	This is a bogus argument. The theory of *biological* evolution
>>does not *care* about how matter got here in the first place, or even
>>how life originated, it is just a model of what happens *given* that
>>life exists. The theory of abiogenesis deals with the origin of life,
>>and the origin of matter and planets and such is a branch of cosmology!
>>Please keep in mind that a theory is only valid *within* the framework
>>of its area of application! The Creationist position os an attempt to
>>replace at least three seperate, and *independent* theories with one
>>expalnation. When I say independent, I mean that each of the theories
>>could be true or false without implying anything about the truth or
>>falsity of any of the others. Thus you *cannot* try to tie them
>>together in a single basket.

>[Dan Boskovich]
>The three theories may be independant of one another, but that does not
>mean that they are not related or can not be tied together. This is
>net.origins not net.evolution. In this newsgroup all of these theories
>ARE tied together.

This statement, that they are independent (although related), is just
a round about way of agreeing that it is not an either/or  problem.

Let's hope that this issue is done with for a while.

Padraig Houlahan.