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.