Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!akgua!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Out-of-Context Quote-of-the-Month. July 1985. Message-ID: <705@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 12:18:47 EDT Article-I.D.: mcnc.705 Posted: Fri Aug 9 12:18:47 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 06:06:34 EDT References: <1296@uwmacc.UUCP> <1310@uwmacc.UUCP> <198@kitty.UUCP> <373@scgvaxd.UUCP> Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Distribution: net Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 28 In article <373@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > We don't know what a creator "would" do, but we do know what a creator > "did" do. Thus creationism is based on observation of the creation. Whether or not a "creator" is responsible for what we observe is the question under scrutiny. It really isn't kosher, from a scientific standpoint, to build your conclusion into your assumptions. > Example: We can observe that the creator created man with a potential > for variation in characteristics. (height, weight, eye color, skin etc.) > However, the genetic menu is limited. Man has never given birth to an > ape. (Observation) Prediction: No genetic potential for producing an ape. > This is verified in studies of genetics. Since man does not have the > genetic potential for producing an ape offspring, this could offer evidence > that man and ape are genetically unrelated and separate creations. You have to define Ape more carefully here. As there are those of us who see man as a type of ape, we would say that men give birth to apes every day. Just what characteristics are you using to define Ape? (I know, I know, characteristics that men don't have...) As far as I can tell, you are building your conclusions into your model again. GIGO. Little wonder you guys sit spinning your wheels so long. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch