Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-spice.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-spice!rta
From: rta@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Robert Aarhus)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: questions...
Message-ID: <269@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 17:48:47 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-s.269
Posted: Tue Jan 29 17:48:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 00:13:42 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 44
Xref: seismo net.origins:721


	OK, more questions --

	1. Why do creationists overwhelmingly ignore the scientific
	   evidence that certain organisms evolved from other
	   precursor organisms?

	2. Why do many evolutionists deny the possibility [sic] that
	   there is something more to evolution than just pure chance
	   which resulted in the one-time spontaneous generation [sic]
	   of an autonomous, self-replicating organism from random
	   amino/nucleic acids, especially in light of the lack of
	   evidence for continuous evolution in the restricted 
	   timeframe of 4.6 billion years (give or take a couple 
	   weekends)?

	3. Can anyone keep a straight face when somebody tries to
	   label mutations "bad" or "good"? If so, then would you
	   explain why a storm that relieves a drought is "good",
	   while the same storm that causes flash flooding is "bad"?

	4. Does anybody else out there have a degree in molecular
	   biology? How about just plain ol' biology? Maybe took
	   a course in High School? Well, how about 'I read it
	   on the back of a cereal box'? Do you have any idea what
	   you are saying when you throw these voluminous tomes of
	   scientific falderal across the net? Or are you just
	   meta-searching for keyword references to dredge up more
	   arguments for- and against- whatever side you take?

	5. Are you really trying to understand, to find "the truth",
	   or is everybody out "to win the argument"? If it is the
	   latter, I guarantee both sides will be forever disappointed,
	   because Science will never be able to show one side or the
	   other wrong to the other side's satisfaction.

	6. How does a God-mediated evolution of organisms refute either
	   current religious or scientific evidence, considering that
	   the Bible is not a biology textbook, nor will science ever
	   be able to prove/disprove the existence of God?

	Just curious....

	Bob Aarhus@cmu-cs-spice.arpa