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!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 4)
Message-ID: <463@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 10:53:14 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.463
Posted: Fri Apr 12 10:53:14 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:37:40 EST
References: <331@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17
Summary: 

In article <331@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
> THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
> I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
> A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, evidence that something else is wrong
is not evidence that your theory is correct.  You are using the fallacy of
argument called the false dilemma.

Another fallacy you are employing is the selection of samples where
support for evolution has not been found, and rejection of examples
where support for evolution has been found.  It's analogous to saying
"there are no dogs, because I looked at the hydrant and by my fireplace
and there weren't any dogs there."
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh