Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <293@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Apr-85 20:16:29 EST
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.293
Posted: Thu Apr 18 20:16:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:22:54 EST
References: <7187@watdaisy.UUCP> <189@spp1.UUCP> <541@cadovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <541@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>   "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase
>precisely because it cannot be falsified.  I can envision observations
>and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but
>I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon
>their beliefs.  Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. " 
>
>Keith Doyle
>#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd

   This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would
   disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism,
   this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life
   in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE),
   this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the
   creator can create.
   If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this
   may also do the job.

   Though creation as a religious belief is not falsifiable,
   creation SCIENCE is falsifiable.

   I would be interested in hearing some examples of how Evolution
   could be falsified?

				      Dan