Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2)
Message-ID: <904@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 13:32:05 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.904
Posted: Wed Apr 17 13:32:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 05:41:48 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 15

> > Simply saying something is old is unconvincing.
> 
> In many, if not all, scientific disciplines progress is being made so rapidly
> that say that something is old is the same as saying that it
> is at least suspect. In the biological sciences ten year old
> theories are really ancient history.  In this field, saying it's
> old should be a convincing argument to disregard it.

Wrong.  One must say WHAT is wrong with it.  Otherwise, anyone can
say anything is wrong by asserting its age.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
Science is Dead.                                                    |