Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2)
Message-ID: <260@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 02:31:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.260
Posted: Fri Apr 19 02:31:55 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 02:08:00 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 30

___________________________________________________________________________

> { From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) }
>
> > [Stanley Friesen]
> > ...
> > 	Ther has been a lot of water under the bridge since 1953,
> > why not try a more recent up-to-date analysis of mutation.
> > ...
> > 	Good night, this is *really* old, more of historical than
> > scientific interest!
> > ...
> > 	Also your concept of evolutionary theory seems to be about
> > 40 years out of date. No serious scientist today would accept a theory
> > of the form you are debunking, they realized such a theory was
> > inadequate 40 years ago and have been changing it to eliminate the
> > inadequacies.
> 
> Simply saying something is old is unconvincing.

Of course, since he is not just saying that something is old, your
statement has very little meaning.  It is one thing to criticize a
statement but another to raise unapplicable points.  Afterall, his
point was that the old material is out of date.  This is certainly
convincing to me.  I rarely trust out of date stuff, if ever.
___________________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }