Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Why Creation?
Message-ID: <1478@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Apr-85 09:41:42 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1478
Posted: Sat Apr 20 09:41:42 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 07:26:00 EST
References: <14600006@hpfcrs.UUCP> <525@cadovax.UUCP>, <184@spp1.UUCP> <530@cadovax.UUCP> <190@spp1.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 9

> Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a
> non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently
> accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just
> heard the death knell for true science.

The acceptance of Punctuated Equilibrium and Plate Tectonics
are indications that science does not define anything new as
non-science.  You seem to think that science should accept everything
new, no matter how outlandish or lacking in evidence.