Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 1)
Message-ID: <528@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 13:06:07 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.528
Posted: Wed Apr 10 13:06:07 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 02:13:00 EST
References: <328@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 22

[...............]
>                1.  Spontaneous generation (the emergence of  life  from  non-
>                    living  matter)  has never been observed. All observations
>                    have  shown  that  life  only  comes   from   life.   This
>                    observation  is so consistent that it is called the Law of
>                    Biogenesis. The theory of evolution  conflicts  with  this
>                    law by claiming that life came from non-living matter.

BY THE WAY,

Ernest Haeckel postulated the 'Law of Biogenisis' which states effectively,
'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'.  In effect, this means that an embryo
during its early stages of development, traces its evolutionary history.
That is, a human embryo has a fish-like stage, a reptile-like stage etc.
Modern scientists take this one with a LARGE grain of salt.
Odd that creationists should miss-state this one and try to use it
in their arguments.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"