Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 5) Message-ID: <790@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Apr-85 09:26:11 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxt.790 Posted: Tue Apr 16 09:26:11 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Apr-85 01:13:18 EST References: <332@iham1.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 37 > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > > I. (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID. > We see that he's still using this stupid title, even though it has been *repeatedly* pointed out that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation. Doesn't the author even want to maintain a semblance of credibility? > A. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > 8. There is no reason to believe that mutations could ever > produce any new organs such as the eye [a], the ear [b], > or the brain [c]. Just the human heart, a ten ounce pump > that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for > about 75 years, is an engineering marvel [d]. Hey, the watchmaker arguement again! Can we go home yet? > > 9. There is no direct evidence that any major group of > animals or plants arose from any other major group [a-c]. What about all of the biochemical evidence showing that enzymes from closely related species are much more similar to each other than enzymes which perform the same function in other, more distantly related species? Are we supposed to write this off to coincidence, or should we assume that God set things up this way in order to fool us into thinking that evolution is correct? > > Ron Kukuk > Walt Brown I hope you guys have some better arguements waiting in the wings, or this is going to get boring *real* soon. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "In the long run, we'll all be dead."-John Maynard Keynes