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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 2) Message-ID: <958@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 17:46:36 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.958 Posted: Fri Apr 19 17:46:36 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 02:23:07 EST References: <260@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 38 > Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa } > >> { 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 40 years out of date.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 point was that the old material is out of date.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 I rarely trust out of date stuff, if ever. On other points in the same article, Mr. Friesen did indeed say WHY he did not accept the points made. For the three points I cited above there was no reason given, and certainly no explanation of why the points he was responding to were out of date. Hence my comment. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |