Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Keebler Chronicles (6 of 7)
Message-ID: <5214@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 16:29:16 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5214
Posted: Thu Apr 25 16:29:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 03:48:10 EST
References: <940@uwmacc.UUCP> <554@cadovax.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <554@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>seem however, that creationists in general LOVE to dig up these ideas that
>the scientific community has abandoned in favor of better ones.  Certainly
>these ideas provide plenty of grist for the creationist mill.  However, this
>may be the single most significant reason the evolutionists see the 
>creationists as little more than hecklers or rabble rousers.  If one is to
>argue effectively against evolution, one must spend some time to determine
>what evolutionist claims are accepted by the mainstream scientific community,
>and not digging up old rejected ideas and presenting them as current.
>Remember, you may be trying to sell your ideas to the scientific community
>(maybe you're not, and just trying to propagandize the public?).

Actually, since the entire basis of "scientific" creationism (or any of the
other brands of creationism that have been presented here on this network)
seems to be pulling these old, outdated, and debunked theories (which
debunking was generally done by scientists), and using these as their
arguments for creationism.  It doesn't follow, even if these theories
were current, that debunking one theory justifies some other theory anyway,
-- 
Richard A. Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower