Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!zehntel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 8)
Message-ID: <42@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 11:47:21 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.42
Posted: Mon Apr 22 11:47:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 05:50:17 EST
References: <339@iham1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 30

> 
>      THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
> 
> I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.  (See
>     1-13.)
> 
>     A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
> 
>                                       ...
> 
>     B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>         WISHFUL THINKING.
> 
> 
>        17.  As an embryo develops, it does not pass through the  adult
>             stages    of    its    alleged   evolutionary   ancestors.
>             Embryologists   no   longer   consider   the   superficial
>             similarity that exists between a few embryos and the adult
>             forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution  [a-h].
>             The   drawings   by  Ernst  Haeckel,  which  led  to  this
>             widespread belief, were deliberately falsified [i-l].
> 

This is pathetic. If it is no longer considered evidence for evolution
why bother attacking it? Are we to conclude that rejected arguments
for evolution constitute arguments in favor of creationism? Evolutionists,
to the best of my knowledge, will reject fairy tales as proof; I suppose
that they now are in creationist's arsenal.

Padraig Houlahan.