Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Let's get \"Serious\"
Message-ID: <3671@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 19:43:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3671
Posted: Mon Apr 29 19:43:56 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 06:36:00 EDT
References: <820@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 21

>>> [Andrew Koenig]
>>> Thus, if I attempt to explain everything in the universe by
>>> saying "The universe is totally erratic, so there is no
>>> such thing as physical law," what I have said cannot qualify
>>> as a scientific theory, because there is no conceivable observation
>>> that could ever falsify it.
>> 
>> You'll supply us with references of creationists who use this as an
>> argument, of course...
>> Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--

>   You'll supply us with a reference of where Andrew *said* that creationists
> use this as an argument, of course...
> -- 
> Jeff Sonntag
> ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j

Jeff is correct to suggest that I did not say that creationists
use the above argument in an attempt to explain the universe.
I made up this particular argument as an example of something
that does not qualify as a scientific theory.