Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <-99300@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 21:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.-99300
Posted: Sat Apr 27 21:26:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 06:51:31 EDT
References: <365@sphinx.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:sphinx:-36500:uwmacc:-99300:177600:965
Nf-From: uwmacc!dubois    Apr 27 23:26:00 1985


> --JB  (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)
> Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of
> where that really unique form of life came from, and when they do they
> usually make wierd faces and say something like it "always existed".  But
> they do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially if
> they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and, of course,
> the old dust-to-dust stuff).
> 
> Comments?

Sure.

Evolutionists claim that they do not have to account for the origin
of the matter from which life arose.  Why then should creationists have
to account for the origin of the creator from which life arose?

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"There are two sides to every argument, until you take one."        |