Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 16)
Message-ID: <504@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 14:41:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.504
Posted: Thu May 16 14:41:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 08:40:40 EDT
References: <356@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 25

From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk), Message-ID: <356@iham1.UUCP>:
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>[...]
>       28.  If life is ultimately the result of random chance, then so
>            is  thought.   Your  thoughts--such  as  what  you are now
>            thinking--would in the final analysis be a consequence  of
>            accidents  and  therefore  would  have  no validity [a-c].
>            Similar  problems  have  been  acknowledged   by   several
>            prominent writers.
>[...]
>				Ron Kukuk
>				Walt Brown

This thing really ought to go to net.jokes, Subject: Yet Another Are These
Guys For Real.  *THIS* is part of a *scientific* case for creation?!?!?!?!
It's not only totally lacking logic, it's absolutely irrelevant.  It's an
emotional appeal only.  It doesn't even refute evolution, let alone support
creationism.  Get real, fellows.

-- 

--JB                                             "The giant is awake."

Disclaimer?  Who wud claim dis?