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!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!ethan
From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Prediction or Observation?
Message-ID: <132@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 14:29:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.132
Posted: Fri May 24 14:29:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 06:36:33 EDT
References: <1125@uwmacc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 17

[]
     One more comment about biochemical affinities.  Paul provided
one example (there are many more) in which we can see that biochemical
affinity is a measure of the degree of relationship *as deduced from
the fossil record*, not necessarily by present characteristics.
What can one make of this?  The obvious conclusion is that both methods
measure the same thing.  If one believes, as Paul evidently does, that
relationships based on the fossil record are totally fictitious than
this becomes a coincidence beyond understanding.  Faith in God is not
a sufficient reason for swallowing this coincidence.  One must also believe
that he (she?) is hell of a practical joker.  Alternatively one could
abandon creationism as bad science and bad theology.  Any takers?

"Don't argue with a fool.      Ethan Vishniac
 Borrow his money."            {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas