Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 21)
Message-ID: <57@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 11:07:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.57
Posted: Sat Jun  1 11:07:14 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 20:20:14 EDT
References: <366@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 38

Gee, this is fun!  Let's play "what's wrong with this picture?"

>     C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
>         COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
>         IT.
>
>        33.  The simplest form of life consists of about 600  different
>             protein  molecules. The mathematical probability that JUST
>             ONE molecule could form by the chance arrangement  of  the
>             proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10**527.

True.  Uh, how does this relate to evolution, since evolution does not
assert that (current) life forms spontaneously self-assemble?

>        34.  There are many instances where quite  different  forms  of
>             life  are  completely  dependent upon each other.

Also true.  And it's even relevant.  It just doesn't supply enough
evidence to justify much of a conclusion.  Consider rock bridges (common
out west, and featured in much scenic photography).  Each half of the
span depends on the other half.  Nevertheless, natural forces account
for their formation quite adequately.  Since the observation of current
interdependanceies is not accompanied with evidence that precludes the
analogous biological developments, the point is worthless.

>                                TO BE CONTINUED
                                                        (sigh)
>                               Ron Kukuk
>                               Walt Brown

I wasn't interested in this interesting accumulation of pseudo-science
and didn't follow these entertaining postings until recently.  However,
having done it once now, I note that the game of finding the problems in
these postings is too easy.  I propose the related but far more
difficult task of finding anything accurate and relevant in this series.
I must admit I haven't found anything yet.  Has anybody else?
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw