Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 22)
Message-ID: <520@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 10:02:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.520
Posted: Thu Jun  6 10:02:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 01:42:37 EDT
References: <367@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 41

In article <367@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>       35.  If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
>            result  of  evolution,  then  an  absolutely  unbelievable
>            series of chance events would have  had  to  occur  [a,b].
>            First,  the  amazingly  complex  and  completely different
>            reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY  and
>            INDEPENDENTLY  evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as
>            those of the female.

Since it is becoming more and more clear that you are a copying machine and not
a human being, I do not expect that you will admit that this is a reapeat of
other arguments on your list. ANd not a very good one either. As has been
said before, the number of arguments is unimportant unless some of then are
correct.

God must have created my legs. You see, it could not be a coincidence that
they are just the right length. How else could it be that they are just long
enough to reach down to the 

>                However, evolutionary theorists
>                believe  that  the  problem  will  be  solved  without
>                abandoning  the main Darwinian insights--just as early
>                nineteenth-century  astronomers  believed   that   the
>                problem  of  the  motion  of  Uranus could be overcome
>                without  major  modification  of  Newton's   celestial
>                mechanics.''  [Philip  Kitcher,  ABUSING  SCIENCE: THE
>                CASE AGAINST  CREATIONISM  (Cambridge,  Massachusetts:
>                The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.]

How exactly does this quote support your point?

You are forgeting, perhaps, that the astronomers were RIGHT about the orbit
of Uranus. It is accounted for by the existence of the planet Neptune.

				Ralph Hartley

rlh@cvl.{ARPA,CSNet}

...seismo  \
...allegra +--  !umcp-cs!cvl!rlh.UUCP
...brl-bmd /