Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Evidence, gentlemen.  Not mysticism.
Message-ID: <315@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 16:23:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.315
Posted: Fri May 10 16:23:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 20:04:10 EDT
References: <271@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 25
Summary: 

In article <271@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) writes:
>
>>[Dan Boskovich]
>>
>>  "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"!
>> 
>
>As has been said before, that is not a scientific proof.  
>
>What I want is a scientific PROOF of Creationism.  Or even a semi-scientific
>plea for Creationism.  What I don't want is some mystical gobbly-gook about
>"Design".  From anybody, not just Dan.
>
  Wait a minute!! You want scientific PROOF or EVIDENCE?
  There is a big difference!! You know that you CAN'T give me
  scientific PROOF of evolution, so why would you ask me to give
  you PROOF of creation.

  Design is EVIDENCE of a designer! It is NOT PROOF of a creator, I
  will acknowledge.

  You can call it gobbly-gook if you like, but it is perfectly resonable
  to conclude that design would imply a designer. Webster's thought so!

					 Dan