flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (03/26/84)
--- Ray Miller says: >> I could go on, but suffice it to say that evolution is like a used >> car. It may look great to a lot of people, but if you look at it >> too closely you'll find out that it's falling apart. "Where's the >> beef?" seems most appropriate. Whistling in the dark, Ray. Creationists may be able to fool hillbilly state legislators (some of the time) with the arm-waving irrelevancies in your last article, but who do you think you're fooling on this net? It's clear to everyone that you people have decided a priori that evolution must be fundamentally wrong because it conflicts with a set of beliefs that you want to maintain, and you're desperate to find logic or data that will provide you a rationale for this decision. I pointed out before what it would take to convince objective people to take creationism seriously - several occurrences of fossils seriously out of place. The references you supplied don't hack it - one Scientific American article and two creationist publications. What makes creationism ludicrous is that evolution is at least as well established by observation as the theory that the earth orbits the sun. There are literally many thousands of observed facts that are consistent with the general outline of evolutionary theory, and if what you had in your last article was the best you can come up with to try to shoot down evolution, then you've simply exposed how weak and flimsy your position is. Ray: You've pretty well worked over the footprint business. To provide network readers with fresh material for amusement, why not present the creationist position on how all the fossils were laid down in the Great Flood (small spherical animals settling down more rapidly that big hairy complicated ones), why thrust faults don't exist, how the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, the 'mystery' of the plutonium haloes, and how radioactive dating is wrong?