hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/18/85)
______________________________________________________________________ > { from: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller) } > ... > > Most evolutionists try to ignore the problem by sweeping it under > the rug. The problem that you presented is not a valid problem. Therefore, there really isn't anything to "sweep under the rug". > This usually manifests itself in statements such as > "Well, given enough time, anything will happen". Incidentally, who have actually used arguments of this nature? Please keep in mind, as you frantically search for quotes, that this is, at best, a metaphorical statement. To take this lit- terally is a gross error. > A frog turning into a prince is viewed as magic, Most people have heard of this story, hence, would consider the direct transformation from a frog into a prince to be magical. Of course, this is not what evolution talks about, so I cannot see what's eating your pants. > unless the secret ingredient of > time is added, at which point it is called science and given the > label "evolution". A few evolutionists, however, are more honest > in admitting that a serious problem still exists for their theory. Honest? Excuse me, but no one has yet to claim that evolutionary theories are perfect in any respect. The direct implication is that there must be some problems that still exist. This is true of almost every theory in science. In other words, this point is trivial and irrelevant. (Gee, sounds familiar.) Perhaps a few of you creationists would admit some of your serious problems? Like the basic demands for a creator, for example. It seems that most of you choose the "sweeping it under the rug" solution. > For example, Dr. Blum wrote: > > "I think if I were rewriting this chapter [on archebiopoesis > or neobiogenesis] completely, I should want to change the emphasis > somewhat. I should want to play down still more the importance of > the great amount of time available for highly improbable events to > occur. One may take the view that the greater the time elapsed the > greater should be the approach to equilibrium, the most probable > state, and it seems that this ought to take precedence in our think- > ing over the idea that time provides the possibility for the occur- > rence of the highly improbable." Reference please. A possible misquotation here. Just what does Dr. Blum mean by "the highly improbable"? Incidentally, magic is about as "highly improbable" as you can get. ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }