hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/02/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > { From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston) } > > > In article <328@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > > > > A. EVOLUTION* HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. > > > > Just out of curiosity - has CREATION ever been observed? > > I mean OBSERVED - not postulated from "faith" in a god or gods! > > Has evolution? and I don't mean natural selection. Has creation? ... has evolution? ... has creation? ... has evolution? GEE WIZ! Cut it out! You cannot literally observe evolution. It is implied in the evidence. Creation cannot be observed either. This is BY DEFINITION. One has trouble observing evolution because of the time factor required. How would you like to sit down for a couple of years and stare at several jars of fruit flies? Creation is defined so that a whole lot of COM- PLETE things supposed to have appeared in some very short period of time via some process that is not in operation today. (This definition comes from Henry Morris. You certainly may disagree with it.) How does one come up with some idea about some unknown processes that are no longer in existence? How in the world do you justify even coming up with such a thing? Worse yet, these processes, BY DEFINITION, vio- late physical laws! How in the world do you justify such a thing? In short, creationists are saying,"Well, we can't explain it, so we'll just say it was magic." (This is assuming, of course, that they are approach- ing from an unbiased view point; some have said it was magic because the Bible said so.) ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }