Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The creation model
Message-ID: <685@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 14:55:26 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.685
Posted: Thu Mar 14 14:55:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 04:17:58 EST
References: <243@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 27

From the creationism list:
> > 7) The inception of the earth and of living kinds may  have  been
> > relatively recent.
 ------------
From the evolution list:
> > 7) The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred
> > several billion years ago.

    I don't see any reason to include statement number 7 on the evolution
list.  The age of the earth is best left to be determined by geologists.
The fact is that they're all sure that the earth *is* some billions of years
old.  Sure, evolution requires vast amounts of time to work.  Happily,
geologists tell us that there *were* vast amounts of time.  If they had
found, instead, that the earth was only 10,000 years old, we'd have had
to junk evolutionary theory as being inconsistant with reality.
    Wake up, creationists!  The age of the earth is not part of evolutionary
theory.  It is a geological *fact* which you seem quite happy to ignore.
    *Scientists* change their theories when they conflict with well established
fact.  Scientific creationists, on the other hand, ignore the facts when they
conflict with their theories.  
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "If you see her, say hello.
     She might be in Tangiers.
     She left here last early spring,
     is livin' there, I hear."-Dylan