From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:55:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.172808.12707@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>> In the current example, a system has been derived by ignoring God.
>>
>>   This is a false statement.  That has been proven here.  Recently.
>>Impeach the proof or withdraw the statement.  These demands are not 
>>negotiable.
>
>Actually, I had several responses which seemed in the contrary.  I have
>no problem with you (used in the general) ignoring God in scientific
>work.  The contemporary view is that this is the "right" thing to do.
>It is what is done.  The theory of evolution proceeds from the
>assumption (implicit) that God is not relevant to the question at hand
>(same phrasing as my original post).

No, you moron, it does NOT proceed from that implicit assumption.  No
assumption as to whether or not God is relevant is made.  Are you really too
stupid to see the difference between:
	1)  Failing to assume that God is relevant; and
	2)  Assuming that God is not relevant.
Perhaps YOU ought to try learning a little bit about logic.

>Are you stating that ANY attribute about God is integrated into the
>theory of evolution?  That is what your protest implies.

BULLSHIT!  His protest implies that if ANY EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT GOD IS
RELEVANT, THEN THE RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES OF GOD WILL BE INTEGRATED INTO THE
THEORY.

>Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
>God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
>this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
>that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
>the result of random permutations of slime.  (Though my friends might
>disagree ;-)

You do present a strong case that you're not "the result of random permutations
of slime."  Slime, perhaps, but unpermuted.
>
>> 
>>>  The 
>>> system is consistant.  This is taken as evidence that God did not 
>>> create the world.  Very sloppy logic.  
>> 
>>   It is sloppy logic but IT'S A CREATIONIST STRAW MAN NOT A CLAIM MADE BY
>>EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.  
>
>BTW, thank you for agreeing, though violently, on my analysis of the
>logic that I presented.
>
>I did not mean that the theory of evolution concludes this, but that those
>posting on the topic seem to conclude this.

Derek, the ONLY people posting on this topic who've said anything approximating
this are you creationists.  If you claim otherwise, please point to ONE post
by anybody other than a creationist who put forth that argument.
>>>>> Since there is chocolate in the world, God obviously intended us all to 
>>>>> be fat.  
>>>> 
>>>>   Okay, then, Einstien, what is the purpose of chocolate?  
>
>>I think chocolate does not have a purpose or involve intent.  
>
>Should I accuse you of sleeze evolutionist trick questions (asking a
>question for which you will accept no answer)?

No, because you're the one who claimed that there must be a purpose for
everything.  Having made that claim, you were asked to back it up.  You've
failed miserably to do so.

>>   Also, with typical creationist vaugeness, you are failing to distinguish 
>>between the stimulant and endorphin promoting effects of the raw plant and
>>the  fattening effects of the derived candy.  Since chocolate _candy_ is fattening 
>>you're probably really discussing sugur while merely appearing to discuss 
>>chocolate.  
>
>Excuse me, but is there a chocolate _plant_?

Excuse me, but nobody except a moron like you, attempting a last-ditch effort
to save face would claim that using the term "the raw plant" in referring to
the source of chocolate means that there's something called a "chocolate plant."
Getting desperate are you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.