Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.blasphemy,alt.catastrophism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.folklore.urban,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.postmodern,alt.religion.christian,alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.lang,sci.skeptic,talk.abortion,talk.atheism,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.net.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!yama.mcc.ac.uk!daresbury!hgmp.mrc.ac.uk!ebi.ac.uk!eaobrien
From: eaobrien@ebi.ac.uk (Emmet O'Brien)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
Sender: news@ebi.ac.uk (Petteri Jokinen)
Message-ID: <DtCuI9.5Cz@ebi.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 14:49:21 GMT
References: <4qat1h$1mc@igubu.saix.net> <4qb9v4$k3d@news.ox.ac.uk> <N.062196.145218.29@196-7-171-74.iafrica.com>
Organization: EBI - European Bioinformatics Institute
Lines: 31
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:56080 sci.skeptic:182693

In article <N.062196.145218.29@196-7-171-74.iafrica.com> rgoodwin@iafrica.com writes:
>The arguement of evolution is like arguing about a puzzle.
>
>Try this at home:  
>
> *  Take a puzzle (with as many pieces as you can find, you'd really need a 
>puzzle with trillions and trillions of pieces but what you have will do for 
>now).
>    *  Take the lid off the box.
>    *  Tip it up onto the floor.
>    *  Do this until the puzzle falls properly and makes up the picture 
>(preferably face up.)
>
>There you go.That's evolution for you.  You've got a whole lot of pieces that 
>look like they'll all fit together and make a picture (they might even all be 
>there), but what are the chances that they will all fit just so?  (And where 
>did the puzzle come from in the first place?!?)

  This argument is fundamentally flawed. You are assuming that a) there is a 
 picture, a fixed final state rather than a continually changing environment
 and b) that one has to assemble it all at once.

  Think rather of something very simple, starting out. As the surrounding 
 environment changes, it adapts and modifies, becoming more complex as 
 necessary. There is no "end form" at which it is directed. And each little 
 step is small, imperceptibly small perhaps, and easy. If anything, your image
 fits creation ex nihilo rather better than it does evolution.

                                                   Emmet
--
 I can't believe I'm having this conversation.
