Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 10 May 1995 01:48:54 GMT
In article <Yashaemail@example.com>, Yasha Hartberg (Yasha@bigraf.tamu.edu) writes:
>Well, first I would ask you to explain what the evolution of humans has to
>do at all with the Big Bang. Second I feel I have to point out the
>inherent weaknesses with your argument against evolution. Namely, your
>analogy is only appropriate if Rolex watches reproduce themselves. Since
>they don't, you haven't made a useful comparison. Additionally, evolution
>depends on intervention from a little something called natural selection.
Well yes, but if you would care to go back over the history of the
idea you will note that back then the converse argument was being
bandied about. At that time God ruled, and it was the new breed of
scientist encouraged by Darwin, himself from a devoutly evangelical
clan of Midlands industrialists, among others, who were insisting
Dwelling upon ultimate causes is one of those odd preoccupations of
humankind which bring out their extremes. It can bring bliss, or as
in these cases we here witness reduce otherwise recognisably sane
men to ranting . . .
>And thank you for your insightful addition to this thread. It is at least
>clear that YOU don't care enough what others think to spend even the least
>amount of time to understand what they are talking about.
We simply don't care much what YOU think, Yasha old bean. There are
so many more worthwhile and enjoyable things to care about, and our
own work to be getting on with.
THANKS VERY MUCH.
Now go away. Scoot!