From: "Stephen Jones", INTERNET:sjones@iinet.net.au
To: Jim Bell, 70672,1241
Date: Sun, Jun 2, 1996, 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: Macro evolution
Sender: sjones@iinet.net.au
Received: from classic.iinet.com.au (classic.iinet.net.au [203.0.178.1]) by
arl-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id SAA27781; Sun, 2 Jun 1996 18:03:10 -0400
Received: from jazz.iinet.com.au (root@jazz.iinet.com.au [203.0.178.3]) by
classic.iinet.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id GAA16031; Mon, 3 Jun 1996
06:03:04 +0800
Received: from `55Ry (jazz42.nv.iinet.net.au [203.14.174.42]) by
jazz.iinet.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA24249; Mon, 3 Jun 1996
05:31:12 +0800
Message-Id: <199606022131.FAA24249@jazz.iinet.com.au>
From: "Stephen Jones" <sjones@iinet.net.au>
To: "Bill Hamilton-Evolution" <whamilto@mich.com>
Cc: "Jim Bell" <70672.1241@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 96 06:27:36 +0800
Reply-To: "Stephen Jones" <sjones@iinet.net.au>
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Stephen Jones's Registered PMMail 1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Macro evolution
Bill
(This is a public message. I am unsubscribed from the Reflector to
catch up. If you reply via the Reflector, please cc. it to me. Thanks
-SJ).
On 19 May 96 16:05:52 EDT, Jim Bell wrote:
Thanks Jim.
Bill>Pulled from the archive:
>Brian>First, I don't want to get too caught up in definitions, so
>I'll loosely define macro-evolution as the origin of novelty.
>SJ>This is too loose. Creation could also be "the origin of novelty".
>Brian>Yes, I think creation would be origin of novelty by definition.
>:-0
>SJ>So macro-evolution cannot be defined as "the origin of novelty"
>unless creation is ruled out of court, as not scientific.
Bill>I think loose definitions are frequently part of the problem in
>origins discussions. But Steve's line of reasoning is incorrect.
>The fact that creation and macro-evolution could both be considered
>the origin of novelty does not mean that they conflict, or that one
>of them must be "ruled out of court as nonscientific".
I could only agree if if "creation" and "macro-evolution" are
redefined in such a way that either means something other than what
it
normally means. But this is just a verbal shell game. Upturn the
shells by defining your terms, and we will see where the pea is! :-)
How about it Bill?. Please define exactly what you mean by "creation"
and "macro-evolution" in the sentence:
"The fact that creation and macro-evolution could both be considered
the origin of novelty does not mean that they conflict, or that one
of them must be `ruled out of court as nonscientific' " (Bill
Hamilton)
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution:
Jim Bell 70672,1241
Cc:
70672,1241