Moorad
>From: IN%"'gmurphy@raex.com'@raex.com" "George Murphy" 27-NOV-1999
21:16:50.92
>To: IN%"wsaied@webzone.net" "BILL SAIED"
>CC: IN%"asa@calvin.edu"
>Subj: RE: A neat syllogism
>
>Return-path: <asa-owner-alexanian=uncwil.edu@lists.calvin.edu>
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu [153.106.4.240])
> by uncwil.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #28112)
> with SMTP id <01JIUH9ZXNCC8ZE8VQ@uncwil.edu> for alexanian@uncwil.edu
> (ORCPT rfc822;alexanian@uncwil.edu); Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:16:49 EST
>Received: (qmail 23343 invoked by uid 27); Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:19 +0000
>Received: (qmail 23337 invoked from network); Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:18
+0000
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with
SMTP;
> Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:18 +0000
>Received: from cheops.raex.com (cheops.raex.com [216.196.0.14])
> by ursa.calvin.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01058 for
<asa@calvin.edu>;
> Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:16:42 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from akron-216-196-24-41.raex.com
> (akron-216-196-24-41.raex.com [216.196.24.41])
> by cheops.raex.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA23162; Sat,
> 27 Nov 1999 21:16:41 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 21:01:21 -0500
>From: George Murphy <"gmurphy@raex.com"@raex.com>
>Subject: Re: A neat syllogism
>Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>To: BILL SAIED <wsaied@webzone.net>
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Message-id: <199911280216.VAA23162@cheops.raex.com>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Precedence: bulk
>Delivered-to: asa@lists.calvin.edu
>References: <000501bf382d$d23a8ec0$6660a5d0@compaq>
>X-Authentication-warning: cheops.raex.com: akron-216-196-24-41.raex.com
> [216.196.24.41] didn't use HELO protocol
>Original-recipient: rfc822;alexanian@uncwil.edu
>
>BILL SAIED wrote:
>>
>> I am sending this from my Father-in-laws, so please when you reply,
simply
>> reply to the list.
>>
>> I have a neat syllogism that I want to share with the group. I want to
do
>> it as a game. Preferably I would like anti-evolutionists to play. THere
will
>> be no embarassment, just the joy of seeing a fascinating syllogism when I
am
>> finished. I will lay out two of the premises and ask for agreement or
>> disagreement. Those willing to take a risk and grant or deny acceptance
of
>> these two postulates get to play the game.
>>
>> The two postulates are,
>>
>> 1. God created life
>>
>> 2. Life is defined as a self-replicative system of chemicals. Everything
>> else is non-life.
>>
>> Do you agree or disagree with these two postulates?
>
> Even with a qualification such as "physical life", 2 is problematic.
Defining
>"life" in a way which doesn't include things we don't normally consider
"alive" is
>notoriously difficult. 2 would seem to include crystal growth &
conceivably even stars
>as "life".
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@raex.com
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>