>From: IN%"'email@example.comfirstname.lastname@example.org" "George Murphy" 27-NOV-1999
>To: IN%"email@example.com" "BILL SAIED"
>Subj: RE: A neat syllogism
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu [18.104.22.168])
> by uncwil.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #28112)
> with SMTP id <01JIUH9ZXNCC8ZE8VQ@uncwil.edu> for firstname.lastname@example.org
> (ORCPT rfc822;email@example.com); 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
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (22.214.171.124) by udomo3.calvin.edu with
> Sun, 28 Nov 1999 02:12:18 +0000
>Received: from cheops.raex.com (cheops.raex.com [126.96.36.199])
> by ursa.calvin.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01058 for
> 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 [188.8.131.52])
> 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 <"firstname.lastname@example.org"@raex.com>
>Subject: Re: A neat syllogism
>To: BILL SAIED <email@example.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>X-Authentication-warning: cheops.raex.com: akron-216-196-24-41.raex.com
> [184.108.40.206] didn't use HELO protocol
>BILL SAIED wrote:
>> I am sending this from my Father-in-laws, so please when you reply,
>> reply to the list.
>> I have a neat syllogism that I want to share with the group. I want to
>> it as a game. Preferably I would like anti-evolutionists to play. THere
>> be no embarassment, just the joy of seeing a fascinating syllogism when I
>> 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
>> 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.
>"life" in a way which doesn't include things we don't normally consider
>notoriously difficult. 2 would seem to include crystal growth &
conceivably even stars
>George L. Murphy