sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/03/84)
Christianity as a faith has nothing to say about creationism. I would
wager that the great majority of those who identify themselves as
Christians have little problem with currently accepted theories of the
origin of species. I count myself among those, and I am getting sick and
tired of those who would identify "Christianity" as one and the same as
those sects who hew to literal-minded interpretations of mistranslations
of the Bible.
[Whew, that felt good!]
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAagz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (11/03/84)
> Christianity as a faith has nothing to say about creationism. I would > wager that the great majority of those who identify themselves as > Christians have little problem with currently accepted theories of the > origin of species. I have to agree. While I wouldn't actually consider myself a Christian, I would say that a majority of the "Christians" I know have little complaint with evolution. They consider the Bible an example, not a rule, which seems to be a major problem with the way the bible is translated these days. Now for the flame: Creationsism is BOGUS! There are numerous people who say that evolution is obviousl;y the way life got to the point it is at now. There is ONE source that says life was "created" by some "God". Everyone else just joined the bandwagon. Why don't you "fuzzy headed fundamentalists" start to realize that while there is no positive proof for evolution, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than creationism. I guess we'll always have the people who won't pull their head out of the sand, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Some of them waiting, some were standing in line, As if there was something that they thought they might find ... "
semreb@ih4ep.UUCP (Waz Nardbill) (11/06/84)
The inability to prove one notion cannot be used to prove another
It seems that what you are saying is that because
one idea cannot be proven, the "alternative" must be true.
Your logic is highly questionable.
Terry Bermesdubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/09/84)
> > Christianity as a faith has nothing to say about creationism. I would > > wager that the great majority of those who identify themselves as > > Christians have little problem with currently accepted theories of the > > origin of species. > > I have to agree. While I wouldn't actually consider myself a Christian, > I would say that a majority of the "Christians" I know have little > complaint with evolution. They consider the Bible an example, not a > rule, which seems to be a major problem with the way the bible is > translated these days. Since you are not a Christian, and since you quote the "Christianity" of your acquaintances, it may be reasonable to assume that they are not Christians, either. If that is true, then your statement about what Christians believe is not valid. I *am* a Christian, and I know plenty of people who are Christians (without quotes); the overwhelming majority have plenty of "complaint with evolution". > Now for the flame: > Creationsism is BOGUS! There are numerous people who say that evolution > is obviousl;y the way life got to the point it is at now. There is ONE > source that says life was "created" by some "God". Everyone else just > joined the bandwagon. Why don't you "fuzzy headed fundamentalists" start > to realize that while there is no positive proof for evolution, it makes > a hell of a lot more sense than creationism. I guess we'll always have > the people who won't pull their head out of the sand, though. > If it were so obvious, I would agree that evolution is the best explanation. Perhaps it is; but I don't think so. Certainly if it *is* the best explanation, it is by no means obvious how it occurs. If it were, evolutionists wouldn't be at such pains to disagree with each other (that's not a slam at evolution, or science. But it simply is not well understood how evolution occurs, if it occurs). Another point to be made: If you have been reading this group for any length of time, you should know that any time someone brings up an argument based on the numerosity of its proponents, the argument is rejected. Follow-ups belong in net.religion. I apologize for my intemperate tone. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/10/84)
> If it were so obvious, I would agree that evolution is the best > explanation. Perhaps it is; but I don't think so. Certainly if it > *is* the best explanation, it is by no means obvious how it occurs. > If it were, evolutionists wouldn't be at such pains to disagree > with each other (that's not a slam at evolution, or science. But > it simply is not well understood how evolution occurs, if it occurs). Wrong, Bozo. It is obvious how it occurs, and the only people who say they don't understand it are people like you who don't want to understand it, or are too stupid to look beyond the pages of the Bible for anything. If you're so sure of creationism, explain to me how IT works. Wayne
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/15/84)
> > > > I have to agree. While I wouldn't actually consider myself a Christian, > > I would say that a majority of the "Christians" I know have little > > complaint with evolution. They consider the Bible an example, not a > > rule, which seems to be a major problem with the way the bible is > > translated these days. > > Since you are not a Christian, and since you quote the "Christianity" > of your acquaintances, it may be reasonable to assume that they are > not Christians, either. If that is true, then your statement about > what Christians believe is not valid. I *am* a Christian, and I > know plenty of people who are Christians (without quotes); the > overwhelming majority have plenty of "complaint with evolution". > What is this: a Christian cannot have non-Christian friends?!? Or if they can why is it "reasonable" to assume a non-Christian's friends are non-Christian. However I *am* a Christian, and I do not find any conflict between science and faith. Because I see them as answering *different* questions. The Bible merely asserts that God created the World, not *how* He did so; evolutionary science merely says that evolution has occured, and does not say anything about God one way or the other. > > If it were so obvious, I would agree that evolution is the best > explanation. Perhaps it is; but I don't think so. Certainly if it > *is* the best explanation, it is by no means obvious how it occurs. > If it were, evolutionists wouldn't be at such pains to disagree > with each other (that's not a slam at evolution, or science. But > it simply is not well understood how evolution occurs, if it occurs). I *must* disagree here - disagreement about detail mechanisms has *no* bearing on the general thesis of evolutionary theory. The basic observational facts are not well explained by *any* current theory except evolutionary theory. Furthermore there is more agreement among evolutionary scientists than you think even on detail mechanisms. The main disagreement is really only about the relative importance of the various mechanisms. Stanley Friesen
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/20/84)
> > > > > > I have to agree. While I wouldn't actually consider myself a Christian, > > > I would say that a majority of the "Christians" I know have little > > > complaint with evolution. They consider the Bible an example, not a > > > rule, which seems to be a major problem with the way the bible is > > > translated these days. > > > > Since you are not a Christian, and since you quote the "Christianity" > > of your acquaintances, it may be reasonable to assume that they are > > not Christians, either. If that is true, then your statement about > > what Christians believe is not valid. I *am* a Christian, and I > > know plenty of people who are Christians (without quotes); the > > overwhelming majority have plenty of "complaint with evolution". > > > > What is this: a Christian cannot have non-Christian friends?!? > Or if they can why is it "reasonable" to assume a non-Christian's > friends are non-Christian. That is not what I said. The person writing the article to which I responded quoted the word "Christians", leading me to believe that he considered that their "Christianity" might be questionable (cf. creation "science", where the intent is to derogate creationism). A Christian certainly may have non- Christian friends. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/20/84)
In article <447@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >> > Christianity as a faith has nothing to say about creationism. >> ... a majority of the "Christians" I know have little >> complaint with evolution. >I *am* a Christian, and I >know plenty of people who are Christians (without quotes); the >overwhelming majority have plenty of "complaint with evolution". > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Why is it so necessary that the truth be one or the other? Isn't it possible that evolution is simply the tool that God used to create this world the way [it is, HE/SHE wanted it (pick one)]? The thing I find so disturbing about this issue is that people are so ready to create barriers between themselves and others. Isn't one prime tenet of Christianity that we are all children of a God who loves us? Doesn't that imply that we should take down barriers to oneness and togetherness wherever we find them? -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/21/84)
Anyway, this discussion belongs in net.religion.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
"Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey