Beth: It's hard for me at my present location to dig out previous posts, and to quote inline.
Quickly: A previous poster made a statement along the lines of -- any statement contradicting evolution was narror-minded, that's where my statement below came from, what I responded to. I don't think responding directly to another person using "narrow-minded" to catagorize a group of people is being defense, thin-skinned or being a name caller. The inference of calling a person narrow-minded is that they are intellectually challenged. See remarks below. You do need to read more closely what I read. I didn't say there was historical evidence supporting creationism. I said there is historical evidence supporting my faith. There is an abundance of information available on issues surrounding first cause and creation and the uniqueness of life, and I'm not even talking about the extremists at the CRI. You might want to do a little research yourself. A phrase from your own post: "creatures on earth evolving ..." Creatures, of course, presupposes creation. This is the etimology of the word. And I never said that creatures do not evole. I just said that godless evolution is only a partial answer. From that, a few people here want to read into all kinds of meanings that are not supported from the text of what I wrote. H. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: "BethF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:24:24 -0900 >Actually, I took words from your email and didn't put them in your mouth. > >Let me show you below: >> > >> >> In response to Larry and Jon: >> >> >> >> The reason it is the Law of Gravity is that gravity is real and proven. >> >The >> >> reason that is the Law of Thermodynamics is that it is real and it is >> >> proven. The reason it is the Theory of Evolution is that it is a theory >> >and >> >> unproven. > >I am willing to say all of these theories are "unproven" to some degree - >gravity for example doesn't work at the particle level I believe. Clearly, >we do not yet have all the answers. > >> >> >> >> And it's unproven for a reason. You can't prove the improvable. You >> >> certainly can't prove a theory that has ample holes in it. And the >biggest >> >> hole is, what is the first cause? Scientists can't answer that >question. >> >> > >Here you say that evolution is improvable - I wouldn't say that about >anything - but I suppose you are entitled to. I do think we haven't got all >the answers yet - and thats fine. You are welcome to point out that we >don't but its not the same thing as "improvable". > >> >> And I believe and am convinced beyond doubt through all possible >reasoning >> >> and human understanding, there is only but one answer as to the first >> >cause, >> >> and that is God. It was not until I came to understand, not just >believe, >> >> that there was only one logical answer, that I was able to become a >> >> Christian. My faith is not based on some pie in the sky, emotional >> >response >> >> to some event. My faith is logical, well reasoned and backed by >scientific >> >> and historical evidence. Creation is not a myth. It is an answer. > >Ok, right here you say there is scientific and historical evidence for >creationism - - I would like to see it, is all? Did I put words in your >mouth for asking for it? > >> >> >> >> So, are you going to call me ignorant and narrow minded? > >Sadly, I think you are the name caller, and dont' even recognize it. I >think you feel like the victim, which is very sad, because you DO do your >concepts an injustice by being a name caller. > >> >> >> >> When you go around spouting those kinds of insults, you are going to >get >> >> people riled. The smartest, best educated people I am personally >friends >> >> with are all Christians. That's not to say there are not terribly >bright >> >> people who are atheists and Jews and Muslims and what not. I'm saying >> >being >> >> smart and well educated and being a Christian are not mutually >exclusive >> >> states of being. >> >> > >I dont' think ANYONE here said anything about the intellectual ability of >Christians. > >> >> Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not exactly far representatives of >> >> Christianity or even fundamentalism (I'm not a fundamentalist, btw, I'm >> >> evangelical -- a Nazarene, as for sect). They are money grubbers and >media >> >> mongers. They do not represent nor speak for the majority of Christians >> >nor >> >> even a majority of fundamentalists. They just have the loudest voices. >The >> >> loudest voices always get the majority of the press coverage. You never >> >hear >> >> from the majority of Christians in this country because they are >largely >> >> quiet people. >> >> > >I don't think that the majority of Christians are anything but Christian, >including quiet. > >> >> As for what should be taught, creationism, as broadly defined, need not >be >> >> taught as a Christian theory or a Hindu theory, but just honestly. We >do >> >not >> >> know how the universe began. Some people believe it started >spontaneously. >> >> Some people believe that a creator, a being greater than ourselves is >> >> responsible. Some people believe this creator is God. Mathematically, >the >> >> odds of spontaneity are almost to mind boggling to even contemplate, >which >> >> is why even some of our brightest scientists believe in a creator. >> >> > >And in this I do agree with you - and this is what I WAS taught in biology. >We don't know how the universe began - the big bang is one theory. We dont' >know how life began but there is a theory about proteins in the soup and >lightening. This is what I learned in biology class - I think it was great. >However, to also expose kids to God as a theory of how life began is >teaching religion in public schools. > >> >> Evolution is a theory folks. Only a theory. And it should be taught as >a >> >> theory. To teach it otherwise is intellectually dishonest and to teach >our >> >> children to embrace ignorance about their universe. >> >> > >When does a theory become "fact" - ? At what point is it proven enough? I >think in the case of evolution there is an overwhelming amount of evidence >that points to the creatures on earth evolving - is it a fact? I would say >for me, there is enough evidence to accept it as fact. You might not, and >thats fine - but at what point do you believe there is enough evidence for >any theory to become fact. ? > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
