> > 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.
I thinik that narrow-minded and intellectually challenged are entirely different. Very intelligent folks can be narrow minded. Main Entry: nar�row-mind�ed Pronunciation: "nar-O-'mIn-d&d, "nar-&- Function: adjective Date: 1625 : lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision : PETTY It would help if you responded inline. > 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. Creation is a theory. it is also a word that applies to other things than that theory. I can create a mess and it doesn't presuppose the theory creation, it supposes that _I_ created a mess. : crea�ture 1 : something created either animate or inanimate: as a : a lower animal; especially : a farm animal b : a human being c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature <creatures of fantasy> > > 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. ? > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
