Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rch
From: rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism is not science.
Message-ID: <9537@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 14:22:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.9537
Posted: Mon Sep 17 14:22:21 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:37:18 EDT
References: browngr.1321, brunix.9455, browngr.1302, brunix.9422, browngr.1300, ihuxq.1185
Lines: 54

A very interesting explanation of the nature of the "natural" world and
the nature of miracles.  My biggest question at this point, though, is
source.  Where did you get all that from?  *I* never saw that in the
Torah.  (Again, this is more a matter of interest than sneering cynicism
[albeit I've been known to be sneeringly cynical in my time]).

As for my theories, let me defend them just a bit-- but let it be understood
that I am not claiming that these are necessarily my personal beliefs.  Just
possibilities.

If I understand you correctly, you dismiss that possibility that such stories
could get started without being grounded in truth, and moreover such truth
could not reasonably be twisted through time (declaration of independence,
etc.)  You go on to say:
> If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and Romans, why do we not
accept histories that date a mere additional 1000 years further back in time?
<

To defeat your argument, I simply turn it against yourself.  I ask you to
live by your argument.  If you are going to accept the Bible as clearly
true for the reasons you mention, then you must accept all such works, by
the same reasoning.  "If we can accept the histories of the Greeks and
Romans...."  Really?  Then I assume that you believe in Zeus and Apollo,
etc.  And of course you must accept ALL biblical works, Old Testament
*and* New [which leads to amusing contradictions] as well as all of the
apocraphal works.  In addition, there is Gilgamesh and any other ancient
texts [do you fear the wrath of Humbaba?], there are the Islamic writings,
there is simply a wealth of understanding from many sources from these
ancient times.  Thousands of Egyptions witnessed the power of Ra, and
observed that their Pharohs [ok, I can't spell] were gods.  No way that
*that* could be twisted....  Well anyway, I think you see my point.

And I don't think it that farfetched to see people believing the Dec. of
Ind. to be divine in a few thousand years.  I don't think it likely
because as time marches an and scientific awareness increases, people are
less likely to resort to the supernatural to explain historical events.
But the world of a few thousand years *ago* was much more susceptible
to such things because they had so much less science to explain their
world.

Even today, though, it is easy to see that people are gullible and will
often beleive anything you tell them.  Not all people, of course, but
many.  Tell them that a million people saw something and they may well
*not* ask to talk to them.  How many people with "Enquiring Minds" read
and believe the National Enquirer?  Enough, at least, to make it a
profitable venture for the publishers.  Yet shall people two thousand
years from now accept that tabloid as historical truth?  How about political
propoganda that has been spread by various governments at various times?
Shall history *really* believe everything that the Communists, or the
Nazis, or even our own government says?

In short, I feel that you have yet to demonstrate any real reason that the
bible cannot be seen to be fable or initial truth twisted and distorted.
Zeus be praised.