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.