Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.flame Subject: Re: Creationists are stupid Message-ID: <447@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 09:54:03 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.447 Posted: Fri Nov 9 09:54:03 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 06:22:03 EST Organization: UW Primate Center Lines: 45 > > 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