Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:04:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1164 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> > > He didn't start out with a 'divine' faith-- moreover, he
> > > DERIVED a divine faith FROM his faith in himself. And as a result, most
> > > prominent Christians had a hissy fit over it. Basically, by NOT addressing
> > > God, it violates creationist theory. Your mother may be an anthropologist
> > > who believes in the theory of evolution, and at the same time is Christian,
> > > but is she actually a CREATIONIST?
> >
> > Who said she was a creationist? You lost me on that one. The point was
> > that that you don't have to be a creationist to be a Christian.
>
> I think that was HIS point too - reread what he typed ;-)
>
>
> --
> | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
> | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
Ummm, actually looking back on the string, Steve was making the assumption
that "Darwinists" are atheists by definition. They aren't - evolution
doesn't address God. Now, a Darwinist can be an atheist, but they also may
not be, which is what my point was (despite what I wrote above). I think
Dave (oh geez, you snipped the credits line - I think it was Dave) was
saying you can't be a Darwinist AND a Creationist by definition, which I
won't argue with. The hubris that is involved is supposing that to be a
Christian, you must be a Creationist - which is probably Steve's outlook,
but I'll leave it to him to answer.
Oh, and I wasn't sure about his 6000 year date - refering to the age of the
Bible rather than the earth? Again, his comment needs clarification.
Geologically speaking, there's a staggering number of ways to figure the
earth is older than 6000 years (my favorite being sea-floor spreading
combined with magnetic pole reversal).
I suppose if he was refering to the Bible, I should ask which version: King
James? Catholic? Mormon? Jehovah's Witness? Perhaps this answers his
statement in and of itself...
:-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
