Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: david.sienkiew...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What Drives Creationists
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 68
Sender: r...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <35fa3772.0401120029.79fc4a85@posting.google.com>
References: <5d618200.0401111519.7b1f27d0@posting.google.com> <WvlMb.63$T31.107762@news.uswest.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1073895997 49593 128.100.83.246 (12 Jan 2004 08:26:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host:  192.156.68.35
X-Spamscanner: mailbox2.ucsd.edu  (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-Spam-Level: Level 
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 67060 i0C8TwvD076774 mailbox2.ucsd.edu)

"Glenn" <glennshel...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<WvlMb.63$T31.107762@news.uswest.net>...
> "David W. Robertson" <davidwrobert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5d618200.0401111519.7b1f27d0@posting.google.com..
> ..
> > Evolution theory could allow for God to be the creator of the
> > evolutionary processes, and yet creationists would deny the occurrence
> > of macro-evolution.
> 
> No. Evolution theory could not,

Why not, sheldon?  

There are many, many christians - real christians, sheldon, not just
loud-mouthed frauds like you - who have no problem with God as the
impetus for evolution.

What do you say to them, sheldon?

> and if it did, you would have
> no idea what "creationists" would say.

How do you know THAT, sheldon?  You can barely read and certainly are
no judge of what others know or would say.

> > Indeed, creationists challenge almost any scientific data that
> > contradicts the way that they interpret the Bible.
> 
> No. Creationists, like most everyone else, challenge anything
> they do not believe is true or sound.

Pretty much sounds like the same thing expressed in another way,
sheldon, so don't look now, but you just agreed with him.  The key
phrase, of course, is "do not believe is true and sound."

> Doubtless there are some
> people who think they have interpreted everything in the Bible
> correctly, but not all. I am one that does not.

How do you interpret, "if a man strikes you on one cheek, turn to him
the other, also?"

> > [I say almost because creationists deny that the Sun revolves around
> > the Earth, although the Bible says that the Sun revolves around the
> > Earth (Joshua 10:12-13).]
> >
> No. Strike three.
> (Interlinear Bible) Joshua 10:12-13:
> "Then Joshua spoke to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah gave the
> Amorites up before the sons of Israel: and he said, Sun, stand still
> before the eyes of Israel in Gibeon! And, Moon, stand still in the valley
> of Aijalon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood still, until the
> nation was avenged on its foes. Is it not written in the Book of the
> Upright? Yea, the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens,
> and did not hasten to go down for a full day."
> 
> I suppose you would have a literalist believing that the Moon stood still
> in a valley, and that that Sun stood still before eyeballs in Gibeon.

Some literalists believe precisely that, sheldon.

> You can either choose to believe that this is just a fairy tale
> or an observation by a person.

Or something in-between, sheldon.  Consider not thinking in such
black-and-white terms, if you are capable.

< snip >