Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

"Stuffed Tiger" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:19:42 -0800, Someone <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>>Unfortunately, many in evolutionary circles would like you to believe
>>that no one believes in creationism but ignorant people. Reality is,
>>many (thousands) of educated scientists believe in creationism.
>
> That was shown to be another lie.
>

Excellent post Tiger. Just one comment, with sexual reproduction mutations 
are not necessary to drive evolution, the normal individual-to-individual 
variations are plenty.

For myself I don't believe in a personal God, but I have many friends who 
do; and they have no difficulty in accepting the truth of evolution. The 
Bible is a fascinating book, but it is clearly not a science book.

The creation story in Genesis 1 is very much the sort of thing that a 
thoughtful pre-scientific man might have imagined for the creation of the 
world and all it's inhabitants.  It's also a great bit of poetry.

Genesis 2, on the other hand, looks as though it is allegorical, though 
after the passage of time it's "hidden" meaning has become somewhat obscure. 
But that does mean that everyone can come up with his own meaning for it, 
and no-one can say he's wrong! Genesis 2 reads just like a fairy tale, full 
of talking animals and magical trees. To want to see it as an accurate 
account of actual historical events seems to me to be utterly absurd and, 
frankly, more than a little childish.

David.