Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

On Mar 8, 5:36 pm, "David Looser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.

just curious....i only find one genesis in the king james
version....what is the deal on 2...and most Christians believe in
evolution but not of the human race.....jz