HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:03:35 GMT

u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>Hate to waste bandwidth, but having just completed evolution in Biology, I
>noticed that the order of appearance of things is EXACTLY THE SAME AS THAT
>STATED IN GENISIS CHAPTER 1...

If you read the first two chapters carefully, you'll notice a couple of things:

There are not one, but two creation stories in genesis, and they have quite
different focuses.

The first story is in a very structured form of _poetry_. Each 'day' ends with
something along the lines of "and that was the nth day". It is clearly in the
form of a responsive reading where the common line at the conclusion of each
day is intended to be read by the audience. My guess is that it was used in
the early jewish temple to praise God, the creator of heaven and earth, and
was never intended to be a literal historical account; although I noticed the
parallel with evolution also.

The second story dramatises how sin divides mankind from a perfect God; it uses
strong imagery, and traditionally has involved the personification of Adam
(hebrew for 'Man') and Eve (very similar to another hebrew word, which I can't
remember currently). The story is also traditionally somewhat misrepresented
in other ways; there is no mention of an apple for instance.

Note that neither of these stories focuses on How everything was created, which
is quite appropriate if you read it in context and consider whether a full
explanation would have meant anything to the ancient Isrealites . But don't
just take my word for it; read it yourself and the hit the flame button. The
more I find out about what these creation stories actually say, and the
context in which they arose, the less conflict I see between them an science.

regards,
Graham

>P.S. I plan to use this in an essay next year, so if you relay it in any way,
>  just make sure that my name stays on it. Plagiarism is not taken lightly
>  here at Wollongong, and this will be the basis of the entire essay.

You may cite my article in your essay if you like :-). Don't rip it off though.
-- 
Graham Stoney. Ph: +61-2-805-2909.         Totally unrelated message follows:
Since 1972, more than 40 innocent people have been sentenced to death in the
USA. Fortunately, most of them had the verdict overturned, before they could
be executed.
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 25 Aug 92 07:35:31 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Fraser Wilson (fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU) wrote:
> [ exchange deleted ]
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is a tired old argument.  It comes down to "You know
> very little about the Universe, so you can't say that there isn't a God"
> The final statement, "Evolution is a fact" is quite true, it's as much
> a fact as many other things we take for granted.  I've heard the cry "Oh,

That's not the point I was making at all.  It is a fact that scientist's
views on many theories have changed as they found out more.  To say that
evolution is immune from change seems a bit strong.

> It is true that in the future evolution may turn out to be completely wrong.
> But only if a lot of things which we take for granted also turn out to be
> wrong.  Finding the general idea of evolution incorrect is like waking up in
> the morning to a green sky.

For someone who believes in it so strongly.  :-)

Let me take this opportunity to say that I'm am still unsure as to which way
to jump.  I raised this topic because I became convinced that it was more than
a side issue and I have reported what I was told on Friday night.  I also
pointed out a few things about evolution that I think contradict Christianity
from a philosophical/theological viewpoint.  I do still think it is more than
a side issue.  Even if evolution is true as many have been saying then it is
still important because then there is a Christian group out there (CSF)
telling blatant lies and convincing other people they are telling the truth.
I think it's important we find out what the truth is regarding what are quite
serious allegations.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:31:27 GMT

fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>It could be, but it worries me that God said "be fruitful and multiply",
>rather than "be fruitful and multiply until there's no room left."
>The only way that the command is compatable with the Earth as we know
>it is for the animals to eat each other.

I know what you mean and I would be kidding myself if I thought that I
knew all the answers.  My explanation (I'm sure some of you would call
it a cop out) lies in your statement 'with the Earth as we know it'.
That's the whole point I've been trying to make.  Back then we don't
know the world.  We can't even begin (well, maybe we can begin in a limited
way) to imagine what it was like.  I think the problem lies in the bible
stating a few things about what happened and then we try to apply today's
laws of nature to it.

>>Why, couldn't the plants grow again?, etc...

>You must be aware of what happens when populations grow too large ...
>the plants tend to get wiped out, the animals starve to death,
>the plants grow again, and the animal population grows again.
>Generally, this only happens when the population of animals is
>allowed to grow unbounded, ie when there are no predators.

True enough for today, but what about back then?  If it was perfect and
plants grew without need for us tending to them how do we know the rate at
which they grew?  Again I'm not saying this _is_ what happened, just a
possible explanation.

>>What do you mean?  Is it when God says that we can eat everything or that
>>we cannot eat meat which still has the lifeblood in it?

>About eating meat after being told not to in Gen 29.

The only thing I can think of at the moment is now that death had entered
the world there exists a predator-prey relationship between all the animals,
including us.  Back then death was nonexistent so it wouldn't make sense
to kill something - the concept of death wasn't even known.  If it was and
Adam and Eve knew about it I don't think they would have succumbed to
temptation so easily (assuming they linked it to disobeying God that is).


>Fraser.

Phil Malin
psm@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:58:53 GMT

ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:
>>ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>>>greyham@research.canon.oz.au (Graham Stoney) writes:
>>>>Do you know if there's any biblical basis for this strange metamorphism?.

>Jesus said (John 6:56) "My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink".

He also said that he offered "living water, so that if you drink of it, you
will never go thirsty". It seems quite plain that Jesus used simple but
powerful metaphors that would be well understood by the people of the day,
and it seems to me that transubstantiation is a really complex and quite
unnecessary doctrine that doesn't really fit in with anything else that Jesus
taught.

>                             But he goes further:

He extends the metaphor.

>        He even says some people are sick and have died because of it.
>Now, if its just a symbol, why would eating and drinking it unworthily
>be so serious?

My interpretation is that the intention in the first place was that Christians
would meet and share a meal together so that they could remember Jesus, and be
encouraged by one another; not the creation of some mystical ritual. At the
time, the Corinthian church was in a _big_ mess, and some people were severely
overdoing it, getting blind drunk, and not caring at all about their fellow
christians: hence the big reprimand.

>The body of Jesus stands under the appearance of the bread and wine.

This speaks for itself I think. Pure rhetoric.

>You can't stop people from thinking and trying to understand truth.

Well I hope people do think _more_ about it, not less; and I hope they thirst
desperately for the truth such that they find it. Problem is that you have to
think on a level orders of magnitude higher to accept transubstantiation than
you do to recognise a simple metaphor; and Jesus tore down the Pharisee's when
they forced that sort of thing on people.

regards
Graham
-- 
Graham Stoney. Ph: +61-2-805-2909.         Totally unrelated message follows:
Since 1900, there are 23 known cases of innocent people being put to death in
the USA; but since the execution ends any effort to investigate possible
misscarriages of justice, the real figure is certainly much higher.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Bain & Company, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:31:05 GMT

The Nightstalker (pope@physics.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
> Callum made one remark that Darwin started out with an anti religious bias.
> My poor knowledgde of history tells me this is wrong, and that he even 
> apologised afterwards, not meaning evolution to be in competetion with
> christianity.

I'm only relaying what I was told.  I have also heard that later Darwin
was converted and said something along the lines of what you have above.
Maybe he had an anti-religious bias before that.

regards,
    Callum
-- 
Callum Gibson                           callum@bain3.bain.oz.au
Eyeball Temporary Analyst/Programmer    BH : +61 2 258 1620
Fixed Income Division                   Fax: +61 2 258 1128
Bain & CO, Sydney, Australia.           AH : :-)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall)
Subject: Scepticism: a mandatory reply
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:32:28 GMT

markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes:

*Scepticism is a powerful aid in sorting sense from nonsense. (I can almost
*feel a response from Greg coming).

I wouldn't want to disappoint.

Hmmm..  Scepticism is a powerful aid to that end.  I agree
entirely.  Of course, you ought to be sceptical about 
scepticism too.  It's a useful tool for certain ends, but
it's not a sensible end in itself.

Best wishes,

Greg

--
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Greg Restall      | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland
gar@cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072  Australia.
------------------+------------------------------------------------
Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe.
        - Bruce Cockburn, from the album "Nothing but a Burning Light"
From: tsl@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Leask)
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:39:11 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

All this talk about animals being vegetarian before the Fall and that
there was no death before then seems to be over looking one thing.
Plants are living things too!! If they are being eaten and digested
surely this would kill them would it not ?
I hate to think of the problems that would occur in the body if cells never
died ! Cancers would be occurring all over the place.
I think Greg's explanation that the death being talked about
does not refer to physical death makes a lot more sense.

Tim
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: Creation & Evolution - the great side issue.
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:48:32 GMT

callum@bain3.bain.oz.au (Callum Gibson) writes:

>Okay.  If God created a world with perfection, is it not true that he would
>have created it without death as described in Genesis 1 & 2?  Well, maybe this
>is a point of contention.  I would have thought if a perfect relationship
>existed between man and God then it would be silly to have them up and die
>on Him.

Well, perhaps the first person (people) were immortal.  Maybe the lack
of small steps between Erectus (i think) and Sapiens is due to the fact
that an Erectus gave birth to the first person out of the blue.  A
miracle, in fact.

> or we weren't vegetarians,

We are vegetarians.  Most of you just don't know it.

>Let's not get off the topic.  I am suggesting that evolution provides an
>excuse (to those who want one) that God does not exist.

This is probably true, although it is not my reason.  I have plenty of
reasons.  I don't particularly like the word 'excuse' here.  Seems to
imply that one is doing something wrong, only one has a reason for it.

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:42:22 GMT

In article <9221810.29240@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:
>ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>
>>Or perhaps the present people are out of step with Catholicism as 
>>practised throughout the ages, and the Pope is in step. 
>
>Unpopular religion is doomed.  Whether he's right or not, unless enough
>people follow it, it's on the way out and we're all off to hell.
>
>Life on the edge.

Just maybe a slightly unrelated comment to add to this little thread:

Give me life over religion, anyday.
I guess many out there feel the same?

"I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more
abundantly."  (John 10:10)

Regards,
Selbyn
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================
From: lbarrass@phillip.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Revival Centres
Date: 24 Aug 92 17:54:40 GMT
Organization: RMIT (Bundoora Campus)

There is an agressive Christian-like fringe group in Melbourne called the
Revival Centres of Australia. They have some very weird doctrines including
British Israelism and Baptismal regeneration. They also say you must speak in
tongues to be saved. If anybody has information on their origin/history as well
as theology, or know of references, could they please e-mail me.


	"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love
	 I have become as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal"  1Cor 13:1
                                                                (NKJV)





-- 
                                               []
                                            [][][][]
                                               []
                                               []
                                               []   2Chron 7:14
================================================================================
lbarrass@phillip.edu.au                     Lindsay     
================================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:31:44 GMT

Greg Restall writes:
>markc@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU () writes lots of interesting
>things, with lots of information about how the CSF operates.
>I do not know whether or not they are true.  So I shall not
>comment on them.  But something else needs comment:

*Callum , if you believe that Creation is essential to christianity, then 
*christianity is in serious trouble. I hope you will do some independent 
*research and rconsider your opinion.

>Mark, I believe that Creation is essential to Christianity.
>I also believe that the biblical account of Creation is 
>compatible with current scientific theory.  Is my belief
>in serious trouble?

*Yours in Scepticism,
*Mark C.

>yours with interest,

>Greg

Well I should say that I meant Creation in the sense that God created 
the world in 6 24 hour days exactly as described in Genesis, rather than 
a belief that God was the creator of the world. 
As for whether your belief is in serious trouble, well I'm an atheist
so I would have to say yes! But not because of creation. That however is 
a side issue.

That is the way the CSF operates by the way. I speak from considerable 
personal experience of the subject.

Mark C.
p.s I got the package you sent. I will reply soon. (Hopefully).





Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew)
Subject: Re: Becoming Catholic
Organization: Electrical and Electronic - University of Melbourne 
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 09:09:12 GMT

In article <9223221.23851@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson) writes:

>>Why may also these same people instinctively call
>>to "God" when they are in real trouble and may even make some hopeful
>>prayer?
>
>I don't :-)

Maybe you don't know what real trouble is? :-)

>>If there is nothing in it, why does it prick the consciences and make one
>>feel uneasy?
>
>Oh, it doesn't.  My conscience is clear, only it's fun arguing about it.
>
So, do you claim that you are sinless in thought, word, or deed?

>I don't think it's anything to do with being tough.  I went to Sunday
>school when I was a chap, and I went to a church in Sydney recently
>to watch my Own True Love sing in the choir.  I've seen it, I've looked
>hard at it, I was impressed by the power of the occasion but I don't
>believe it and it's not for me.

Real coool.  True, Jesus Himself also said that He came for those who
need it, not those who (think they) are well and doing fine.

>>If Christians are fools, why do
>>they rather have people think they are fools than give up their faith?
>
>Because they don't believe that they are fools.  And, by the way, I'm
>not claiming that Christians in general are.  I mean, I just saw Clive
>Robertson on _Face the Press_ a few minutes ago, he was talking to
>God the other day I believe, and he is certainly no fool.
>
In fact, I made myself like a fool that I may become wise.  The message
of the cross that I believe in is indeed foolishness to human thinking.
I don't mind people telling me that they think I'm crazy, because that
only confirms my faith anyway.  The Christian gospel is seemingly
foolish but it is powerful stuff - unfortunately, many Christians
themselves do not realise that it is more powerful than they think it is.
There are countless evidences that back up the gospel, of healings and
miracles, and especially of lives changed dramatically.

>>If it is all a lie and a delusion, why are sensible people all over then
>>world still embracing it?
>
>Why are sensible people all over the world embracing lots of other
>religions?
>
Because people are looking for something.  At least they are looking :-(

>>Is there anyone out there who wants to live a  
>>lie?
>
>No, but you don't believe that it is a lie.
If it is a lie, and have nothing in it but song singing and ceremonies,
I would have long gone and join the world and people like you :-)

Overall, a set of very logical answers from a very logical person.
Cheers Fraser!

sliew
==========================================================================
Dept. of EE Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
EMAIL: sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au    PH: +61-3-3447976   FAX: +61-3-3446678
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.religion
From: ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the common cup
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:28:19 GMT

pieloor@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Jason Pieloor) writes:

>boutland@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (John Boutland) writes:

>>Has anyone given any thought to the possible risk of becoming
>>HIV+ from the shared communion cup ? 

>I remember one paper declaring
>that a scientist had said that to catch aids from kissing, 15 gallons of saliva
>would have to be shared.  Phew! (Yuckie)

Presumably that means to be 100% sure of getting HIV. On first read it
sounds like the scientist thinks it's a toxin, and that less than a certain
amount is safe. Whereas you'd think that less exposure means less risk
to  some extent since its a virus.

If 15 gallons means 100% certainty, and if it`s directly proportional, doesn't
that make 1 ml have about .0014% chance? (15gall=100%,1pint=600ml=.83%,
100ml=.14, 1ml=.0014) (Does 1ml sound about right for saliva?)

I'm lousy at statistics, but doesn't that mean that (though individual's chances
remain tiny) if 100 churches of 50 weekly communicants each (and each with one
HIV+ communicant who is also a bit dribbly), then the chances of one person 
being infected is up to 7%, about 4 people per year? Please correct me if my 
rough math or stats or figures are wrong, but if they're vaguely correct then
it might be prudent for HIV+ people to take communion last, or arrange with
the priest to use a separate vessel or something. 

Of course, if the wine is hostile to the virus, the chances would be lessened,
etc. etc. Some scientific facts would be helpful though, this is really just
speculation.

-ricko