Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: From one piece of 'dust' to another.
Message-ID: <403@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-May-85 09:46:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.403
Posted: Thu May  2 09:46:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 08:16:42 EDT
References: <1924@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 72


[My apologies for the previous posting of this response - it was a first
 draft and differs significantly from this final version, most notably
 at the end.]

>[From: arndt@lymph.DEC, Message-ID: <1924@decwrl.UUCP>]
>
>Beth (JB) states:
>>
>>"Creationists don't usually deal with the issue of where that really
>>unique form of life came from, and when they do they usually make
>>wierd faces and say something like "It always existed".  But they
>>do seem to believe that life on earth came from non-life, especially
>>if they buy the Genesis account of God creating Adam from dust (and of
>>course, the old dust to dust stuff)."

Just to clarify things a bit:
As I attempted to explain to Paul in an earlier posting, the point of
bringing up the origin of the creator was to merely distinguish that
concept from the concept of the origin of life *on earth*.  It was poorly
phrased, but it was most certainly *not* meant to say that anyone should
*have to* explain it (just as I am here not meaning to imply they don't
have to).  It's just that, with occasional exceptions, I find it easier
to deal with one major point at a time, and I was trying to be overly
precise.  My apologies for the confusion it's caused.

But since you brought it up...
>....
>The whole POINT of 'where that really unique form of life came from' is
>what Creationism is all about!!!
>...
>                           The Christian says God is eternal and the 'ground
>of being' behind which it is not possible to go.  If you ask who/what caused
>God you ask a nonsense question since the definition of God precludes the
>question.

The first quote seems to say that the POINT of Creationism is to answer
'where that really unique form of life came from'.  The second clearly
states that that question can't be answered.  They're mutually exclusive,
Ken.

Now for the response:

What I said:
I believe it's the case that even creationists believe that life on earth
came from non-life.  The issue is *how* it did it.  Did non-living things
rearrange themselves randomly until they were able to get up and go to
the refrigerator during commercial breaks?  Or did some really unique
form of life rearrange the non-living stuff into living stuff?

What Ken said:
>NO Creationists don't believe life came from non life!!  Life came from
>the living God.  Since you use the example of man from the dust I speak of
>the life of man.  The 'life' God 'breathed'- whatever that means it meant
>something to the 'primative' men who first wrote it down and IS a description
>of some use - into man.

Would someone out there be kind enough to point out the difference between
"The 'life' God 'breathed'...into man" and "some really unique form of life
rearrange[d] the non-living stuff into living stuff"?

>I'd like to meet your creationists.

Ken Arndt, may I introduce Ken Arndt.


The rest of your article is mud-slinging, Ken.  I'll leave that to you.

-- 

--JB  (not Elizabeth, not Beth Ann, not Mary Beth...Just Beth)