urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19

James Wynn · 09 Dec 2004, 15:02 · from 2004-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: thewynns at earthlink.net (James Wynn)
Date: Thu Dec  9 15:02:47 2004
Subject: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19
References: <20041209005328.EC2BD3956 at sitemail.everyone.net>
	<006c01c4de3a$3e4d4fa0$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<1f76173704120914561bca1dc6 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008101c4de43$317f2dd0$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>


> Though the scientific model of the universe, including the Big Bang
> and evolution, is not "accepted" in the sense of being something the
> Catholic church teaches as doctrine, it is, believe it or not, heretical
to
> deny it on the basis of the first bit of Genesis. The argument is a bit
> subtle, but basically, the ideas is that Genesis teaches that God created
> the world, but to insist that He had to do it _that way_ because the
> book says so is to limit God's freedom to create however He chooses.
> This is not to say that Catholics can't believe in seven-day creation if
> they choose. They just have to have better evidence, or at least they
> can't deny that God might have done it the other way if He wanted to.

I wasn't aware of that, but I still repudiate the generalization and I've
never met a Protestant that denied the laws of Thermodynamics.

~ Crush

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net