RE: offtopic helmet polishing (was Re: rm fails to remove symbolic links to directories)

["Robb, Sam" <sam dot robb at timesys dot com>]

> I think your premise is flawed anyway.  I think most creationists
> understand at least the "common ancestor" part of evolutionary theory.
> They may get it wrong and think that this means that man was descended
> from apes but they do at least have a glimmering of understanding of
> the concept.

Guess I get to be the token creationist on the list.

Regardless of some may think, my belief in a literal creation and
faith in God does *not* make me a simpleton or an idiot, thank you.
I'm of above-average intelligence, enjoy intellectual pursuits,
and until I reached the age of 30, I had no real interest in God -
so I've hardly been "brainwashed from my youth".

Yes, I believe in the literal creation.

Yes, I understand evolution (at least as well as your average,
semi-interested layman).

I *think* that I understand the general arguments from both
sides (pro-evolution/anti-creation, anti-evolution/pro-creation,
and the various mixes).

I've heard creationists who lack a basic education in the physical
sciences makes some absurd claims about biology, chemistry, etc.

I've also heard evolutionists who lack a basic education in theology
make absurd claims about the Bible and its contents as well.

At this point, I'm not sure how to resolve the apparent contradiction
between human observation and faith.  I am confident that such a
resolution *does* exist, though, even though I may never see or
understand that explanation in this life.

I am also confident that debating evolution vs. creationism is largely
useless, as the debate about how the universe came to be in its current
state is only the symptom of a deeper debate:  whether or not you believe
what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.  It's all too often just a way
of dancing around this central issue and an opportunity to make yourself
look or feel smarter than the other guy.

-Samrobb