Replies

>>"Then I should be overwhelmed. But I'm not."<<

Perhaps this is because you ignore the possibility of supernatural intervention!

>>"It may help in understanding my attitude to know that I've been actively participating in these evolution/creationism threads for more than three years, and the ID arguments and authors have been rather exhaustively dealt with."<<

Three years! I can't even imagine! I was frustrated and exhausted with this thread alone! This does shed some light on your attitude and thank you for telling me.

>>"I find their claims lacking, at least at this stage."<<

I understand.

>>"But as I said, when they produce some truly persuasive evidence, I'll be there."<<

I truly hope and pray so, kiddo, because (in the words of Geisler, continuing from the previous quote): "Love only works persuasively!" I admire your not squandering your skepticism without good reason. Of course, I believe there is good reason and truly persuasive evidence and hope I'm not mistaken in believing that you are going to continue the search -- NOT necessarily in these exhausting debates, but by reading the Bible cover to cover before making any decisions. I also again recommend Lee Stroebel's book as well as Colson's for your level of intellect.

>>"He repeatedly claims that "all of science" disproves evolution, that "all Nobel prize" winners (in the relevant categories) disprove evolution, that he has successfully refuted all claims against creationism, etc. So it's not unreasonable to press him for his opinion on the age of the earth."<<

Hmmm. Does 3000 agree that your characterization of his beliefs are correct? I would say this for the sake of discussion: That all of science points to evolution, but probably not for the reasons you'd like. Science has been misappropriated and is used however fantastically to "prove evolution." There once was a time when science was used to build the case for God.

3000: Have you claimed that you have successfully refuted all claims against creationism? If so, that's one hell of a claim, kiddo! I do believe that there have been many successful refutations of claims against creation and claims for evolution, but I don't believe any one person can claim authorship -- I believe, first of all, that God refutes these claims quite successfully in both word and deed, and secondly that the refutations of claims against creation have been an accumulative effort, which continues.

May the best ideology and true worldview win!

To: PatrickHenry

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
Date: 13th century
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

28 posted on 12/11/2002 10:12 AM PST by f.Christian

There once was a time when science was used to build the case for God.

I'm not sure that's true. Greek science was, of course, developed in a culture which is outside of our theology, and I don't think the Greeks used their logic, geometry, etc. to build a case for their Olympian gods either. Science in the modern world pretty much started with Galileo, and you know the story of his problems with religious authorities. Before Galileo, there was Aquinas, who tried to use logic (not what we'd call "science") to prove the existence of God. His proofs, although ingenious, never really succeeded (otherwise, faith wouldn't be necessary). The Five Ways of Proving that God Exists. So I really don't know of any attempts to use science to prove God's existence. I don't see how science -- which is limited to working with testable phenomena like matter and energy -- could deal with such an issue.

Perhaps this is because you ignore the possibility of supernatural intervention!

Yes, for lack of evidence. As long as a natural explanation is available, and testable, and it fits the evidence, I see no need to leap to supernatural causes, which cannot be tested. Admittedly, it's a mindset, but that's the mindset that has created our technological civilization.

Three years! I can't even imagine! I was frustrated and exhausted with this thread alone! This does shed some light on your attitude and thank you for telling me.

That's only the beginning of it. When you've been around a while, you'll see the same old arguments being refuted again and again, only to be brought up yet again in a new thread -- by the same people! It does get tiresome, and it can shape one's attitude toward those who play by such rules.