Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   33% of Americas Reject Evolution
Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 13 of 24 (722655)
03-24-2014 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gus
03-23-2014 5:16 PM

They don't because they don't want to believe.
No, you completely missed the mark there. Rather, Saint Augustine nailed it ("De Genese ad litteram", fourth century):
It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.
And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement.
We are very well familiar with the false and deceptive claims of "creation science". Your fellows have told us many things that we are able to verify and they have proven dead wrong each and every time. Now you and your fellows are telling us things that we cannot verify. If you were so woefully wrong about that which we could verify, why should we even consider believing you about that which we cannot verify?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gus, posted 03-23-2014 5:16 PM Gus has not replied

Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 18 of 24 (722697)
03-24-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gus
03-23-2014 5:26 PM

Have a look at The Creation Answers book, ...
Do you mean this book by Hank Hanegraaff? -- http://www.amazon.com/...Hanegraaff/dp/1400319269/ref=sr_1_1
Looking inside it, which amazon.com allows us to do, I find it so typically underwhelming. A lot of it involves theological issues, so it's rather light on "scientific" arguments. Though he does manage to make the standard stupid creationist claim about protein formation.
I remember a decade or more ago that there was some huge pissing match between evangelicals involving Hank Hanegraaff, but I forget what it was about -- such "deep theological controversies" (such as our own thread on death and the Fall) make as much sense to me as fervent arguing over situations in which someone other than Thor can pick up Mjlnir.
I did notice in one of the reader's reviews that the author does not hold to the young-earth dogma but rather allows for the earth being billions of years old. So then, Gus, if you wish to differentiate yourself from the YECs we normally encounter, you will need to present some of the material, or at least try to explain your position with respect to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gus, posted 03-23-2014 5:26 PM Gus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022