Re: the atheist question

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:30:07 -0500

At 04:51 PM 4/16/98 -0500, J.D. Guzman wrote:

>>At 12:28 PM 4/15/98 -0500, J.D. Guzman wrote:

>>>Now you seem to base you premise on the "fact" that Christians can't
>>>observational data. Let me ask you, are Christians the only ones that
>>>handle observational data? I would venture to say that even among the
>>>scientific of people there will always be a reluctance to avoid or
>>>evidence that is contrary to ones opinions.
>>Granted. But this is the argument my children used to give me when they
>>wanted to go to a party that I didn't want them going to. "Johnny's dad
>>lets him go!" They used to say. So instead of dealing with the way you and
>>other anti-evolutionists OUGHT to behave, you merely point to the
>>misbehavior of others. Well, those others are not Christians, are not held
>>to a christian standard and are not supposed to be serving the Lord of
>>Lords. Under this condition, who do you think OUGHT to behave better--the
>>atheist or the Christian? What you are offering is like saying Johnny is
>>dumb so I want to be dumb also. It is a self defeating position.

J.D. You are answering yourself above. I didn't write the words behind the
You did.
>First of all let me clarify that I am far from being an anti-evolutionist,
>however, I am disapointed at the way evolution is touted around as if it
>were the only explanation to life.

So do you believe in evolution? If you do, then you are not an
antievolutionist. If you don't you are. The only out I guess would be for
you to say that you are agnostic about evolution.

>The reason that I brought up the above argument was not to throw the
>responsibility to the other side but rather to cause you to realize that
>Christians aren't the only ones that can misinterpet facts, scientist can,
>and do, too. In light of this shouldn't the question you asked be
>suplumented with the additional question of how are we to know that
>scientist are correct?

Where scientists talk about things in the observable world, one can go
observe the same thing the scientist observed. That is how you tell if they
are correct or not. Go look.

>I admit that some Christians make the very bold assertions that the Earth is
>only 6000-10000 years old. I will also tell you that when asked for some
>decent evidence of this most people have nothing to say. Personally I find
>the young earth theory very shakey, and I believe that even this is granting
>it too much credibility. The flip side to all of this is that even in the
>scientific arena we can find people that manipulate facts, and falsify data
>to agree with their theories.

Can you name names and cite these facts? I hear young-earth creationists say
these things and when I go check out the "facts" they say are manipulated, I
find that the young-earthers are wrong.

>It is true, as you pointed out in you rhetorical question, that Christians
>should be setting an example. Personally I am ashamed when Christians do
>such ill mannered things, however, seeing how we are human I don't think
>that there will be a stop to this any time in the near future.

I agree that it won't stop. But until Christians tell other Christians to
get their facts correct and tell other Christians to stop being
ill-mannered, NOTHING will change. In fact silence becomes acquiescence.

>>Can you refresh my memory on this. In general I tend to hold that the
>>Genesis account is entirely historical. Is there a mis-spelling or two?
>>yes. But that is well documented. So please remind me of specifically what
>>you think I don't believe happened in the Scripture.
>I would like to apologize for the above comment. I made the mistake of
>confusing you with someone else.

No problem. I often confuse myself with someone else also.

>Well it is true that this Christian will in all likelihood be start to ask
>himself questions as he progresses in his education; however, I don't think
>that this would happen if the Bible wasn't taken as scientific text. The
>Bible main purpose is to be a spiritual guide, and due to the content it can
>also be considered a historical document.

Now we have made some progress. If the Flood is a historical account, then
it must have left SCIENTIFIC evidence of itself. This is where the science
comes into the equation. Science is one of the means by which history is
>As to the resurrection that is believed by faith. That it is documented in
>a book called the Bible is secondary. Even if the Bible didn't exist I
>would still accept the resurrection, because I have faith that it happened.

I agree that the resurrection must be held by faith. But if the credibility
of those who inform me of the resurrection is in question because they can't
get their facts correct, even simple facts, then why should anyone believe
that they know what they are talking about when it comes to the
resurrection? And if the earlier Christians were as lousy at getting their
facts straight as are the modern ones, then the resurrection is
questionable. Credibility is everything when it comes to the historical
events in Christianity.


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood