Ed
> At 05:30 AM 5/11/98 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
> >You don't just "disagree with what they" (ie. "Christian apologists") say,
> you
> >"attack" them *destructively*. I don't think I have ever heard you say
> >anything positive about any "Christian apologists.
>
> This is an interesting criticism. Yesterday I added the list of my
> publications to my web page. Go see if I didn't treat myself in the same
> fashion.
>
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/publi.htm
>
> When we are wrong, factually wrong, we have no inherent right to have
> people agree with us. And people have a duty to try to correct us. I
> personally am grateful to the many people who confronted me when I was a
> young-earth creationist. They didn't tell me my views were correct. They
> pointed out over and over and over again that what I was saying was
> contradicted by observational evidence. They didn't tell me that my views
> were as good as theirs, because my views weren't anywhere near as good as
> theirs. My views at that time were terribly misguided and someone (actually
> many) was needed to tell me clearly that I WAS WRONG!!!! Far from doing bad
> for me, they actually made me better.
>
> We don't do anyone a favor when they say something false and we act as if
> they are correct. When Don Boys, in a book introduced by Duane Gish, writes
> of Baalbek,
>
> "One of foundation stones weighs 2,000 tons, and could not
> be moved using modern equipment! How did ancient men get the job
> done?"~Don Boys, Evolution: Fact,Fraud or Faith, (Largo: Freedom
> Publications, 1994), p. 189
>
> And the Guiness book of records says that 3000 tons can be lifted by 1
> modern crane, are we to simply say OK he meant well? In fact, the man is
> factually wrong.
> >
> >I have asked you for you to state your what your Christian bona fides are, in
> >order to assess your Christian credibility in attacking leading "Christian
> apologists"
> >like Hugh Ross and Phil Johnson. But you have ignored same. In case this was
> >an oversight, I will again give you an opportunity to state what your
> Christian bona
> >fides are:
>
> Doubting my Christianity huh? I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of
> God, the maker of Heaven and Earth. He died on the cross, rose the third
> day and today sits at the right hand of God the Father. It was his
> sacrifice and his sacrifice alone that pays the penalty for my sins. My
> works don't mean a thing. Through Him, and Him alone, is one able to find
> eternal life and forgiveness of sin. Jesus is also to be the Lord of our
> lives, meaning that we are to do what we believe He has led us to do. For
> me, this means a struggle in the area of Christian apologetics, a struggle
> I might add that has little to show for it.
>
> I hope this satisfies you that I am a believer, but if it doesn't that is
> your problem.
>
> I also believe that above all, Christians, who are under the Lordship of
> Christ, should NOT engage in sloppy scholarship, sloppy research, sloppy
> logic and they should not be unwilling to correct what they say when they
> are shown to be wrong. To do less than this is to engage in all of the
> above. That is why Longisquama bothers me (it has been around for years and
> years yet never discussed in Creationist literature). That is why Philip
> Johnson saying that rodents gave rise to whales bothers me (Phillip E.
> Johnson, "A Reply to My Critics: The Evolution Debate Continued," First
> Things, November, 1990, p. 52). That is why it bothers me when Johnson says
> that rodents gave rise to bats
>
> ("A Darwinist can imagine that a mutant rodent might appear with a
> web between its toes, and thereby gain some advantage in the
> struggle for survival, with the result that the new
> characteristic could spread through the population to await the
> arrival of further mutations leading eventually to winged
> flight."~Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer's
> Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 104)
>
> Pseudogenes were around for over 10 years but were not discussed in
> antievolutionary literature until the past couple of years.
>
> When an apologist says something factually wrong, is he bringing glory or
> dishonour on the Lord? Which is it Stephen? Are we allowed to state all
> manner of falsehoods in the name of Christ? Why should I not protest that
> truth is not being served by his terrible scholarship? Consider this simple
> but clear example:
>
> Boys states:
> "Studies have been done to chart the volume and rate of
> sediment accumulation in the Mississippi delta, and it could not
> be older than 4,000 years!"~Don Boys, Evolution: Fact,Fraud or
> Faith, (Largo: Freedom Publications, 1994), p. 285
>
> A few years ago on some list I posted a calculation of how long it would
> take to deposit the sediment in the Gulf and it would be around 80 million
> years. What Boys does not understand is that he is only talking about the
> present delta which is not very thick and isn't older than 4000 years.
> 5000 years ago, the Mississippi river emptied far to the west of its
> present site. Once again, a Christian apologist got his facts wrong as
> every geologist who has studied the Gulf of Mexico would know.
>
> Stephen, it is no crime to ask Christians to get their facts correct. To
> make the kinds of mistakes that we do makes our Lord, our religion and us,
> look foolish.
>
> I would suggest that you read Ed Babinski's _Leaving the Fold_, where he
> documents several people who became atheist because Christian apologists
> were not able to answer their factual questions. And if you don't care that
> people are becoming atheists because we christians avoid correction and say
> silly things as if they were factual, then I feel sorry for you.
>
> glenn