From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:17:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.100057@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
(Jim
> Loucks) writes:

	I missed this the first time, so I'll stick my two cents worth on the
end of Ashlock's reply.  The following has been edited for legibility, by 
inserting carriage returns where the '>' from the newsreader have caused
line wrap-around.

>                                 [deletions]
> >Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
> >believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion." 
> >The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
> >intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
> >frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
> >proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
> >to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
> >how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
> >pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 
> 
>    Jim, I will refrain from swearing and profanity BUT do you realize what
you
> just said?  You just said that any attempt to use reason to deduce things
> about the world is an act of hubris and that we should just all accept the
> Bible instead.  From this I deduce that you think God gave us brains IN ORDER
> TO AID THE DEVIL IN DAMNING OURSELVES?!?
> 
>    Don't you EVER think through the logical implications of what you're 
>saying?
> 
>    Don't you EVER perform reality checks on your philosophy?
> 
> Also, you've managed to imply that the work of many of my friends and
> colleagues as well as my father are acts of self-destructive pride rather
than
> good hard scientific work.  This claim is made without any understanding of
> the work's content, motivation, or application and benifits.  Your arrogance,
> adopted to defend an indefensable position, beggars belief.

	I agree with Asholock's statements above.  However, note also that Jim 
is NOT BEING ARROGANT HERE!  He is being a good, humble christian in spreading 
God's message to the net.world.  Furthermore, as has been pointed out to me, we
cannot even take him to task for this; after all, it it not JIM'S messsage, it
is GOD'S message, so, as someone else said, we should 'take it up with the
author'.

>    Jim, if the best you can do is dismiss the evidence as proof of
overweening
> pride, you cause is lost.  You can only convince those that already agree
with
> you and you may annoy those with any brains or even a sense of fair play.
When
> I say the world looks old, that's not my pride speaking, its my education.

	And not just your education.  The education of a great number of people
in the areas of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, ... all 
dismissed with a casual "you're decieved".  
	Jim, you have said before that there are many areas of discussion which
you are not technically competent to discuss, like ice cores or something.  Not
that anyone expects you to know everything, but you should think about it and
understand the magnitude of the evidence you're up against.
 
>    Now produce some evidence or logic argument  or shut up.  Unproven
> assertions, repeated hundereds of times, are not proper on sci.skeptic and
> WE'VE HEARD THEM BEFORE.  You are being BORING and UNORIGINAL.  As Sue notes,
> you are refusing to explain WHY the earth looks old, except to echo the cop
> out  "Dare we question God?".  We're not questioning God, we're trying to
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> understand his putative handiwork and YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

	In answer to the above question, at least in my case, YES.  I even more
strongly question self-appointed prophets or evangelicals who claim that they
are above being questioned due to some devine fiat or personal revelation and 
are 'not responsible for what God wrote'.  
 
>     Also, where the heck is the Creation Theory FAQ (tm)?  Are you going to
be
> creationist #307 to turn out to have lied when he said there was such a
theory
> and that he'd post it some time?  If so it is a lie rooted in your foolish
> trust of dishonest people rather than any actual malice.  Doesn't the fact
> that there is no theory of creation tell you something?

	1 (One) Theory of Creation (Short Form):
		A) the Bible is the literal Word of God recorded by
		   devinely inspired writers.
		B) the theory of evolution is false
		C) see part A

Happy now Dan?
 
> Dan
> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

"Bad luck to leave a clottin' god out"
 -- Otho

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14567 alt.alien.visitors:5840 talk.religion.newage:3809