My friend just recommended a book to me called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. I have yet to read it, but from what he says, it sounds like a very interesting book. Have you guys read it, what are your thoughts?
The Case for a Creator
- Thread starter Azndude51
- Start date
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Way to link, Elite.Originally posted by: Evadman
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
make me a sammich bitch.
http://www.misetings.com/gallery/albums/userpics/tings/donttouchmysammich.jpg">Text</a>
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
the book why i am not a christian by philosopher bertrand russell is better
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm exerpt
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm exerpt
Originally posted by: Evadman
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
make me a sammich bitch.
http://www.misetings.com/gallery/albums/userpics/tings/donttouchmysammich.jpg">Text</a>
wow, an Elite Member with 22.5K posts and STILL can't link.
It looks like a pro-Intelligent Design book that "proves" points by knocking down straw men.
Amazon reviewer "Rob Z":
"I was given this book by a concerned friend who had never bothered to read it. I am both a scientist and a christian and I found offensive Strobel's frequent insinuations that anyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. He frequently uses intext citations to bolster his assertions about atheism and his alleged claims of science. If you take the time to check his citations you will find that the great majority of them are outdated or false. He quotes biology textbooks as claiming there is no need for God and instead of citing the actual textbook, the citation leads to another one of his books as the source. He attempts to use the "latest" scientific information to refute "outdated" evolution claims but check the citations and even those few citations actually from scientifically valid sources are decades old. I see in a number of the reviews for this book the term appropriate for a lay person. This is actually not true. It is precisely the layperson who will not check the citations and sources to see if the author has actually substantiated anything. He has not. "
Amazon reviewer "Rob Z":
"I was given this book by a concerned friend who had never bothered to read it. I am both a scientist and a christian and I found offensive Strobel's frequent insinuations that anyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. He frequently uses intext citations to bolster his assertions about atheism and his alleged claims of science. If you take the time to check his citations you will find that the great majority of them are outdated or false. He quotes biology textbooks as claiming there is no need for God and instead of citing the actual textbook, the citation leads to another one of his books as the source. He attempts to use the "latest" scientific information to refute "outdated" evolution claims but check the citations and even those few citations actually from scientifically valid sources are decades old. I see in a number of the reviews for this book the term appropriate for a lay person. This is actually not true. It is precisely the layperson who will not check the citations and sources to see if the author has actually substantiated anything. He has not. "
Somewhat related, here is an article from last year's Dover trial on teaching Intelligent Design in science classes.
York Daily Record
"Behe's 15th-century science
MIKE ARGENTO
HARRISBURG - Dr. Michael Behe, leading intellectual light of the intelligent design movement, faced a dilemma.
In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.
So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit.
He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition.
Details aside, his definition was broader and more inclusive of ideas that are "outside the box."
So, as we learned Tuesday, during Day 11 of the Dover Panda Trial, under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would be a scientific theory.
...."
York Daily Record
"Behe's 15th-century science
MIKE ARGENTO
HARRISBURG - Dr. Michael Behe, leading intellectual light of the intelligent design movement, faced a dilemma.
In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.
So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit.
He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition.
Details aside, his definition was broader and more inclusive of ideas that are "outside the box."
So, as we learned Tuesday, during Day 11 of the Dover Panda Trial, under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would be a scientific theory.
...."
The problem is that the "evolution theory" doesn't really explain things. It takes more than a couple billion years to go from random protein chains in a puddle of water to a neffing ATOT'r who craps on all religion threads while stockpiling Jessica Alba pics, lol.
There is a hole in the fossil record as well. Who knows what really happened? Not I.
There is a hole in the fossil record as well. Who knows what really happened? Not I.
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,296
- 16
- 81
Not only is it highly unlikely that anyone here has read this, it's unlikely that any of us ever will read that pile of dog feces of a book. The only possible "case" for a "Creator" that anyone can "build" goes something like this: "I don't understand how the universe works or got started, ergo, a Creator must exist."
Which is utterly stupid.
Haven't read it but it probably like Hovind's BS so here is a little something to help you with the book:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm
Yeah, almost as stupid as the theory of evolution, lol.
No, really... DNA just formed on it's own in a puddle! :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter