A Case for a creator

So JF, in Strobel's exhaustive search for "The Truth" why did he only interview those that agreed with what he wanted to hear?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

One, I don't think he did know what they were going to say ahead of time, and two, show me an example of something one of the professors said that was wrong that could have been refuted by including evo interviews.

Do you really think that Strobel did not research for his interviews ?Of course he had a good idea of what arguments each interviewee would use - probably before even choosing to interview them.What I want to know is why Strobel failed to include scientific experts in evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology ? Isn't the actual science relevant ?And if this review is accurate we see several errors that could have been corrected:
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/articles/strobel_cfac.htm
- Well's howlers on archaeopteryx being a case in point.

quote:

---

Of course journalists arn't the best inbetweens, but this book quotes the exact interviews, so what you said can't happen.

---

I mean no offense, but creationists are not well known for their scientific accuracy. A creationist who is also a journalist is a double whammy in my book. I don't mean to pre-judge, but I am a little skeptical as to the accuracy of the book. If I happen to go to the library I'll see if they have a copy and check it out.Secondly, a biologist or a geologist would have asked hard questions, the type of questions that us evos ask on this website. I doubt (without reading the book) that Strobell asked these questions. Either that or he accepted answers that did not answer the question. Like I said, I will withhold final judgement until I read the actual book. I am basing my judgement by the actions of other creationists so I could be totally off base.

Many critics of Strobel denounce his pro Christian view. Perhaps the focus of the debate should not be on evolution vs creationism so much as origin of life: Natural and biochemical or Supernatural.
To believe in the supernatural, one needs to experience it. It is just as ignorant to ignore the disciplines of science and education, however.The issue is basically black or white, for me. It is my belief that the Creator lives and that He interacts with us on a daily basis.
If you are a science student, you will not be judged on your beliefs regarding scientific processes and the disciplines that you have been taught. You will have to answer for your internal awareness of something (someone) greater than human wisdom and how you choose to examine and perceive this.We do choose our beliefs, and our beliefs are rooted in experience. Belief is not to be taken lightly. When I read what an atheist writes, I take it very seriously. I also take Strobel seriously, because I believe that he has committed himself to his belief. I look forward to reading the book. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-11-2005 12:49 AM

quote:

---

I mean no offense, but creationists are not well known for their scientific accuracy. A creationist who is also a journalist is a double whammy in my book. I don't mean to pre-judge, but I am a little skeptical as to the accuracy of the book. If I happen to go to the library I'll see if they have a copy and check it out.

---

Oh and evos are? Sure, you may be scientifically accurate on the things you want to be, but you twist and leave out everything that doesn't agree with your theory. For example, my textbook tells all about the Miller experiment, with pictures, and gives the results of the experiment with the correct atmosphere for the experiment with the wrong one. It doesn't even mention that the original experiment had the wrong atmosphere. Plus..leaving out the fact that they had to seperate the amino acids from the tar.. my text book says all of the things that went right and not all the things that went wrong. My textbook is not the only one as well.
Sure, I admit that one or two things in the book may be wrong. I doubt it (and yes I have read the review that someone else posted and don't agree with it) Most textbooks used today and a lot of books about evolution have a lot more errors and lies than The Case for A Creator. Secondly, a biologist or a geologist would have asked hard questions, the type of questions that us evos ask on this website. I doubt (without reading the book) that Strobell asked these questions. Either that or he accepted answers that did not answer the question.[/quote]I will admit that the questions he asked might not be that hard, but thats why this forum is here, so we can discuss which questions should have been asked. Secondly, some of this book, and possibly most, was disproving evolution and not proving creationism. So yes try and get it from your library, and thanks for admitting that you have not read it and therefore could be wrong.Spellcheck by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-11-2005 22:15 AM

You say this as if you're talking about the people here, but you go on to give an example from a textbook. Are you saying that people here are making misrepresentations? Have you so soon forgotten your The lies behind the Miller experiment thread where after weeks of cajoling you still failed to post anything from your textbook about the Miller experiment? You had the opportunity to make this case, and you chose not to. How can you in good conscience enter a new thread and proceed as if your failure in the other thread had never happened? So far you haven't been able to supply evidence for even one case of textbook error. Go back to your old thread and so do now for the Miller Experiment.By the way, scientists would agree with you about the sorry state of textbooks. A famous instance is when Richard Feynmann reviewed some science textbooks for the state of California, and he found them uniformly dismal. As people told you in the other thread, if you find some actual problems in textbooks we'll be the first to agree with you that it's very sad. But the problem stems more from that those who understand science go off and do science, while those who don't understand science write textbooks. Public school science textbooks are for the most part not written by scientists but by laypeople.--Percy

quote:

---

Oh and evos are? Sure, you may be scientificly accurate on the things you want to be, but you twist and leave out everything that doesn't agree with your theory. For example, my textbook tells all about the miller experiment, with pictures, and gives the results of the experiment with the correct atmusphere for the experiment with the wrong one.

---

Well, the Miller experiment has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, so I don't understand what you are on about. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution is about how that life diversified into what we see today. In addition, Miller's experiment is far from the best evidence for abiogenesis to begin with. New studies with catalytic RNA and other means of amino acid formation are much more exciting than the Miller-Urey experiments.What the Miller-Urey experiments did show was that amino acids could form naturally outside of the cell. Even if he used to wrong atmosphere the reality remains that amino acids can form naturally without the aid of life.

quote:

---

I will admit that the questions he asked might not be that hard, but thats why this forum is here, so we can discuss which questions should have been asked.

---

This type of discussion should have been in the book if Strobell was truly unbiased. But hey, we all have our biases.

quote:

---

Secondly, some of this book, and possibly most, was disproving evoloution and not proving creationism.

---

That is a distinction that most creationists do not see. You should be commended.

One of the many things that are wrong with text books is that, with short funds, some are used much longer than they should be. If that isn't the case the "new" editions often just copy older ones.When I was in grade 7 out socials text had a chapter on dinosaurs and "cave" men. The dinos were said to have died out 5 million years ago. I, as usual, loved finding errors and eventually got my teacher (not easy) to admit that it was wrong. The figures at the time were from 60 to 70 million years. While this was a looong time ago that I was that young it wasn't so long to give a differnt answer.I think, but no longer remember for sure that the text at the time was originally written pre WWII. It was still in use 25 years later.The age of the text or the material is it built from is important when considering it as a source.

Regardless of the sorry state of textbooks, JESUS freak is indirectly accusing the scientific community of a universal conspiracy against any form of science that does not correlate with the theory of evolution. This in itself is absurd given the fact that science is tentative in nature and will change in light of new evidence.Because of the tangental discussion on textbooks, the spotlight has been taken off of JESUS freak to provide concrete evidence on the misrepresentation of science in modern textbooks or the credibility of a biased journalist. I suggest shining it back at him.

Please show us an example where this has happened. Please provide us with documentation of the lies found in science textbooks.Please either provide the support as requested or withdraw your claims of lies.

---

Suffice it to say, if it is wrong for textbooks to do it then it is wrong for Strobell to do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is depressing that high school biology textbooks are most often the least reliable "scientific" source for information in biology. College texts are much more reliable, but the stuff that is forced onto high schools is often lacking.

If you remember Jesusfreak's first ever thread was about lies in textbook - a claim that he was eventually (after about 150 posts of dodging the issue) he was forced to admit was totally false.The same will happen here.

I believe that Strobel was an atheist/agnostic turned Christian who later adapted the creationist belief system. Surely you do not mean that a Christian who believes in a literal living God and a supernatural reality is ignorant of science. As for the literal belief in creationism ala AiG, I am in agreement with you that it is a bit naive.

I'd say that Strobel is willingly ignorant of science and that his choice of "experts" was to promote that ignorance.