Anyone read this yet? Its supoosed to be pretty popular?
“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
I don't know about them being PRaTT arguments. After all its Wells that wrote it. He's not exactly a Hovind, if you know what I mean. I think you would agree that he's a bit more reputable than that. But yes, I'm thinking of reading it, but I was trying to get others opinions on it before hand. “"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
Take each of the cover points and try to defend them.
We've been asking, just in the last few days for the scientific evidence for ID but no one has posted any. Maybe if you bought the book you could jump into those threads and be just devestating.
I thought it was interesting that Wells portrays himself as a defender of "Traditional Christianity." Weird, coming from a member of a sect that believes the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah.
Take each of the cover points and try to defend them.
We've been asking, just in the last few days for the scientific evidence for ID but no one has posted any. Maybe if you bought the book you could jump into those threads and be just devestating.
Where are these threads taking place? I'd like to offer some insight.
“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
Read over the Panda's thumb discussion. It makes a case that Wells is a liar; not someone you'd want to support with your money.
So quickly you condemn someone over without having reviewed the facts yourself. Say it ain't so Ned... I know you're Canadian but I'm sure you guys have a form of Due Process over there, aye? Heh. In all seriousness I'm sure its written well even if you don't like what's being written.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
You can say that folk like Dr. Dino or Ron Wyatt are simply ignorant, but Jonathan Wells has no such excuse. When he continues to post things that have been shown to be wrong, when he has the training and obvious intellegence that he exhibits, there seems no other possibility than concluding that like Jerry Falwell, Gene Scott, Pat Robertson, Henry Morris and others he is nothing but a liar.Aslan is not a Tame Lion
You can say that folk like Dr. Dino or Ron Wyatt are simply ignorant, but Jonathan Wells has no such excuse. When he continues to post things that have been shown to be wrong, when he has the training and obvious intellegence that he exhibits, there seems no other possibility than concluding that like Jerry Falwell, Gene Scott, Pat Robertson, Henry Morris and others he is nothing but a liar.
That's a pretty bold charge. Do you have anything definitive to present that I might see this lying in action?
“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
There are some very, very clear differences discussed in the Panda's thumb commentary. You should be able to check if Wells' is doing what the Panda guys says he is pretty easily.
Really, really easy if you believe the Panda guy about what he himself says he wrote. Then all you need to do is check the Wells book before you buy it.
If Wells misquoted as claimed then Wells is a liar. Period.
On which one? They are all liars and conmen. It would be easier to list what they say that is not a lie. That is a short list seen since there would be few if any entries.
One of his Lies (speaking of the specific Liar Wells now and not all of the other liars that ride on the Medicine Wagon of Televangelism) is that there is some war on Christianity by what he calls (a made up name) Dawinists. Nothing could be further from the truth as the simple fact that I and many other Christians accept the conclusions drawn from the evidence that supports the TOE proves.
On which one? They are all liars and conmen. It would be easier to list what they say that is not a lie. That is a short list seen since there would be few if any entries.
I'm not a fan of such acolytes as Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. In fact, I think they tend to do much harm to Christ. But comparing Jonathan Wells, who once was imbued by the Druid-master of evolution, to a liar is pretty bold to do. Your example of such lying is equally unfounded.
One of his Lies (speaking of the specific Liar Wells now and not all of the other liars that ride on the Medicine Wagon of Televangelism) is that there is some war on Christianity by what he calls (a made up name) Dawinists. Nothing could be further from the truth as the simple fact that I and many other Christians accept the conclusions drawn from the evidence that supports the TOE proves.
Please explain how this makes Wells a liar. If Wells believes that Darwinism at heart is a major factor in the Spirit of the Age, then that's what he believes. That doesn't make him a liar. I happen to agree with him. I'm a liar Jar, as is everyone else, but I lie not about my adamence on this point. I highly doubt that Wells somehow wouldn't actually believe what he espouses. I could just as easily say that you're lying about being a conservative christian republican because nothing you say is even remotely akin to those time-honored beliefs. The reason I don't call you a liar is because I believe that you probably earnestly feel as though you are a Christian. Whether you are not is inconsequential. All that is required is for you to have knowledge of whether or not you are making false claims. That's what a liar is, not someone who is simply incorrect on any specific matter.
But hey, all this is getting off topic. The question was, "has anyone read this book. If so, could you ofer a critique." I don't need conjecture. I don't need speculation. I don't need assertions. And if you haven't read the book then your criticism is useless to me.
“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." —G. K. Chesterton
™ Version 4.0 Beta
