A Case for a creator

quote:

---

This book is by Lee Strobell. It interviews various experts as a journalist trys to disprove Creationism. Very good and enjoyable read and very accurate. Let me know what you think.

---

Is it me, or wouldn't a geologist or biologist be in a better situation to write a book such as this? Nothing against journalists, but I always get a chuckle when they try and write an article on a scientific topic. Their writing is usually full of errors. One example of this was discussed in a recent thread on neanderthals. The differences between modern human and neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was about half (being lenient) of that between humans and chimps. The lay journalist turned this into "neanderthals are halfway between us and chimps". Of course, this was absolutely incorrect.Not trying to go off topic, just trying to demonstrate that a journalist may not be the best arbiter for such a book.

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.

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.

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.

JF,Thanks or supplying the section from that text book. Let's take a closer look at it.

quote:

---

What Miller and Urey demonstrated, is that however life first formed, the basic building blocks of life were most likely present on Earth during the Archean.

---

So the textbook leaves the door open for aliens planting life on earth, or even special creation of the first life forms. All that phrase is saying is that amino acids can form through processes that don't involve living organisms. This is what the Miller-Urey experiment showed. Before this time it was thought that only life could produce amino acids, or that the formation of amino acids required a stringent mechanisms. Miller-Urey proved that idea was wrong. Amino acids can be formed in very simple reactions.