the case for a creator by lee storbel

[Didymus]

very interesing but also reads like a text book. i can get through a chapter a day.

 

[rmills]

Great book! I dont think it will receive much welcome here though.

Lee Strobel does not have a long list of PHD MD type titles after his name.

The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ are required reading from where I come from. Both great books, and Hank Recomended! LOL!

rmills ducks....

 

[CPman2004]

I have just strated to read it. Very good book. I think this book should have some consideration because he does interview many experts in various fields. He interviews them without bias. I am enjoying greatly.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

No No No. The one thing he doesn't do is be unbiased.

 

[lucaspa]

Strobel wants to revive the Argument from Design. He can't; not legitimately without distorting science. From what I have seen, that's just what he does. Strobel is Christian Apologetics but, IMO, the wrong apologetics.

 

[lucaspa]

Lee Strobel does not have a long list of PHD MD type titles after his name.

That's not necessary. Timothy Ferris and Kitty Ferguson also don't have higher degrees in science, yet Ferris' The Whole Shebang and Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations are both great books about science. They get the science right.

Unfortunately, Strobel doesn't. And that's what counts, not the degrees. Do you get it right? If not, all the degrees in the world won't save you. Look at Einstein and quantum mechanics.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

That's not necessary. Timothy Ferris and Kitty Ferguson also don't have higher degrees in science, yet Ferris' The Whole Shebang and Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations are both great books about science. They get the science right.

Unfortunately, Strobel doesn't. And that's what counts, not the degrees. Do you get it right? If not, all the degrees in the world won't save you. Look at Einstein and quantum mechanics.

Does "getting the science right" mean agreeing with the scientists that you agree with or what?

 

[lucaspa]

Does "getting the science right" mean agreeing with the scientists that you agree with or what?

It means that they don't get 1) the data correct, 2) how science is done correct, and/or 3) inferences from data to theory correct.

Defens, do you ever wonder why I'm here? These arguments are relaxation for me. They are love pats compared to any scientific discussion or meeting. They are nothing compared to the arguments scientists have over the data and theories.

When data and theories are accepted by the scientific community, it means that they can no longer argue against them. Because, if they could, they would.

Scientists agreed by 1831 that creationism was falsified. The data that falsified creationism then still exists. What we have are a few people who, due to a tragic logical mistake and bibliolatry, won't accept that creationism is falsified. Similarly, evolution was argued hotly up until about 1945 when the Modern Synthesis was able to gather consensus. Since then common ancestry and natural selection have been unable to be argued against. But notice that everything else that can be argued against has been. Punctuated Equilibrium argued against phyletic gradualism.

So, when you say "scientists that you agree with", it doesn't mean anything. I agree with them only because the data is such that I can't disagree.

 

[AndOne]

It means that they don't get 1) the data correct, 2) how science is done correct, and/or 3) inferences from data to theory correct.

The exact same comment could be made for evolutionists. But I would also add 4) that many scientists simply do not want to accept that there is anything beyond nature and hence will prejudicially accept data that supports thier view. Sound familiar? The same accusation is thrown at creationists who prejudicially accept data that support their beliefs. So why is this okay for evolutionists? Fact of the matter is - both are wrong in this prejudicial thinking - neither are looking at all of the facts - yet because of cultural bias the evolutionists way is accepted without confirming facts and hard data.

Scientists agreed by 1831 that creationism was falsified. The data that falsified creationism then still exists.

The argument can be made that the data provided to support the theory of evolution was not complete and is still not complete to this day. There are many scientists today (not just Christian scientists) making the assertion that the data provided by darwin was flimsy and incomplete.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Strobel wants to revive the Argument from Design. He can't; not legitimately without distorting science. From what I have seen, that's just what he does. Strobel is Christian Apologetics but, IMO, the wrong apologetics.

Where does he distort science? Any examples or did I just call yoour bluff?

 

[gluadys]

The argument can be made that the data provided to support the theory of evolution was not complete and is still not complete to this day. There are many scientists today (not just Christian scientists) making the assertion that the data provided by darwin was flimsy and incomplete.

In 1831 Darwin hadn't even set foot on the Beagle yet. There was no data for evolution at that time.

But there was plenty of evidence from geology that falsified a young earth and a global flood.

Evolution is really the least of worries for a YECist.


And yes, Darwin's data was flimsy and incomplete in light of the massive amount of data that has been accumulated in the last 150years. No one is claiming evolution stands or falls on Darwin's data alone.

 

[lucaspa]

The exact same comment could be made for evolutionists.

You have a strange moniker to be making this statement. Sorry, but evolutionists get the data right. If they don't, other scientist correct them. Look at Kimura and the Neutral Theory of Speciation or Feduccia and his lizard to bird lineage.

But I would also add 4) that many scientists simply do not want to accept that there is anything beyond nature and hence will prejudicially accept data that supports thier view.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM! SCIENCE IS NOT ATHEISM. MOST SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ATHEISTS. Yes, there are many atheists who will not accept data counter to their view. If you look at atheists talking about intercessory prayer papers, it sounds just like creationists trying to trash papers with data on evolution. I'm quite amused.

The same accusation is thrown at creationists who prejudicially accept data that support their beliefs. So why is this okay for evolutionists?

What counts is the data that goes against a theory. EVERY theory has data for it, if that is all you look for. Creationism is a falsified theory. Evolution is not. Creationists have tried, over the years, to introduce "data" to falsify evolution. Each and every time, the evolutionists have looked at the data and found reasons independent of evolution that the "data" is wrong.

yet because of cultural bias the evolutionists way is accepted without confirming facts and hard data.

Oh, there is hard data. Care to see some? Just go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Start reading the papers. That's where the data is. Or read Origin of the Species. I bet you have never read it.

However, you are ignoring history. You see, Behe's boy, creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to 1831. It was falsified. By Christians. Now, if "cultural bias" worked in science like you claim, then that bias would have kept creationism and never accepted evolution. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either science is open enough to accept change and the reason it does not change from evolution is because the data won't let it OR evolution would never have been accepted in the first place.

The argument can be made that the data provided to support the theory of evolution was not complete and is still not complete to this day. There are many scientists today (not just Christian scientists) making the assertion that the data provided by darwin was flimsy and incomplete.

And when you examine those claims, particularly by Behe, you find that they are without foundation. Have you read Darwin to make your own judgement? However, I notice that you have two different claims that you are trying to connect:
1. The data provided by Darwin was flimsy and incomplete.
2. The data supporting evolution is not complete.

Now, you are trying to imply that if Darwin's data was flimsy, the data to day is flimsy. It's not. Do that PubMed search and get back to us about 'incomplete' the data is. You are going to find that the professional creationists -- including Behe -- are trying to keep you ignorant. Don't let them.