Comments on: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” – Objection #3, part 1 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/ Atheism, Evolution, Skepticism Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:46:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Alexwebmaster http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2792 Alexwebmaster Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:24:43 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2792 Hello webmaster I would like to share with you a link to your site write me here preonrelt@mail.ru Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

]]> By: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” - Objection #2 « Tiny Frog http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2663 The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” - Objection #2 « Tiny Frog Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:36:24 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2663 [...] Next: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” - Objection #3, part 1 > Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith”, Chapter 4, Part 3MiraclesThe Source of My Disbelief - Christianity is NonsensicalDeepak Chopra on Jesus [...] [...] Next: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” – Objection #3, part 1 > Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith”, Chapter 4, Part 3MiraclesThe Source of My Disbelief – Christianity is NonsensicalDeepak Chopra on Jesus [...]

]]> By: Sivana http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2644 Sivana Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:11:32 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2644 Nyronus said: "It seems most Creationists arguments are based along the lines of “science is wrong! Ergo, I am right!” without any basis in reality for why science is in fact, wrong." It isn't just that they have no basis in reality for why science is wrong, but also that they have no basis in reality for why their alternative should win by default. It's a bit like saying "I left my pencil on the desk, but now it isn't there. Therefore, a domovoy must have stolen it!" without ever considering the possibility that my cat could have jumped onto my desk and swatted the pencil onto the floor, or the possibility that someone else who lives in my house might have come by and taken it. Just because I didn't move my pencil doesn't mean that the only alternative is supernatural. Nyronus said: “It seems most Creationists arguments are based along the lines of “science is wrong! Ergo, I am right!” without any basis in reality for why science is in fact, wrong.”

It isn’t just that they have no basis in reality for why science is wrong, but also that they have no basis in reality for why their alternative should win by default.

It’s a bit like saying “I left my pencil on the desk, but now it isn’t there. Therefore, a domovoy must have stolen it!” without ever considering the possibility that my cat could have jumped onto my desk and swatted the pencil onto the floor, or the possibility that someone else who lives in my house might have come by and taken it. Just because I didn’t move my pencil doesn’t mean that the only alternative is supernatural.

]]> By: Sivana http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2643 Sivana Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:08:44 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-2643 I just want to add on the issue of "micro" versus "macro" evolution: No one has ever said that macro-evolution exists! The whole argument is one big straw man! Macro-evolution would mean duck laying an egg that hatched as a rat. If that happened (and there were no other explanations, such as a rat somehow burrowing into the egg), it would completely DISPROVE evolution, not prove it! That's what I hate so much about the whole "we can only prove micro-evolution" argument. Well, that's evolution. First the pigeon gets slightly different feather colours, then a slightly different length of feather, then a slightly shorter neck, then a differently-shaped beak, then a smaller body, etc. etc. and maybe you get something like a sparrow. All micro evolution needs is time. So it seems to me that people who admit that micro-evolution exists (as everyone must, since we interact with it every day) are being intellectually dishonest when they then go on to say that "real" evolution doesn't happen. I just want to add on the issue of “micro” versus “macro” evolution: No one has ever said that macro-evolution exists! The whole argument is one big straw man! Macro-evolution would mean duck laying an egg that hatched as a rat. If that happened (and there were no other explanations, such as a rat somehow burrowing into the egg), it would completely DISPROVE evolution, not prove it!

That’s what I hate so much about the whole “we can only prove micro-evolution” argument. Well, that’s evolution. First the pigeon gets slightly different feather colours, then a slightly different length of feather, then a slightly shorter neck, then a differently-shaped beak, then a smaller body, etc. etc. and maybe you get something like a sparrow. All micro evolution needs is time.

So it seems to me that people who admit that micro-evolution exists (as everyone must, since we interact with it every day) are being intellectually dishonest when they then go on to say that “real” evolution doesn’t happen.

]]> By: Nyronus http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1859 Nyronus Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:32:05 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1859 This kind of reminds me of a video I was once forced to watch "Thousands, not Billions." In it, they took two rocks from the grand canyon and proceeded to say "Radio Carbon Dating says THIS rock is 1.5 million years old, but the one next to it is dated at 1.6 million years old! Obviously science is a sham and a lie and all heretics must be burned as witches!"* It seems most Creationists arguments are based along the lines of "science is wrong! Ergo, I am right!" without any basis in reality for why science is in fact, wrong. *Somewhat editorialized for your viewing pleasure This kind of reminds me of a video I was once forced to watch “Thousands, not Billions.” In it, they took two rocks from the grand canyon and proceeded to say “Radio Carbon Dating says THIS rock is 1.5 million years old, but the one next to it is dated at 1.6 million years old! Obviously science is a sham and a lie and all heretics must be burned as witches!”*

It seems most Creationists arguments are based along the lines of “science is wrong! Ergo, I am right!” without any basis in reality for why science is in fact, wrong.

*Somewhat editorialized for your viewing pleasure

]]> By: tinyfrog http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1534 tinyfrog Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:16:13 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1534 <i>Lehigh University is a private, non-demoninational university as can be seen from several places on their web site, </i> Oops. I had meant to verify that. I guess I assumed too much based on the name "Lehigh" - which is a major character in the Book of Mormon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(Book_of_Mormon) Lehigh University is a private, non-demoninational university as can be seen from several places on their web site,

Oops. I had meant to verify that. I guess I assumed too much based on the name “Lehigh” – which is a major character in the Book of Mormon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(Book_of_Mormon)

]]> By: grammarking http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1526 grammarking Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:39:01 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1526 IR? What the hell am I on about? I of course mean IC - irreducible complexity. IR? What the hell am I on about? I of course mean IC – irreducible complexity.

]]> By: grammarking http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1525 grammarking Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:33:48 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1525 Don't get me started on Michael Behe. I had the displeasure of watching a DVD called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", in which he propagated the IR argument, particularly the Bacterial Flagellum. I only had to think about it for a couple of minutes to know he was wrong (despite never having heard of the flagellum), but people sitting around me were taken in by that rubbish! I couldn't believe it. I think I made a post about it on my blog, actually. Yeah here it is: http://notsofriendlyhumanist.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-blind-leading-the-stupid/ Don’t get me started on Michael Behe. I had the displeasure of watching a DVD called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, in which he propagated the IR argument, particularly the Bacterial Flagellum. I only had to think about it for a couple of minutes to know he was wrong (despite never having heard of the flagellum), but people sitting around me were taken in by that rubbish! I couldn’t believe it.

I think I made a post about it on my blog, actually. Yeah here it is:
http://notsofriendlyhumanist.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/the-blind-leading-the-stupid/

]]> By: Tom C http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1523 Tom C Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:32:29 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1523 I'm extremely enjoying your review of Strobel's ridiculous book, but I wanted to make one correction: >colleagues at Lehigh have publicly stated that they don’t >support his results (despite being a Mormon university): Lehigh University is a private, non-demoninational university as can be seen from several places on their web site, e.g., http://www3.lehigh.edu/admissions/lufacts.asp Otherwise, your review is as devasting as it is fun to read. Keep up the great work! I’m extremely enjoying your review of Strobel’s ridiculous book, but I wanted to make one correction:

>colleagues at Lehigh have publicly stated that they don’t >support his results (despite being a Mormon university):

Lehigh University is a private, non-demoninational university as can be seen from several places on their web site, e.g.,

http://www3.lehigh.edu/admissions/lufacts.asp

Otherwise, your review is as devasting as it is fun to read. Keep up the great work!

]]> By: Evil Bender http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1517 Evil Bender Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:04:20 +0000 http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-1/#comment-1517 This is really bizarre. I dislike Strobel--I think he's dishonest and manipulative and a lazy thinker--but I never thought he was stupid. But if he's really confusing abiogenesis with evolution, maybe he's dumber than I thought. This is really bizarre. I dislike Strobel–I think he’s dishonest and manipulative and a lazy thinker–but I never thought he was stupid. But if he’s really confusing abiogenesis with evolution, maybe he’s dumber than I thought.

]]>