I was watching some Youtube clips from people similar to Kirk Cameron and his buddy Ray Comfort (who I’ll be blogging on shortly), and I found one of my favorite Creationist loons: Lee Strobel!
As you can see, he knows nothing of evolution. He was never an atheist, he was just igorant to both sides and only fairly searched one side. He had assumed he knew it all on the no-god side and used that to justify his “sinful” ways, then he searched creationism and found the opposite.
Problem is, he only really learned about creationism.
How can I say this? He used the concept of Micro- vs. Macroevolution, which are both non-scientific terms. Enough microevolution (like small variation in dogs, which he talks about) leads to macroevolution (such as other types of animals). It does happen. The concept of microevolution is proof enough for macroevolution.
If you walk a foot per minute, you’ll still reach a mile eventually.
Not only that, but he points out the “millions” of transitional fossils which are missing, despite the fact that just one would prove his assertion wrong. This is a foot-in-mouth moment because there are thousands of transitional fossils.
Not only this, but fossils are a rare happening. Fossils take very specific requirements to form, this is compounded by the fact that after fossils form they can still be damaged, corroded or likewise… Then there’s the problem of finding them. They’re not easy to find.
Welcome, victim #3:
- Kirk Cameron
- Dr. Jason Lisle
- Lee Strobel
Congrats on making it this far, hope to hear a lot more creatonist garbage from you in the future!
Thanks for posting that video!
Strobel often reveals himself as a fraud – one claiming to have been an atheist who later found the truth. As you say, the fact of the matter is that Strobel’s atheism was actually ignorance of either the theist or the atheist position. Here are a few more statements that he makes in this short video (never mind in all of his books, other interviews, and other talks) that give away the fact that he never really knew the basics of evolution:
Strobel talks about “Darwin’s claims” and attempts to rebut them. Darwin lived and wrote in the 1800′s. I wonder if Strobel would base his views of modern medicine on the medical science of the 1800s. Evolution theory has come a long way in 200+ years but Strobel doesn’t seem to know that.
As you already noted, Strobel falsely asserts that all of the transitional fossils are missing (he calls them “missing fossils which is a term used by ID adherents, not by scientists). I wonder what he thinks what about the transitional fossils we have discovered and about the evidence for common ancestry based on genetic research.
Strobel uses the term “Darwinism” which denotes a philosophy of a particular individual, Darwin, and not a modern-day science. Strobel seems unaware of the modern specialized branches of evolutionary science.
Strobel talks about “scientists” as a general group and how science and scientists are wrong. But he doesn’t seem to understand that different scientists have specific areas of study. I wonder what Strobel thinks about the “scientists” that have made discoveries in genetics with are responsible for modern medicine, or the “scientists” that have made discoveries in physics that allow space travel.
Strobel talks about the “Descent from Darwinism” petition, the petition circulated by proponents of Intelligent Design for “scientists” to sign (but wait, didn’t Strobel attempts to discredit “scientists” throughout the video?). He failed to mention that the “scientists” who signed were not experts in the fields of evolution study (see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). But then again, Strobel doesn’t seem to differentiate between “scientists” in general (including electrical engineers, etc.) and researchers in fields like biology, genetics, archeology, zoology etc.
Strobel seems unaware of “Steves List” (see http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) which started as a joke but ended up demonstrating that support for evolution is overwhelming in the general scientific community and virtually unanimous among scientists in the fields of biology, genetics, archeology, zoology, etc.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it Strobel? When people ask me to watch shows where a ‘former atheist’ is involved, I always laugh because I know their tactics. I’ve never seen one of them with half-decent arguments.
Even most who consider themselves atheists today are probably ignorant like Strobel, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that there are plenty of these people out there.
Copache’s criticism on Strobel doesn’t stand. It’s weak and misleading. It’s high time we need to stop twisting the truth. When you present a case for or against something, Copache, please avoid appealing to somebody’s psychological positions.
Strobel has done a tremendous research on what he says now. You can attack his premises (evidences that he shows to disprove evolution or prove creation) rather than his ‘so called’ ignorance. He poses many challenges to Evolutionists and atheists. Answer them.
It is said as if Strobel wasn’t really a former atheist and he is ignorant of the facts about Evolution. Can you prove it!
Even if you do it, it doesn’t settle the issue! Instead, you can just point him towards evidence for Evolution. That settles the matter!
Copache said, “there are thousands of transitional fossils”. Well, bing them to light! Can list them?
And in the next lines he said, “Then there’s the problem of finding them. They’re not easy to find”. If there’s a problem of finding them how could you have “thousands of transitional fossils” today?
“Missing” fossils is not the term used by ID adherents as you said, Mr. Copache. Darwin himself used the term “missing links” regarding transitional fossils.
Copache criticised Strobel of using non-scientific terms like “micro and macro evolution”. Hello, this cannot be a proof for his ignorance of science or evolution. He might have used them to communicate the concepts to general public.
Surprisingly, you used the same terms to present your case: Enough microevolution (like small variation in dogs, which he talks about) leads to macroevolution (such as other types of animals). It does happen. The concept of microevolution is proof enough for macroevolution.
Hey, what evidence you have for this! Can take pains to establish a cause (micro evolution) and effect (macro evolution) relationship between them?
Copache wants to listen to more “creationist garbage” but unfortunately not able to refute even the “garbage” enough!!
Regarding 500 scientists who dissent from Darwinism. It is said that Strobel wasn’t aware of Steve’s List. I think that doesn’t help. The Project Steve website says it is only 1% scientists who are skeptical about Evolution and it declares, “We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!”.
I think any logical thinker must agree with this position. But on the other hand, when asked for the evidence, Evolutionists must stop pointing towards a host of scientists who accept the theory of Evolution without even presenting a single piece of evidence for the theory. Evolutionists often justify the credibility of Evolution theory by appealing to its acceptance to ‘scientists majority”.
I think Strobel didn’t publish the list to neither to ‘mislead’ the public nor to ‘use it as an evidence’ against Evolution. One should not “twist” the truth appealing to author’s intentions and ignorance (if it is really true in this case!).
Strobel publishes the ‘list’ as an answer to the popular claim that almost all the scientists accept Evolution without any reasonable doubt.
It’s not the outcry of a big majority of scientists, evolutionists, or atheists that prove Evolution but the evidence supporting it. So stop sneering and start substantiaing your position with enough and valid proofs!
I think the best way to disprove your nonsense is by letting it stand as is with no interference. Really, you do a good job of defeating yourself.
Thanks for that nonsensical and baseless reply. It confirms your inability and shallowness of your arguments once again. You can atleast try better to defeat yourself!!
Ironic since the most shallow things about the arguments against evolution are the ones that have no evidence, like yours. Your replies are completely void of substance: you included not a single valid viewpoint or link for me to respond to.
What you did do, however, is use a bunch of pointless rhetoric to try to make some sort of a point. It didn’t work, just so you know.
As I said: the best way to disprove your nonsense is by letting it stand as is.
Good job Copache! This just proves that, although atheists deliver ad hominem to your doorstep, they can’t accurately defend their position.
Oh by the way when I said Copache I was talking about Prakish Gantela. Sorry!
Some day you creationist asshats will learn not to fuck with the scientifically aligned asshats like me. That day might as well be today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteolepis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elginerpeton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obruchevichthys_gracilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hynerpeton
That’s from one line of species. Here are some more from another line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yixianosaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confuciusornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyornis
…And for good measure, let’s have another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merychippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae
Ever heard of any of these? No? Didn’t think so. But yet all of these are transitional forms in one way or another. Where has Strobel mentioned this? Didn’t he speak directly against this?
This proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re even fighting me against.
Fossils are what’s hard to find, not specifically transitional ones, you idiot. The fossilization process — the process required for fossils to form — is an extremely rare situation. Wikipedia tells us;
Charles Darwin himself made note of the extreme rarity of fossils and how hard it would be to find many transitions due to this:
But hey! Haven’t you creationists always said that Darwin figured there would be millions of transitional fossils by now? I’ve certainly heard that a lot from the creationist crowd.
I’m going to go ahead and say: [citation needed]
I’m using his terms to make a valid point. His terms may be complete and utter bullshit, but I can’t just say they’re bullshit. They’re bullshit because they don’t work. If you walked one step a day, you’ll still reach a mile eventually unless you die or stop. This is like evolution, it takes slow steps until species die out or until they suit their environments.
Then what was their goal? There will always be someone willing to sign something, whether due to Poe’s Law or because they genuinely believe it. If 1% of the American public believed in a flat Earth, it wouldn’t make them less insane because there happens to be a decent amount of them.
Likewise: the scientific community decides scientific issues based upon research, evidence, discussion, theories, and mathematics. The ID community has completely and utterly failed to provide any research, evidence, valid discussion (especially as it relates to evolution), theories (leading proponents note the inability to have a full-fledged biological theory), but they do have some mathematics. Their mathematics rely on how improbable evolution is claimed to be and then say if it’s this improbable the designer did it.
Sadly, that’s not science. It’s not been for a good two hundred years.
Evolution happens in baby steps. You’re not going to have a crocodile/duck mix at any point. Small changes over a large period of time lead to large changes.
For instance: the chihuahua dog came from the same wolves that humans selectively bred about ten thousand years ago (this is artificial selection; we selected them the same way nature selects them). The chihuahua dog looks nothing like the big wolves; it’s more like a rat, isn’t it? Furthermore, the chihuahua is so distant from its wolf relatives that it can’t interbreed with them. It’s well on its way to becoming a new species of animal entirely.
The fossil record shows plenty of transitional fossils and more are discovered every day. It shows a uniformity of life that you wouldn’t find unless all creatures were related.
Genetics, which Charles Darwin couldn’t have even dreamed about, shows that all species of life on the planet are related. It also shows how you pass down your features to your kids and this provides a generational change that will eventually lead to new types of human beings… maybe even eventually a new species of animal entirely.
Modern medicine is built upon evolutionary findings. There is a new flu vaccine every year because we know how the flu evolves and that it evolves so rapidly. The same goes for many other deadly diseases like smallpox. In fact, if you ever have tuberculosis and don’t die from it, it’s thanks to evolutionary knowledge. Tuberculosis became resistant to many of our drugs because of overuse, but we still have drugs that can take it out if caught early enough. This isn’t just adaptation (which, for your information, is evolution), this is full-fledged evolution.
There is a ton of proof of evolution out there, but when presented with this you argue from the standpoint of whatever holy book you have or stick fingers in ears and shout “la la la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la” because you’re threatened by it. You’re scared you may lose your belief in the man in the sky. You’re scared of death because that’s something you’ll have to face and everyone else will have to deal with. And you know it. Which is why you fight so hard against science and the scientific community, both of which having made your lives so much more comfortable.
You’re both sickening individuals.
So now over 800 out of 400,000 is now almost all? One side or the other is almost all. Which is it? 1/500 is not almost all. I think the 499 to 1 is almost all.
Ironically, it’s not a list of scientific misfits who are motivated by creationism who disprove evolution, but evidence. Show me evidence that opposes observable reality. Oh wait…
Evolution cannot prove there is no deity. If atheists want to use evolution as a tool to prove there is no deity, they have failed miserably at that.
First off, let me thank Copache for developing that well thought out second argument. For those who asked him to show them some proof….there it is (the egg is on your face now). Also I would like to address Kendall Rogers stupid assertion he just made. I do not see an atheist saying that this proves there is no deity I see a terribly formulated claim being made an idiot with pseudo science corrupting the minds of people BY LYING! All the atheists (if they are atheists (I am not one)) here are doing is merely trying to show how stupid these claims are, and why they are stupid with solid evidence. In the scientific community in order to make a point or assertion one must show an understanding of the topic and give a good scientific explanation with real (not falsified) evidence. LEE STROBEL has not come anywhere near this nor has Kendall nor Prakash.
TAO IS BE TRUE ORIGIN, TAO RESEMBLES MORE RANDOM VARIATION, HENCE NEO-DARWINISM IS BECOME RELIABLE
Copache,
You’re just spewing out the old evolutionist garbage – the fact is there are NO non-debatable transitional fossils. Oh yes, you’ll here about this fossil and that fossil and they’re all presented as if they are bonafide irrefutable proof but, the fact is, there is none. If there were, creationists would have conceded long ago. In fact, if you compare what evolution said 20 years ago in regard to cold, hard factual transitional fossils, you will find that the evolutionists ideas have changed a great deal also. Now, that doesn’t stop National Geographic or any other publicly read ‘science’ magazine from declaring the ‘overwhelming proof’ for evolution but, truth is, there is none. Bottom line – don’t believe anything you read that states the proof for evolution as if it’s fact, cause the whole neo-D ToE is nothing more than a fanciful hypothesis that is suffering from an extreme case of frustration due to lack of that elusive evidence that just doesn’t want to come on out.
Also, don’t ever be intimidated by the those who claim to be highly intellectual or intelligent – they will use this tactic to try to intimidate – don’t fear them – it’s hot air.
Later…