Not exactly evidence, but Strobel’s self-description of his Atheism and conversion to Christianity can be found here:
1 Like
I recall a sort of “duelling sinners” routine which two televangelist-types got into on a religious broadcast I saw once. Funny as all hell. The one would say how he had been an atheist, and horribly depraved, and the other would have to outdo that by saying he was actually several atheists at once, each more depraved than the last. By the time they gave up outdoing each other, they’d both pretty much confessed to having committed every conceivable crime against humanity. Evidently, in some circles, that’s considered to constitute a great resume.
9 Likes
This post being moved reminded me that @Marty has vanished. Perhaps he’s scouring the planet for evidence.
Point of order - we do not have any evidence that anyone actually believes (or doesn’t) as they claim. At some level we have to accept a person’s stated belief at face value. In Strobel’s case that might be a couple of Zimbabwean dollars.
2 Likes
Nah. He’s been taken up.
2 Likes
Counterpoint - AFAICT Lee Strobel never stated he was an atheist, so there is no stated (lack of) belief to accept at face value.
All we have is Lee Strobel stating that he used to be an atheist, but got better.
5 Likes
I would point out that people are not disputing Strobel’s current beliefs (Christianity), merely his claims about how he reached them.
8 Likes
'zactly. And it is the oldest trope in the troposphere to say, when advocating pseudoscience, “belieeeeeeve me, I was the BIGGEST skeptic, and then…”
7 Likes
You imply that you didn’t get my point: the vilification is not necessary. The hatred that many ID critics display toward ID proponents tips their hand that the criticism is not motivated by science.
Did you think this was “vilification” directed toward you? I don’t get why you brought this up. Seems like benign disagreement.
No. The oldest trope is “that person is a scoundrel. Don’t listen to them.”
I don’t plan to waste too much time here. If anyone has a legitimate question, like @Faizal_Ali did, I will try find time to respond.
Meyer, Signature in the Cell, p. 128:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction…”
- Is this accurate?
- If not, what is false?
- Why might this be important in context?
3 Likes
It might be motivated be being continually lied to by ID proponents.
4 Likes
Not really a “trope,” though, when the person is, in fact, a scoundrel. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the DI authors are deeply and profoundly dishonest. I note that you don’t actually bother defending their honesty as you know it’s a fool’s errand. It can’t be done – not credibly, at any rate.
What you’re saying boils down to – and, to be honest, always HAS boiled down to: “people should be allowed to get away with lying.” I think you should stop with this phony demand for civility-to-the-dishonest and just say what you mean.
6 Likes
Yes it is. Frauds and charlatans need to be called out for being that. People should be turned away from dishonest people by their dishonesty, and their dishonesty should be pointed out in order to achieve that.
Another straightforward non-sequitur. It simply doesn’t follow that when people “vilify” the opposition it means they have bad or inappropriate motives.
It also doesn’t follow that if hypothetically people have bad or ultierior motives, their criticisms are invalid. One can have valid criticisms and bad motives. They’re not mutually exclusive categories.
And last but not least, by “the hatred” you really just mean the fact that ID are appropriately characterized as dishonest frauds.
4 Likes
But you didn’t respond to his question:
5 Likes
That does not follow. If people deserve hatred, when they receive the hatred they deserve this does not mean they are right. This is pretty simple logic.
I guess there is back story to this that I don’t really want to get into. But that aside, why not try count how many remarks there are not arguments against any point I made.
So nothing to say about the fart video? Not vllification in your book?
4 Likes
“The hatred that many [flat earth] critics display toward [flat earth] proponents tips their hand that the criticism is not motivated by science.”
Would you agree or disagree with this statement? If you disagree, then doesn’t that show that it’s possible to display virulence toward someone else’s views, while still being motivated by scientific concerns?
Please note that I’m not saying ID is as bad as flat earth, or even that it’s bad at all (although I do think it’s wrong). I’m just trying to show you that this doesn’t somehow prove that criticism of ID isn’t scientifically motivated.
7 Likes
Standard tag team anti-ID work here. Why don’t you guys designate one person I have to engage with? I have a life, ya know. I’m here not for your sake anyway cuz you probably know my answers. I’m here for those who come after and read this thread.
I hope you got something more than “it’s not a protein.” That is so unimaginably irrelevant to the point he is making.
Such a standard and trivial argument, so often used here. I leave it to you to point out how they got it wrong, and to prove they know they got it wrong but do it anyway.
No. Talk to them. They might be wrong about some things, but if so they are honestly wrong. Are there charlatans out there? Yeah. But regardless, the attacks on character typically show this is about something other than science. It may just reflect your sad belief that they are dishonest. People who can’t get over that may be just projecting.
Did you link to it? I’d have to see it to decide if it is sarcasm, satire, or something else. Vilification would be suggesting you are a dishonest scumbag. Fart noises are pretty sophomoric, hardly the stuff of a serious critique. But link it. I’ll respond.
Thanks for that disclaimer. I don’t see a need for anger against flat-earthers. Who are they hurting? So I disagree with your statement not because flat-earthers are right, but because the hatred would be irrational.
I think the regularly re-enforced vitriol of anti-ID writers comes from something else. They claim that ID proponents are dishonest, but that’s an excuse to bash. Even if ID is wrong, who is the victim? Who is being hurt? Those who speak out most violently against ID appear to me to be afraid of it for some reason. If someone is wrong, just point it out. IMO vitriol around science is always an indicator of a hidden agenda.
Standard vilification and evasion from you.
More vilification and evasion.
Really? Please explain the point you think he was making. It might be easier if you assessed whether he was also misrepresenting the hypothesis itself and its predictions.
Honest scholars correct their errors forthrightly. Do ID promoters do so?
They aren’t demanding that their fantasies be taught to our children.
4 Likes
Ah c’mon! I can’t believe you’re so thin-skinned! You can’t tell the difference between disagreement and vitriol? And you don’t see the answers I provided?
No. You’re making the claim he got something wrong. How about you explain what he got wrong that is so epic in your mind? It better be something more than “it’s not a protein.”
An insult. No substance.
Another insult.
I did. I note that you didn’t answer the third question: why might this be important in context?
Evasion.
Just something so epic that it and another similar discovery won separate Nobel Prizes.
p. 298:
“According to this model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.”
Is that objectively true or false, Marty?
Shall we look at the Gilbert paper that Meyer cites, knowing that his marks won’t bother to look before trying to defend him (in your case, primarily with insults and evasions)?
2 Likes