A Case for a creator

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. Here is a link to it on amazon.Let me change something real quick. I belive it was a case for faith that he was an atheist when he investigated it. In a case for a creator, he acts from the atheist point of view in trying to shoot holes in theists theorys. Mabey he should have had some athiests interviews in there, but he did an ok job of trying to shoot down there arguments himself. The chapter I really liked was the symbols of evoloution. It really debunked alot of the lies that are being forced upon us at public schools. Again, tell me what you think.This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 02-09-2005 09:24 AM Edited by AdminJar to fix long linkThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-09-2005 13:21 AM

Of course journalists arn't the best inbetweens, but this book quotes the exact interviews, so what you said can't happen.

Yes in it's entirety. It also has some of his personal stories added in, but the proof is all quoted interviews.Why don't you like the people who got interviewed? One of the reviews for the book on amazon says that one of the only problems is that he spends to much time buffing his sources.

One, I don't think he did know what they were going to say ahead of time, and two, show me an example of something one of the professors said that was wrong that could have been refuted by including evo interviews.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh and evos are? Sure, you may be scientifically 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 atmosphere for the experiment with the wrong one. It doesn't even mention that the original experiment had the wrong atmosphere. Plus..leaving out the fact that they had to seperate the amino acids from the tar.. my text book says all of the things that went right and not all the things that went wrong. My textbook is not the only one as well.
Sure, I admit that one or two things in the book may be wrong. I doubt it (and yes I have read the review that someone else posted and don't agree with it) Most textbooks used today and a lot of books about evolution have a lot more errors and lies than The Case for A Creator. 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.[/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. Secondly, some of this book, and possibly most, was disproving evolution and not proving creationism. So yes try and get it from your library, and thanks for admitting that you have not read it and therefore could be wrong.Spellcheck by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-11-2005 22:15 AM

In the lies of the miller experiment, which I learned not to say yes to something too quickly, I thought (and to a point still do) that my textbook said that the miller experiment was proof of evoloution instead of abioginisis. Now I am just saying that what ever it is trying to prove, they twisted the facts. Even my favorite magizine, popular science did this as well when talking about the miller experiment. My point is that you shouldn't say that creationists know nothing about science. In biblical terms, take out the log in your own eye before pointing at the spec in anothers.This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 02-24-2005 14:08 AM

Ok Charles here is the proof, so you can stop dissing me now. One of the reasons that I didn't post this on the last one is that from what others have said, it is too long.(Other reasons included that as you can see, it does not say exactly what said it did in lies of the miller experiment and I didn't have it typed in) I may be wrong on this, but I will put it up quick so you can read it and stop calling me names. The part I mentioned in this thread is at the bottem where it states the results of the miller experiment.This message has been edited by JESUS freak, 03-03-2005 17:22 AM

Experimental Evidence.During the first half of the twentieth century, scientists hypothesized that the early atmosphere contained carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water vapor, methane, and ammonia, but no free oxygen. They also theorized that numerous storms produced lightning and that the surface of Earth was relatively warm. Molecular biologists in the 1920s also suggested that an atmosphere containing abundant ammonia and methane but lacking free oxygen would be an ideal setting for the primordial soup in which life may have begun. A young graduate student named Stanley Miller, who was working with his graduate advisor, Nobel prize-winning chemist Harold Urey in 1953, was aware of these hypotheses.Miller and Urey decided to create their own primordial soup. They set up an apparatus, like that shown in Figure 22-12, that contained a chamber filled with hydrogen, methane, and ammonia to simulate the early atmosphere. This atmospheric chamber was connected to a lower chamber that was designed to catch any particles that condensed in the atmospheric chamber.Miller and Urey added sparks from tungsten electrodes to simulate lightning in the atmosphere. Only one week after the start of the experiment, the lower chamber contained a murky, brown liquid — the primordial soup! The soup that formed in this experiment contained organic molecules such as cyanide (CN), formaldehyde (H2CO), and four different amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are the basic substances from which life is built.Continued experiments showed that 13 of the 20 amino acids known to occur in living things could be formed using the Miller-Urey method. Further experiments demonstrated that heat, cyanide, and certain clay minerals could cause amino acids to join together in chains like proteins. Proteins provide structure for tissues and organs, and are important agents in cell metabolism. Thus, the discovery that amino acids could be formed in this way was amazing. 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.

But the experiment that produced the amino acids did not have the right atmosphere. My whole point to begin with was that they gave the atmosphere of the first experiments with the results of the latter ones.

Nope tests with the real atmosphere give you tar, cyinide and formaldahyde which, through a deffinatly unnatual process, might be able to be turned into amino acids. However, that is not what this thread is about. For more info, see Lies of the miller experiment