Comments on: The Case for a Creator: Intellectual Incuriosity http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Daylight Atheism > The Case for a Creator: A Universe Not Made For Us http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-60422 Daylight Atheism > The Case for a Creator: A Universe Not Made For Us Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:41:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-60422 [...] to rejecting the young-earth position, which is something Strobel refuses to do (he calls it an "internal Christian debate", remember). It's therefore interesting that he lets this pass without comment. Shouldn't he point [...] [...] to rejecting the young-earth position, which is something Strobel refuses to do (he calls it an "internal Christian debate", remember). It's therefore interesting that he lets this pass without comment. Shouldn't he point [...]

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49892 Alex Weaver Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:00:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49892 <blockquote>Atheists reject the truth in the face of evidence? Who has that nice picture with the pot and the kettle?</blockquote> Are you referring to <a href="http://img338.imageshack.us/i/potkettleac4.jpg/" rel="nofollow">this</a>?

Atheists reject the truth in the face of evidence? Who has that nice picture with the pot and the kettle?

Are you referring to this?

]]> By: Modusoperandi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49890 Modusoperandi Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:14:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49890 <b>cl</b> <i>"Science changes all the time, and I think you're a bit overconfident - as usual."</i> "Approximately" is overconfident? <i>"It could very well be that the universe is actually older, or younger."</i> Is 6,000 years probable? cl "Science changes all the time, and I think you're a bit overconfident - as usual."
"Approximately" is overconfident?

"It could very well be that the universe is actually older, or younger."
Is 6,000 years probable?

]]> By: cl http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49889 cl Thu, 03 Sep 2009 02:52:49 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49889 <blockquote>How can this intellectual incuriosity be reconciled with this book's stated purpose?</blockquote> I'm not a Strobel fan, but I think you misrepresented his statement you cited: he just said that <i>how</i> was more important than <i>how long ago</i>. That doesn't mean he's "not interested in the search for the truth" as you claim. <blockquote>The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, as determined to high precision by probes like NASA's WMAP.</blockquote> I respect Johnson's reluctance. Science changes all the time, and I think you're a bit overconfident - as usual. It could very well be that the universe is actually older, or younger.

How can this intellectual incuriosity be reconciled with this book's stated purpose?

I'm not a Strobel fan, but I think you misrepresented his statement you cited: he just said that how was more important than how long ago. That doesn't mean he's "not interested in the search for the truth" as you claim.

The universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, as determined to high precision by probes like NASA's WMAP.

I respect Johnson's reluctance. Science changes all the time, and I think you're a bit overconfident - as usual. It could very well be that the universe is actually older, or younger.

]]> By: Janus Grayden http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49885 Janus Grayden Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:29:16 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49885 It's not surprising that Strobel feels as if he can determine what's important and what's not. After all, isn't "Intelligent Design" the practice of choosing which facts you would like to present and which ones you would like to ignore? Once that mentality is established right out of the gate, then it's a small saunter to determining what's worth mentioning and what isn't. You can't expect to get a place at the scientific table, so to speak, while you're completely sweeping major scientific breakthroughs under the rug. If you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, you have to play by the rules. You can't take things a la carte and piece them together to fit a preconceived notion and then complain when everyone criticizes it. It's not surprising that Strobel feels as if he can determine what's important and what's not. After all, isn't "Intelligent Design" the practice of choosing which facts you would like to present and which ones you would like to ignore? Once that mentality is established right out of the gate, then it's a small saunter to determining what's worth mentioning and what isn't.

You can't expect to get a place at the scientific table, so to speak, while you're completely sweeping major scientific breakthroughs under the rug. If you want to be taken seriously by the scientific community, you have to play by the rules. You can't take things a la carte and piece them together to fit a preconceived notion and then complain when everyone criticizes it.

]]> By: Modusoperandi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49882 Modusoperandi Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:57:18 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49882 Seomah: The comments are better: "SoSayethTheSpider says: I just want to know where the author took biology so I know not to send my kids to that school". Seomah: The comments are better: "SoSayethTheSpider says: I just want to know where the author took biology so I know not to send my kids to that school".

]]> By: Seomah http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49878 Seomah Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:15:33 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49878 Reginald, that article is impressive: <blockquote cite="">Natural selection and micro-evolution are facts of science but do not in any way challenge the Bible – nor do they support evolution. </blockquote> Microevolution does not support evolution... 'nuff said. Reginald, that article is impressive:

Natural selection and micro-evolution are facts of science but do not in any way challenge the Bible – nor do they support evolution.

Microevolution does not support evolution... 'nuff said.

]]> By: Danikajaye http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49876 Danikajaye Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:12:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49876 On Reginalds link: <blockquote cite=""> Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they (Atheists) evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas ... ... Their primary goal is to remove God so when one argument fails, an alternative version is formed. ... ... When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence. </blockquote> GASP! How dare they! How dare these "scientists" alter their ideas to account for new data! Don't they realise your supposed to cling to the same old ideas for centuries and then when contradictory evidence is presented you're supposed to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALALA!" at the top of your lungs? Atheists reject the truth in the face of evidence? Who has that nice picture with the pot and the kettle? On Reginalds link:

Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they (Atheists) evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas ... ... Their primary goal is to remove God so when one argument fails, an alternative version is formed. ... ... When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence.

GASP! How dare they! How dare these "scientists" alter their ideas to account for new data! Don't they realise your supposed to cling to the same old ideas for centuries and then when contradictory evidence is presented you're supposed to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "LALALALALALALA!" at the top of your lungs?

Atheists reject the truth in the face of evidence? Who has that nice picture with the pot and the kettle?

]]> By: Nes http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49869 Nes Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:39:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49869 Without wider context, which I do not have access to, I had interpreted that the same way that Austin at #4 did. However, it still seems odd to leave out the question of the age of the Earth since that could help inform your question of whether there is a creator or not. For example, if the weight of the evidence leaned towards a young Earth it would cast doubt on the Big Bang Theory. Without wider context, which I do not have access to, I had interpreted that the same way that Austin at #4 did. However, it still seems odd to leave out the question of the age of the Earth since that could help inform your question of whether there is a creator or not. For example, if the weight of the evidence leaned towards a young Earth it would cast doubt on the Big Bang Theory.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49863 Thumpalumpacus Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:40:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49863 Given that Strobel accepts the story of the Garden of Eden, his intellectual dullness doesn't surprise me at all. That story is a clear warning to not pursue knowledge. Given that Strobel accepts the story of the Garden of Eden, his intellectual dullness doesn't surprise me at all. That story is a clear warning to not pursue knowledge.

]]> By: Reginald Selkirk http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49860 Reginald Selkirk Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:20:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49860 <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d31-Natural-selection-Article-1" rel="nofollow">Eddie Snipes makes STrobel look like a ****** genius.</a> Eddie Snipes makes STrobel look like a ****** genius.

]]> By: CSN http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/08/cfac-intellectual-incuriosity.html#comment-49859 CSN Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:04:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1114#comment-49859 Incurious basterds. Incurious basterds.

]]>