Mendacious twits no 1

Knowing that one's comments are not going to be lost in some censor's virtual desk is strangely liberating. This was written yesterday in response to this post. I figure that 12+ hours is sufficient time to decide whether one will go with the open discussion that they claim to crave so much, or whether one would rather sweep opposing opinions under the rug. I admit that there is perhaps a slight surfeit of snarkiness in my response, but come on: Strobel? AFFS, here it is:

Strobel? You must be kidding. He is a paragon of intellectual dishonesty, and, quite frankly, is about as ignorant as one can be on the subjects he purports to make categorical claims about. To wit: (1)the Big Bang Theory makes no claims about the causes of the Universe, nor does it postulate a beginning since it breaks down at Planck time or thereabouts. There is absolutely nothing in it to support or contradict the existence of God. (2) and (3) are completely vague and almost nonsensical, and an appeal to ignorance is hidden within each of them. (4) is ridiculous to anyone familiar with the basics of biology: it is not that the Earth is fine-tuned for life, but life is fine-tuned to its environment, which is precisely what is expected under the standard evolutionary paradigm. (5) and (6) are again, simply begging the question. What's more, (6) uses the term "information" in some esoteric sense: most information theorists and mathematicians are quite puzzled at Dembski's redefinition and--apparently--wilful equivocation. (7) is, indeed, an unanswered question, but there is no reason to invoke "goddidit" to explain it. (8) is easily explained within standard evolutionary theory, again (common morality is tio be expected in the members of the same species, as an evolved response to the pressures of social living). (9) is incorrect historically: there are several cultures who did not have a concept of the week at all, and its usage for those that do have it is quite simply explained in several ways, including geometric (stable configuration) and astronomical (the number of "planets" known to the ancients). Basically, Strobel's case disappears into thin air with only a modicum of critical thought. I am not interested in arguing the (non)-existence of a deity here; only pointing out that there is no valid argument for it in the source you seem to admire.


Hi there

I must admit, I have reached some kind of critical mass. There is a plethora of Christian apologetics blogs out there; some political, others just silly. All of them are guilty of cherry-picking their data, quote-mining opposition, willful misrepresentation of facts, absolute ignorance of logic (while professing their undying love for it) and constant censorship of comments. This blog will be dedicated to making sure that comments filtered out by the censorious idiots running such blogs see the light of day. Yes, I know: arguing with them is akin to playing chess with pigeons...but someone's got to do it. Otherwise, pieces of rampant idiocy like Wintery Knight's blog present an appearance of monolithic agreement. From the comments on that blog one would be justified in concluding that there are no valid arguments against clearly moronic points made there, but that is not the case: he simply censors any disagreement. Or consider the mendacious twits at the Discovery Institute: they simply disallow any comments whatsoever. There are plenty of such vehicles of disinformation on the internetz, and I will, in due time, provide a list of them in the sidebar. Meanwhile, google them yourself,

In any case, this blog is dedicated to rectifying this problem: anyone who sees a ridiculous piece of anti-intellectual tripe and wants to comment on it is welcome to send me a link to said tripe and their comment. It will be published in due order, and I promise: I will refrain from censorship, except for "bleeping out" direct attacks on the individuals in question, rather than their dim views or reality, and threats of violence. Those shall not be published: at least not in their original format. Mentions of them and links to commenters will be produced on a regular basis.

So, google some apologetic blog, go there, read their incoherent ravings, and if you feel like it, compose a rebuttal, which may not be allowed to be published there, but will certainly make it here. Even pieces defending the apologists will not be censored. What are you waiting for?