Judaism claims to disprove atheism

Debate Room
21

I always laugh when I hear of mythology fanboys trying to “disprove atheism”. Because it’s manifestly obvious that they don’t know what atheism is.

The veterans here have already seen what follows and can skip that part, but for newcomers, here’s the reason why “disproving atheism” is a joke.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than proper suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT. The canards and caricatures of atheism peddled by mythology fanboys, all wither and die in the face of that basic fact.

The data allowing mythology fanboys to work this out for themselves from first principles, is available in the public domain in quantity, There is, therefore, no excuse for them not doing so. Unless they want to admit, of course, that they don’t possess enough functioning neurons for the task, are too indolent to do so, or too dishonest to accept that their caricatures and canards are precisely that.

What makes this latest outing for the “disproving atheism” canard particularly fatuous, is provided succinctly above by SodaAnt - namely, that even among those identifying as Jews, a significant proportion are in fact, atheists themselves. Though of course, we’re once again into that murky territory, where the distinction between being ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish, is frequently blurred. A mistake that no one actually circulating among actual real Jewish people should be making, not least because the devoutly religious Jews have a habit of making their religious adherence conspicuous, whenever it is safe for them to do so.

Indeed, Albert Einstein himself provided a case in point, and outlined his views with some force in various of his writings, perhaps the most famous among the audience here being his 1945 letter to Eric Gutkind, which can be found here (including scans of the handwritten German original). I’ll quote the relevant translated part for those new to this:

Einstein’s view is actually far more influenced by the writings of Baruch Spinoza than any “holy book”, and as a corollary, his view of, for want of a better word, “god”, is a long way removed from any Abrahamic orthodoxy. Even an elementary perusal of famous contributors to science, literature, politics, etc., among Jewish people, reveals a wide spectrum ranging from religiously devout to hardcore atheist, and as a corollary, one needs to keep that separation between ethnicity and religion very firmly on the radar scope, so to speak, in order to avoid certain elementary pitfalls.

It’s hilariously ironic that a supposedly “learned” author (MA (oxon), really? Watch this space) fails to do precisely this.

To find out more about him, I decided to trace his Oxford academic career, and found, to my surprise, that the List of doctoral students in the Faculty of History does not list him, though it does list one Victoria Sands. Among current researchers, his name is also absent. I also cannot find a reference to him in the Faculty of Theology & Religion, nor in the Faculty of Philosophy. No mention of him can be found in the Faculty of Law.

So, what was his degree subject? Finding out about him is difficult to put it mildly, though if you visit the Amazon page devoted to selling his books, we find something disturbingly revealing. Namely, that he’s peddling the sort of bullshit about Darwin and evolution, that we see all too often from the most rabid Christian Nationalist creationist sources. Apparently he is described in the blurb as an “English scholar”, but a look at Oxford University’s English Faculty seems not to deem him worthy of a mention. So, not a biologist, and apparently not considered significant enough by his alma mater to mention him even briefly.

His “thesis” appears to be a mish-mash of various mythology fanboy wibblings, but his attacks on evolution reveal a level of duplicity that is typical of a creationist. It appears that part of his snake oil in this department, is at bottom a re-hash of the sort of “Darwin was a racist” bullshit we’ve seen from professional liars at the Duplicity Institute, such as Richard Weikart.

So, he’s peddling ideological snake oil, while lacking any of the academic credentials that would lead to him being taken seriously in any of the several fields he’s traversing, and peddling in addition material that several of us here, myself included, know to be bare faced lies.

I think we can place him in the box labelled “charlatans”.

1 Like
22

No, that’s not my job, nor does anyone need to disprove any claim, the burden of proof rests solely with the person making the claim. FWIW atheism rises among scientists generally, and rises exponentially among elite scientists, so any claim an apologist makes for scientific evidence of any deity would have to address this contradiction, then explain why belief in that deity was not universal among scientists best placed to understand if this alleged scientific evidence exists for any deity.

Atheism isn’t a claim, or an argument, it is nonsensical to talk about disproving it.

That’s a bare claim, and a risibly dubious one at that, you know there are religions that predate Judaism right? Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Taoism for example, Judaism emerged from pre-existing Canaanite polytheistic traditions, and religions like Hinduism in India and Zoroastrianism in Persia originated earlier, or around the same time, some even influencing later developments within Judaism.

Strike one…

A bare assertion to have witnessed magic, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy - strike 2.

Special pleading fallacy…strike 3

No it doesn’t, atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, you don’t even know what the word means? Strike 4…

  1. You will have to present that argument, not just assert it exists for it to have any meaning.
  2. Atheism is not a worldview, sigh…strike 5

No, I have no interest in your risible biased and irrational verbiage.

Nope, you really need to learn what the word means.

It isn’t a claim, or an argument, or a worldview, it has no truth value attached to it, only the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

Gibberish, and you are asserting that the existence of something that exists is impossible, hilfuckinglarious…

Neither can not believing in mermaids, becausssssse, ready??? They’re not beliefs or claims.

Nope, still laughably ignorant of what atheism means.

When will you be offering any actual objective evidence?

Atheism isn’t a claim, it has no burden of proof.

Sigh, you mean some atheists perhaps, and so what, not being able to explain something is not evidence.

Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, they are bare appeals to magic and mystery, by definition, but by all means enthral us all with your explanation of which principle of logic is being violated by not accepting unevidenced claims about magic?

No it does not.

So do flat earthers.

Atheism is not a claim.

2 Likes
23

@Skeptic2025, does this author provide any data to back up the many assertions you’ve mentioned?

3 Likes
24

That sounds like a fallacy of probabilities to me. An element of survivorship bias (if thousands of religions have existed, the odds of a religion from those thousands remaining increases accordingly)

It’s not simply a case of saying “if atheism were true, all religions should disappear” - there are cultural and social factors at play. One of the factors in a religion remaining are the adherents remaining. A deity is not objectively evidenced as necessary for a particular social group (tribe/nation/etc.) to last for any prolonged period of time, so the prolonged lifespan of a religion is not objective evidence for it being true.

Therefore “atheism” (a concept) or any people do not need to explain Jewish survival. It is something that happened. Low probability doesn’t mean something couldn’t happen. Low probability events happen frequently. People win the lottery, people get struck by lightning, etc. - you involve enough social groups and cultures, one is increasingly likely to experience or be a subject of a low probability event. And even if they weren’t, improbable things can happen.

One might be able to argue that it increases support for a particular argument, but either way, it doesn’t prove any argument conclusively.

I would disagree on rationality - rationality cannot be generalised, so this would be a hasty generalisation fallacy. Also, what “contrary evidence” would make disbelief irrational?

No, it wouldn’t in my view - this is a claim going back 3,300+ years - we don’t have a means of specifically identifying the person who made the claim beyond what has later been written in a book. Any “multi-generational testimony” in relation to this original claim is a repetition of the original claim.

A testimony in relation to a deity would be “evidence” just as a witness statement would be, but the claim doesn’t meet the same standard as a witness statement - certainly not in proving a deity - and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even in a court case, someone claiming to have observed someone present at a location would be insufficient to prove guilt or innocence.

This would be a god of the gaps fallacy - just because something isn’t known doesn’t mean that (one of many answers) fitting in the gaps must therefore be true. There are competing hypotheses for the origins of the universe and for abiogenesis, etc.

Atheism does not predict Judaism should not exist. Premise 1 fails, therefore premise 2 is irrelevant, and premise 3 fails.

1 Like
25

And this is a more detailed rebuttal of the “irrebuttable”.

  1. Hinduism claims to be the oldest surviving religion.
  2. The claim regarding statistical impossibility is making the following fallacies:

a. Survivorship bias - concluding a statistical improbability based on survival of a religion over a certain lifespan, consequently ignores the numerous religions that didn’t survive. Like winning the lottery, the odds of someone winning the lottery increases with the number of participants, even if the odds of a winner are millions to one.

b. category error - cultural survival is not a naturalistic improbability, it is a matter of culture, sociology, and politics. Again, Hinduism has survived for longer.

c. False precision - the 1 in 50,000 odds is spurious. The claim that Judaism is unique from 50,000 religions has no evidenced basis in reality. For a start, there is no specific number of religions across history, and estimates for current religions range from 4000-10000 or more. Not all religions are equal in terms of size or impact either. That upward estimate includes localised religions, etc. some of which could be considered subsets of larger religions.

Also as for the claim that throwing a dice six times and getting a six each time is impossibility in practice, that too is spurious. It may be improbable, but if 50 thousand people did it, the odds would dramatically improve (again like the lottery example) “impossibility in practice” means something is impossible, whereas “practically impossible” means it is low odds (but with enough iterations, those odds can significantly improve)

We can look at reasons for religions becoming inactive - if for example we consider Norse, Roman and Greek mythology, the causes of these being consigned to myth was the spread of Christianity, including law changes in some cases that outlawed some of the traditional beliefs.

When we view survivorship on this basis, the absence of historic religions in contemporary times is understood better. This also exemplifies why a reliance on an arbitrarily decided probability is fallacious.

The odds therefore are not “overwhelming”, and even in the face of an extremely improbable event, this does not grant supernatural causes of any kind any meaningful measure of evidence (given the extraordinary claim) letalone render such a certainty.

Consider the case of Roy Sullivan, the man who was hit by lightning at least seven times in his lifetime. The odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 1.2 million, but understandably with enough people on the earth, those odds are significantly improved, but then to be hit not just twice but 7 times makes this such an improbable event.

He is recognised by the Guiness World Records as being hit the most times, so even if some strikes have been misattributed, it’s still extremely low odds.

There are other examples of naturalistic improbable events, such as people being born with two or more unassociated health conditions with low odds, etc.

  1. You have a singular account (the Torah) of an event being passed down. Not multiple different accounts from different observers being passed down independently

  2. There is not even any agreement as to what was “given” at Sinai - Rabbinical debate argues over whether it was the full Torah, the ten commandments, or that the laws were given in stages. Given that the Torah includes events of Sinai, the claim of the Torah being given could be misunderstood, but even considering it to mean “the law”, there is still debate over it as stated.

  3. The Torah itself - while attributed to one person (Moses) doesn’t state an author and has signs of being edited over centuries

  4. While a particular verse indicates the people observed the thunder and lightning, it doesn’t state that they observed anything beyond that. Certainly nothing to say they observed each other witnessing.

  5. While a particular verse indicates the people agreed to follow the laws, it was evident they did not actually do so - in the immediate aftermath, there was the golden calf incident, and further details throughout explain how the Israelites were repeatedly disobedient in the wilderness

  6. There is no supporting evidence for the mass presence of Israelites at Sinai or for the Exodus event in general

Again, we have a singular account stating an event was witnessed by others, not multiple witness accounts. You have as you put it: “my father told me that his father had told him that his father had told him… […] that multiple witnesses saw…”

No, because it originates from a singular source, and is identified as coming from a singular source. What you have is not proof of truth, it is proof of transmission. There is no dispute that the Torah has passed down through generations, the dispute is in the validity of its content.

As above, the evidence for the entire Israelite people at Sinai is not present. Nor is there evidence for a mass exodus. Sure, there is non-Jewish archaeology and history that can support different events to different degrees, but not necessarily coinciding with supernatural events described in the Torah. There is contrary evidence to certain events also, so this claim is very much disputed.

Preservation of texts does not equate to divine involvement. Other texts like Homer’s epics and the Rigveda have lasted extremely long times. The claims of isolation, word-for-word matching, and minute details are overstated, and the fidelity of disparate texts over centuries only attests to careful human transmission. It does not evidence anything beyond that.

DNA also does not prove anything beyond lineage. Similar could be said for the Hindu priestly classes (Brahmins), but it wouldn’t support the underlying theistic beliefs they hold either.

Seems to be a lot of strawman going on here, so the argument doesn’t carry much weight. Not that it really matters - Judaism has an origin, obviously, and? That is has an origin doesn’t inherently objectively evidence the underlying claims within Judaism.

In summary: Claims of evidence - at least in the detailed description provided - are overstated, not sufficiently explained, and at best, evidence the lineage of the people and their beliefs but do not objectively support any supernatural involvement.

Note: I may be viewed as having argued from a theistic standpoint in other threads, but primarily, my arguments are from a position of logic, hence my opposition to the claims in this thread (in case anyone was wondering)

26

The odds on any religions flourishing would be hard to calculate I inagine, given the many and various factors that would affect such an outcome.

The fact that a belief or set of beliefs persist, does not in and of itself tell us anything about the veracity of those beliefs.

2 Likes
27

First, thanks to @Skeptic2025 for summarizing things.

And as usual, I didn’t get but a few sentences into things before I had too many objections to go further. The one that stopped me in my tracks was the claim that atheists dismiss the supernatural because they have no personal experience with it. Well, of course some atheists dismiss the supernatural. Isn’t that the definition of argument from ignorance? If you have no personal experience, how do you know it’s real? I prefer to wait until the argument is over if the supernatural exists rather than argue over assuming it does exist and what is then possible.

1 Like
28

Nor is there any supporting evidence that Moses was an actual historic person, as opposed to an invented or composite Jewish culture hero.

It wasn’t lost on me. Appreciated.

29

This is a 4 part book and one of the parts is called Mutation: Shmutation

Please see what you have to say about this.

The book, ATHEISM v REAL JUDAISM: The Non-faith Religion – A Judicial Review, Book Three: MUTATION: SCHMUTATION by David M. Sands, is presented as a judicial review that sets out to “dissect and thereby disprove a world faith” that the author finds “stunningly-nonsensical and obstinate”. This faith is the belief in mutation as the driving force of evolution. The summary details the book’s comprehensive attack on both the concept of mutation and the figure of Charles Darwin.

I. Attack on Charles Darwin: The Deluded Deity

The book scrutinizes Charles Darwin, viewing him as the “grand priest of the faith” whose true character and philosophy are rooted in racism, elitism, and eugenics.

The Philosophical Foundation of Darwinism:
The author asserts that Darwin’s most revealing work was not The Origin of Species (1859), but rather his final major text, The Descent of Man (1870). This book is branded an “horrific amalgam” and “literally, astonishingly, a Nazi Tract”.

  1. Racial Elitism and Eugenics: The Descent of Man is viewed as promoting the enforced survival of the fittest for Darwin’s elite, white, wealthy, Aryan/Caucasian clade.
    • Darwin predicted that the “civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” expressing this as a state “as we may hope”.
    • He established a clear hierarchy of superiority, placing himself and the privileged Caucasian upper classes above “the negro or Australian and the gorilla,” concluding with the baboon.
    • Darwin discussed eugenics, noting that civilized societies permit “weak members” to “propagate their kind,” which must be “highly injurious to the race of man”. He found it ignorant to allow one’s “worst animals to breed,” implying the non-elite Caucasians were among the “worst animals”.
    • He explicitly wrote of hoping for checks, such as the weak in body or mind “refraining from marriage,” to indefinitely increase the cleansing, 58]. He claimed the qualities of women were “characteristic of the lower races” and denoted a “lower state of civilization”.
  2. Plagiarism: The author notes that Darwin’s supposed original contribution was “blatant plagiarism”. He borrowed similar ideas about evolution from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (Zoonomia 1794), as well as works by Lamarck, Buffon, Chambers, Lyell, Hooker, and Wallace.
  3. The Title’s Revelation: Darwin’s hideous philosophy is embedded A. Core Arguments: Impossibility and Lack of Evidence

The attack is grounded in two “irrefutable facts” that the author claims “All scientists agree” upon, despite the mainstream promotion of evolution:

  1. Mathematical Impossibility (The Law of Probability): The Law of Probability utterly destroys mutation. The spontaneous mutation of a single cell into a complex organism of 30–40 trillion cells has been mathematically proven impossible. The probability of mutation is less by one billion times than a person having walked on the moon. A chain Insufficient Time: Due to the mathematical impossibility of mutation, the time frame claimed by secularists is insufficient. Radiometric dating suggests life initiated only about 4 billion years ago. This is deemed too short a period, requiring “infinity” for the necessary beneficial changes to occur. Mutationists have reacted by inventing the idea of “Rapid Mutation,” which is criticized as far-fetched fantasy.
  2. Entropy Contradiction: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy), which governs increasing disorder in the universe, stands in contradiction to evolution, which posits an increase in order and complexity. The book notes that many secular scientists have recognized this apparent conflict.

B. Witnesses Against Mutation: Adaptation vs. Myth

The text re-cross-examines the commonly cited proofs of evolution, arguing that they show only adaptation (changes within a species’ inherent genetic template) rather than permanent mutation (changes outside the template, leading to a new species).

  • The Coelacanth (“Old Four Legs”): This fish was hailed as a missing link (with fins becoming legs and having lungs) based on a 70-million-year-old fossil. However, the later discovery of living coelacanths proved they were not mutating, having swiveling fins and a swim bladder, not feet or lungs.
  • Darwin’s Finches: These birds showed temporary changes in beak size based on food availability but remained the same species and successfully interbreed, disproving speciation.
  • Bacteria and Viruses: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is cited as survival of the fittest, not mutation, as resistant strains were always present in the population. Viruses are noted to be non-life forms, and their changes are non-progressive replication errors, irrelevant to Darwinian evolution.
  • The Whale Tale: The supposed mutation of a tiny water-deer/hyena land mammal (like Sinonyx or Pakicetus) into a whale in “a very few million years” is rejected as insufficient time. The theory of the migrating nostril is refuted by the modern sperm whale, whose blowhole location (at the front tip) does not align with its skeletal narial aperture (far back), proving that these structures do not need to be in line. Furthermore, many alleged intermediate whale fossils, like Rodhocetus, had features (like the fluke) drawn in based on speculation, not fossil evidence.
  • Hominid Fossils (Lucy, Ardi, Ida): These key alleged missing links are used as examples of the scientific community’s gullibility and blind faith. Fossils like Lucy (Australopithecus) and Ardi (Ardipithecus) are reconstructed from pulverized or multi-individual bone fragments based on imaginative supposition. Ida (Darwinius masillae) was launched as the “missing link” but was quickly debunked as merely a primitive lemur, yet the original hype persists.

C. Consequences and Flaws

The adherence to mutation, despite the contrary evidence, is explained by the author as necessary to the atheist worldview, which rejects religion and needs an alternative explanation for existence and moral structure.

  • The Flaw in Atheistic Morality: The atheist requires “Immaculate Mutation” because it replaces creation and provides a structure for the universe. However, this leads to an amoral code because evolution dictates the “Survival of the Brutal”. Atheists, imbued with a “post-Christian morality,” struggle to reconcile their desire for altruism, decency, and justice with the harsh amoral laws of Darwinian survival.
  • Vestigial Organs: Even the existence of “vestigial organs” (like thigh bones in some whales) is argued to disprove evolution because if natural selection abandons what is wasteful, these organs should have disappeared entirely over millions of years.
  • Specious Species: Darwin’s very premise is flawed because the term “species” is vague, arbitrary, and difficult to define, even by experts. The use of the word “species” allows simple adaptation (such as dog breeding, which never produces a fertile new species) to be fraudulently equated with actual mutation.

The book concludes that mutation is a “blind alley” and “arrant nonsense,” which betrays the atheist by resting on “unprovable suppositions”. All evolutionary “evidence” is dismissed as conjecture and wishful thinking, rendering it unacceptable for “any judicial consideration”.

30

You have failed to address a single word of the objections to your other two pieces of irrational verbiage. So this now just looks like spam.

1 Like
31

(Yawn) We’ve seen this kind of nonsense here before a million times over. Come back when you can demonstrate that you even understand the theory of evolution and the science behind it, and also when you can point to your peer-reviewed scientific papers and world renown for revolutionizing our understanding of natural selection.

32

(1) The book is wrong, since evolution is an objective scientific fact, (2) a fact which has nothing to do with atheism.

You clearly don’t understand either, especially as you’re rehashing creationist arguments that were debunked decades ago, like vestigial organs.

2 Likes
33

Absent further evidence my working hypothesis is the the OP is the author of the book and he’s not interested in actual engagement but rather, in just a preview of the bad-faith talking points he’ll have to concoct in order to answer possible objections in his own social media. AND/OR, points to dogfood back into future editions of his books.

As such it is likely we are just giving him aid and comfort by even talking with him; on the other hand, for-the-record rebuttals have arguably more value. It’s not like he’s actually going to get anywhere with his nonsense, with anyone at scale that matters anyway.

34

  1. Which atheist?

  2. You do realize that a/theism and evolution are not inextricably linked nor mutually exclusive, right? You get that they are two completely different subjects, right?

1 Like
35

Poisoning the well fallacy?

It doesn’t matter what Charles Darwin’s views are. It doesn’t matter if Darwin was a mass murdering psychopath or any other deplorable example. His theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and it stands or falls on its own. It has been examined, re-examined, challenged, tested, etc.

Charles Darwin, or any attack on his character (ad-hominem) has no bearing on the theory whatsoever. This is why ad-hominem attacks and the whole range of ad-hominem based fallacies like poisoning the well are known as red-herring fallacies. They try to deflect attention away from the real argument.

Probability doesn’t work that way. This has been mentioned already in previous comments. Choosing to double down with your new comment instead of responding to the previous comments doesn’t support your position. It just looks like you’re stuck on “preach mode”.

Entropy is not an absolute in specificity, it is a generalisation. The average across the whole universe is heading toward disorder, but the idea that every single thing must individually head toward disorder is a fallacious view. You talk of probabilities being impossible yet this is one of the actual impossibilities. A general trend toward disorder can still have clustering that trends in reverse - back toward order. As long as the general trend is toward disorder, this does not contravene the second law of thermodynamics.

Fruit flies have been proven to demonstrate speciation (evolution into a new distinct species) over a series of generations in isolation with diverse food sources.

Darwin’s finches have been observed in more recent times as experiencing speciation - the “big bird” occurred when a hybrid of two species mated with local birds and eventually has become reproductively isolated.

And so on.

The morality of humans is not affected by the “amorality” of nature. Morality is dependent on will. Nature does not have a will.

If a mutation occurs, and the mutation is beneficial, there’s a good chance it will take hold over time. If the mutation has no meaningful benefit (i.e., any benefit or weakness is insufficient to impact chances of survival) then it won’t take hold over time.

If you’re going to make an argument about vestigial organs, then what is the alternative hypothesis here? Why else would they exist?

It sounds very much like the book has refused to engage with the actual science behind evolution, and is instead attempting to attack the initial person behind the theory, and then strawmanning the position from very selective viewpoints to give the impression of a win to anyone ignorant to the facts.

2 Likes
36

Like mordant, I am convinced the OP is the author of the book and as such, I will no longer respond.

37

Using the laws of thermodynamics is a very common straw man argument from creationists. The claim is that since the overall entropy in isolated systems, or even the universe, tends to increase, then evolution is impossible since that would mean decreasing entropy. Sounds credible on the surface of it…if you have no idea what the second law of thermodynamics actually says. If we go down into the details, there are a number of problems with the creationist argument. Here is just one of the problems.

Even if the overall entropy in a system increases, this does not preclude entropy to decrease locally, as we can have pockets where the configuration and energy conditions are such that e.g. self-organising processes are favourable. The entropy outside these localised sub-systems would then of course increase proportionately more to compensate.

Creationists normally use the classical formulation of the second law of thermodynamics, in which you look at an isolated system. The problem here is that the earth – or the solar system, or our galaxy, or our local cluster of galaxies, etc. – are not isolated systems, so the law as formulated does not really apply. Isolated systems are more of a theoretical idealisation of a system (to make it easier or even possible to do calculations), not a description of actual physical systems. Somewhat simplified, the earth receives energy from the sun in the form of electromagnetical radiation ranging from radio frequencies to gamma rays, and reradiates energy largely in the form of thermal infrared radiation. This means that we have a flux of energy through the system, with the absorption of energy of a highly diverse electromagnetic spectrum that can drive all sorts of processes, to the reemitting of “lower quality” heat radiation that is much harder to make use of to drive physical processes. This “downgrade” in the usability of the electromagnetical radiation energy drives processes on earth, for example in the form of self-organising systems where there is a high enough throughput of energy. Thus, the energy from the sun is a driver for processes that can decrease entropy in localised pockets on earth.

And so we see that the very axiom the creationists base their argument from does not apply, or is misapplied. And for this very reason their argument is a big fail.

Edit: There is also another neglected source of energy that trips up the creationist argument, and that is heat from the earth’s core that can drive processes near for example deep-sea vents and in hot-water springs at or near the surface, and whenever you have hot water running in and colder water running out from a system.

Edit 2: Added an essential word.

3 Likes
38

If you found any of the material you posted compelling, well… it isn’t. It’s hot garbage imo.

3 Likes
39

Not only did I mention that tedious and tiresome screed of his earlier in the thread, I have devoted MANY column inches here and elsewhere, to destroying the creationist lies peddled in that noxious little tome.

Oh wait, I already mentioned above, that the author isn’t a biologist, and is therefore in NO position to critique material he clearly knows sweet fuck all about.

It will NOT take the diligent long to find my numerous posts here, on such topics as evolutionary biology and prebiotic chemistry. The site search facility allows users to search for relevant terms in connection with the authors of posts, and, for example, if anyone looks for posts containing “evolution” in connection with my user name, the list will be LONG. As will the posts, because I’ve expended effort presenting dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers from the literature, whose contents utterly destroy creationist lies.

Indeed, I’ve compiled an entire list of creationist canards and the demolition thereof, which can be viewed via this Google Docs link:

The diligent, upon reading that document, will realise that I’ve expended some effort in this vein.

3 Likes
40

It is hard to make a proper summary of a 4 part book series that has a couple of hundred pages, so I apologize in advance if I misled you into thinking that the summary of the book is everything. You need to actually buy the book in order to truly understand the author’s perspective and then comment.

PS: For all those thinking I am actually the author, I’m not, otherwise I would have provided you with immediate replies based on sources from the book. I just want to start a discussion based on the book itself.