Review of Dawkins' book - by Christian Amazon user (Parody)

Further to my previous thread regarding a rather honest yet hilarious review of the bible - here is a review of Dawkins' book "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution" written by a Christian:-

This is a detailed and meticulous description of evolution and the history of biological life. Of its type, this is one of the most comprehensive and readable accounts available. Unfortunately Dawkins is operating entirely within the wrong paradigm!

Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain:

1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean
2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary
3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence
4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world
5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered

So go ahead and read Dawkins' lucid prose in 'The Ancestor's Tale' - but remember there are some occasions when facts are wrong.

Source

Now i must be honest and state this is not truely a religious critique. It is a parody. It sure fooled me, i honestly thought this was serious.

Can anyone blame me when people like Ken Hovind are using such awful straw man arguments.

Here's a comical video also if anyone wants to look at some of his straw man arguments;



Other thread can be found here:-

A Review of the bible - by Amazon user.

its easy to cry straw man , but hard to break it up a wise man once said

reply to post by seedofchucky


Pascal's wager

reply to post by awake_and_aware


clearly you misunderstood the wise mans words . But of course thats the byproduct of pre concieved notions

reply to post by seedofchucky


Which wise man?

I understand that pre-supposing a creator, and to go further and claim to know is emotions and desires is irrational.

It's a lewd guess. I'd prefer to remain open-minded due to my current agnosticism.

Humans don't know that infinity, a loop is at the source of existence/reality/the universe/(the potential macroverse)

So pre-supposing a creator i feel is simply a guess based on a lack of evidence and an argument from causation:

The Cosmological argument.

Now please tell me how i mistunderstand, or how my position is logically fallible.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It's a lewd guess. I'd prefer to remain open-minded due to my current agnosticism.

Thats all evolution is.

What amazes me is that people who are never right in anything like dawkins gets a position to spout his arguments, of calling people names.

Best arguments i have ever heard, the geezer is a genius, like so many humans, lol. A genius who has never ever found out anything secret other than how to ridicule, like all the arrogant people we have learnt to listen too.

reply to post by andy1033

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is “just a theory” rather than a fact, as if this demonstrated that it shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.

In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact.

Yeah... evolution is definetly untrue, the magic sky God created everything, that's a perfectly acceptable alternative "theory".

If evolution is just a theory, then religion is just a lie as it's based on 0 evidence. I can play dirty too, see.

Typical Atheist tactics, ad hominem attacks without addressing any of the questions asked.

reply to post by Kayzar


Ask questions, we're more than happy to try and answer them if we can, in regards to God existing; i'm sorry we can't answer that question, but somehow religion can?

It is religion that is in the questionable position, and we will ask questions, and challenge rediculous ideas.

I must admit, I liked the Bible review much better. It was actually funny and this one is just a bit of a sad attempt. Maybe if somebody who wasn't angry about it actually wrote it there would be more of the funnies. Don't get me wrong, if it was done properly the review may of had potential for a laugh but it failed.