Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
The book discusses transitional fossils and the mechanism of (and evidence for) speciation.
|
See, even you understand (however unintended) a "discussion" does not constitute an empirical, scientific proof.
Here is the author's basic argument:
Creationists sometimes cite what they claim to be an incomplete fossil record as evidence that living things were created in their modern forms. But this argument ignores the rich and extremely detailed record of evolutionary history that paleontologists and other biologists have constructed over the past two centuries and are continuing to construct. Paleontological research has filled in many of the parts of the fossil record that were incomplete in Charles Darwin’s time. The claim that the fossil record is “full of gaps” that undermine evolution is simply false. Indeed, paleontologists now know enough about the ages of sediments to predict where they will be able to find particularly significant transitional fossils, as happened with Tiktaalik and the ancestors of modern humans. Researchers also are using new techniques, such as computed axial tomography (CT), to learn even more about the internal structures and composition of delicate bones of fossils. Exciting new discoveries of fossils continue to be reported in both the scientific literature and popular media.
Oh yeah, he really says a lot here! I agree! You are way more observant than I am. I bow to your vast and superior powers of observation. I could not have possibly read this book because this statement, had I read it, should have caused me to toss my Bible right into the fiction section. Tiktaalik is a good example. IT’S A FISH, STUPID! (Not an ad-hom, but meant in the context of "Its the economy, stupid!", meaning there is an obvious truth that someone is oblivious to.) An extinct fish! OOOOooooo, that’s proof that they are the “ancestors of modern humans”. Listen to yourselves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
You should try reading it before dismissing it. Especially because it goes out of its way to point out why science (and evolution) say absolutely *nothing* about the existence of God, pro or con. No more than a cookie recipe says something about God.
|
I think the quality of "going out of your way" to do something is an excellent example of empiracle proof. You put a lot of emotional effort into this rebuttal and I want you to know that I appreciate it. But saying THE BOOK SAYS ITS TRUE! Is eerily similar to what you are accusing me of saying. However, this author's circulation and following does not get past the broken link to the PDF version of this magnificently written
opinion of the ID argument.
Bowing down to the assured results of higher criticism is sure to set you firmly on your Piltdown feet.