Quote:
Originally Posted by usgrant7
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. |
I don't get what your point is. Could you explain, minus the sarcasm?
Quote:
|
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!
|
If you re-read the paragraph you quoted, you'll see that the author is not calling Tiktaalik an ancestor of modern humans -- just an example of a transitional fossil.
Quote:
|
But saying THE BOOK SAYS ITS TRUE! Is eerily similar to what you are accusing me of saying.
|
Except I'm not claiming anything is true simply because it's in a book. Science requires that claims be backed with actual evidence. Do I consider the authors of this book to be informed and knowledgable? Yes. Do I consider their argument persuasive? Yes. But it's not gospel. If you can critique the arguments and rebut the evidence, you're free to do so. Except you'd actually have to read the book first.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The PDF of the summary downloads just fine, for me. But that's just a summary anyway. If you're having trouble with the PDF, on the same page are links to web pages containing the full text of the book.
There's no real excuse for not reading it other than "I don't want to." Which is fine, but then you're at something of a disadvantage if you want your opinions of evolution to be taken seriously. How can you critique something you don't understand?
Quote:
|
Bowing down to the assured results of higher criticism is sure to set you firmly on your Piltdown feet.
|
Why do creationists turn all nasty when people ask them to actually *learn* about evolution?