Wow, way to dismiss an entire book without even glancing at it.

The book discusses transitional fossils and the mechanism of (and evidence for) speciation.

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.

__________________
Man up.

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!

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.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

why is evolutionary theory so threatening to creationists?

__________________

I wouldn't characterize it as "threatening". It is more along the lines of this:

If my friend came to my house to get something I forgot for work. And when he comes to me, in person, and tells me he caught my wife having sex with another man. He better have his facts straight! Not because I am threatened, but because I need to know where my relationship stands with my wife. The importance of fidelity is so over-powering, that its the mortar that holds the foundation of our love for one another.

If God told me that he created the world in six literal days, then I believe him. If someone tells me that He was dishonest, then what's at stake, drives the passion of the response.

If my friend was lying to me, then I need to solve that problem with passion. If my friend was telling me the truth, then I would solve that problem with passion as well. Because the stakes are so very important, and very high, you get a very passionate response. Don't misconstrue passion, with "threat" as if we were vulnerable.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

i see. however, i doubt you take everything in the bible literally. why take the creation story so literally?

__________________

If my son found my daugher in his room, without permission, playing with his Wii. He might yell, "Get out of my room or I will kill you!"

Now if I took him literally, what would the courts say?

I think rational people should help the "others" by upholding the axiom "context is king". And typically, most Bible passages can be taken out of context to fit all manners scullduggery.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

context is important, i agree. i think considering how unbelievable so many accounts in the bible are, and considering how christians do acknowledge (or claim) the use of figurative speech when it suits them is an excellent context to consider.

__________________

I don't get what your point is. Could you explain, minus the sarcasm?

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.

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.

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?

Why do creationists turn all nasty when people ask them to actually *learn* about evolution?

__________________
Man up.

The Bible does not allow itself to be thought of in any other way, other than to be entirely truthful. It says that it is all useful for instruction, it says it's perfect, it says that not one part will be false, till all of what it speaks of, takes place.

When a Christian says that a writer is using metaphor, then it is or it isn’t'. Pure and simple. If it is, then the person is telling you the truth, and you have a reliable source of information. If it isn't, then the person is either mistaken or is a liar. Either way, the information you get isn't as trust worthy.

Just because you may know some unreliable sources of information, doesn't mean that you can heap a truck load of guilt upon the whole population group. I am sorry that there were people in your life who attempted to ruin your view of God. But as we talked about before, the state of the messenger doesn't not always reflect the quality of it's sender.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

1) The Koran also claims to be perfect.
2) I like how you "know" that if a person claims "that a writer is using a metaphor" that they are mistaken or lying. Being that the oldest known bible was written many years after the death of Jesus (60ish), how do you know what the author's meant?
3) It seems to me that the perons who "attempt to ruin the view of God" are always Christians. (See Prosperity Gospel)


Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.