(emphasis added) For some more interesting reading, check out the following links: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/foot/foot.htm (apparently, the Palauxi tracks aren't the only anomolous prints!) http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/hammer/hammer.htm (Assuming dinosaurs weren't smart enough to make tools, where did this Cretaceous hammer with an odd chlorine-iron alloy head come from?) http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/bell/bell.htm (And then there's this brass bell in a coal bed millions of years old.) I realize that inundating this board with threads ofull of scientific data like this that defies evolutionary theory won't change the faithful loyalty of those who place their religious persuasions in such unfounded theories. Nevertheless, I do think I should at least continue to point out some of the major problems with evolution. There's a<i>lot</i> more where that came from. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Caleb
It's all good Caleb, Your contributions to the evolutionary theory may someday become important questions. Since I'm unlikely to shell out for a 900 page book at this time--my reading schedule is pretty much booked and behind schedule for the next three months--perhaps you could answer a simple question: What is the authors' purpose? Do they posit scientifically testable explanations, or simply complain about other peoples' theories? I'm inclined to the latter based on your citations, but that's a thin judgement to make on such a portion of the text. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can agree with that. Unfortunately, I had to give up most of my reading :sob: when I began a summer job. Also, I haven't read that book. I was just posting the review because of some of the data it contained in it. I can point you to the website where I found the book review, and you can look at three or four pictures of the evidence their talking about, but other than that, I can't help you there. ~Caleb
Fair enough, Caleb I'll check the web for it; the least I can do is give it a few minutes to see what I can find out from the source. But in the meantime, the evidence in this book is no more than a Ripley's Believe it or Not exhibit; the science of their assertions is not apparent from the citaton, and experience teaches me to look for things omitted, and to check very carefully the actual words of the scientific hypothesis asserted. Should I find the time to read the book, I'll be happy to write a critical review, either way. But until then, I'm not sure what they're asserting, other than the classic antiscientific idea that the perceived faults of a theory definitively indicate the truth of an opposing theory. And that's a tired approach. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Rigor!! Kudos for the scientific rigor apparent in your post! Of course, it is curiously one-sided, being applied only to potentially Christian stances. Where antichristian issues are concerned, anything goes. After all, rigor is rigorous, and who wants all that rigor? Aaahhh, good ole THC!!! You'll swallow any kind of garbage at all, as long as it is antichristian. What kind of scientific rigor did you apply to the appearance of your goddess, whom you yourself refer to as "psychosis?"
