ex-robot

Interesting But Needs More Creativity, April 29, 2000
Reviewer: A reader
I believe in evolution, and think that the fish changed into humans. The book should have discussed this.
______________________________________________
Maybe this was a creationist trying to make evolutionists look stupid!

xr

Gooch's dad

<sigh>

It is sad that there are so many ignorant YEC'ers out there, spewing such nonsense. Especially Woodmorappe. He really ought to know better.

OK, time to re-activate my Amazon account and post some reviews. I stopped buying from them due to their invasive privacy policy, but I can post reviews without actually buying books from 'em.

And don't forget to rate the creationist reviews as unhelpful too!

SmashingIdols

There are a few evolutionists posing as creationists out there too - those are the funniest of all!

Late_Cretaceous

"Every book on evolution should be in the "Religion" section of bookstores"

Perhaps books about creation science should be under science fiction. No, wait the word science lends too much credibility. They should be under fairy tales.

Wyrdsmyth

Even if radiometric dating has some of the problems he claims it does, how old does Woodmorappe say the earth is? What is his best scientific guess, based on the evidence and what he considers the best methods we ought to use? Let me guess; he doesn't say.

But let's say radiometric dating has a huge range of error such that the earth might not really be 4.6 billion years old after all... at its lower range of error, the earth may really be 3.6 billion years old. That's a huge error of half a billion years.

But even so; how does that help Biblical Creationism, at all? Even if radiometric dating has a much larger range of deviation than what is currently agreed upon in mainstream science (let's say Woodmorappe has a point), how large would that range of error have to get to include the possibility of an earth that is only 7000 years old?

Is it just me, or does it look like a frothy mouthed feeding frenzy out there? Are people just latching on to anything which they feel is a "devastating attack" on evolution and atheism (rolled together to be one enemy philosophy of course), even if that attack is at best peripheral and of absolutely no support to Biblical Literalism, at all?

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

tgamble

Well, you see evolutionists invented radiometric dating to support the myth of an old earth which they needed to support their absurd religion that claims, given enough time, rocks turned into people.

This nonsense was invented solely for destroying the truth of GOD'S WORD which is free of all errors. Any claim of an error is obviouslly an error since the bible is free of errors. Simple logic.

Now that Woodmorappe has shown that radiometric dating is flawed and full of holes, the only basis for the myth of an old earth, the ONLY alternative available (the TRUTH of god's word) can take it's rightful place.

Valentine Pontifex

This is a problem through out Amazon when books that might ignite popular controversy. People if they are on the same side as the author give it a high rating and if they are not on the same side they give it a low rating. Similiar problems can be found for the rating of the reviewers as well. That people who have not read the book are reviewing it is simply shameful behavior that BOTH sides are guilty of.

Also people with a potential conflicts of interest are not identifying them. Those who are members of the author's organization or in organizations opposing them, in most cases, should note that fact if they write reviews.

SmashingIdols

In an ideal world, with honest people on both sides of the issues, I would agree.

However, if you were to post a review under the current scenario, and state up front what your affiliations and beliefs are, you are giving the other side an unfair advantage - none or few of them have done this, so you will be seen as biased and they will not.

I refuse to give them the advantage just because they are unethical.

Voodoo Child

Bingo

Secular Pinoy

It's worse than we think! Amazon has a new feature, the Customer Advice. And what did I see recommended by customers instead of Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory? No Free Lunch by Dembski! Let's get all the infidels to vote for The Blind Watchmaker in every Cretinist book in Amazon. Let's start with Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. Onward secular soldiers!

Here's the ASIN of TBW: 0393315703