The Counter-Creationism Handbook comes to the masses!

We should definitely send one to the prison library with whole bunch of good reading.

Where do we send our $$$? ;-)

Is it going to be avaiable in the UK by any chance ? I've checked Amazon.co.uk.
Unfortunately it's not there.

I think I'll take up a collection at my church, buy some copies, and donate them to Dover High School.

No, mark, see, in order to get into the full spirit of it, you have to:
- Make a meandering statement about how people can give if they want, but it's no big deal if they don't, because after all, it isn't an official collection.
- Give the money to your father, who will then write a check for the order, making him simultaneously the source and not the source of the books (depending on which is more convenient at the time)
- And most importantly, deny all knowledge of the process.

After all, if they can do it and try to get away with it, why shouldn't we?

It does appear on Amazon UK for me - try searching for "Mark Isaak" and it'll come up.

It's a shame that this really is nothing more than a paper version of the TalkOrigins archive. As useful as that is, I would have liked to see some of the referenced papers discussed in more detail. Just printing the URL isn't much help; if I were sat in front of a computer with an internet connection I wouldn't need the book in the first place.

It does appear on Amazon UK for me - try searching for "Mark Isaak" and it'll come up.

A book version of TalkOrigins? Egads, the online version is dreadful enough.

Some interesting responses from those wacky Creationists:

http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims

Nobody saw the hypothetical creature reproduce so many times that it became a fish

The "Index to Creationist Claims" page on Talk Origins seems to be updated frequently. Why hasn't the "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics" page been updated since 2003? Is it perhaps because the scientific evidence hasn't been very favorable for the "shared errors" argument? I take a stab at the issue in the following essay. Since my position is pro-ID, I suspect the essay will go over like a lead balloon in this forum, but here goes:

http://www.geocities.com/wade_schauer/Changing_Tide.pdf

For the interest of PT's audience, a piece from today's Guardian:
Richard Buggs: Intelligent design is a science, not a faith.

The only new twist that distinguishes it about standard creationist letters is that, Mr Buggs readily refers to his publications to claim some authority in talking about Darwin and evolution.

I just bumped into this:

Debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design - Lewis Wolpert vs Steve Fuller at Royal Hollaway University of London on 21st Feb

Wade Schauer:

There's nothing in your article that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and there is no evidence that there was an intelligent designer designing all these organisms.

Lewis Wolpert vs Steve Fuller

There's nothing in your article that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and there is no evidence that there was an intelligent designer designing all these organisms

— Aagcobb

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI141.html There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome.

Wade, you have to start making specific predictions of what is to be discovered, and be more accurate than those predictions made re evolution, if you wish to be taken seriously. After-the-fact handwaving doesn't count, no matter how persuasive it might sound to those who already agree with you.

Wade, you have to start making specific predictions of what is to be discovered, and be more accurate than those predictions made re evolution, if you wish to be taken seriously.

— MarkP

Back in 1999 when Richard Dawkins estimated that only 2% of the human genome was used...

— Wade Schauer

Wade, I'm not buying it. Cite your source, and give us direct quotes, with appropriate context. What did Richard Dawkins really say?

— Steve Greene

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins ... And there's lots more DNA that doesn't even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, "tandem repeats", and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn't seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA ... Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% - considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it.