If this as aimed at me, you might check back on my posts. You will see I claimed that appendix D of Sewell's book was full of errors. An appendix by the way, that had nothing to do with the focus of the book, which is Calculus. I also made the comment that if the rest of his text was as bad as the appendix I hoped it was not used as an education textbook. I did not claim that the text was full of errors.
Putting a creationist appendix in a book primarily devoted to another subject seems unnervingly familiar. Something like sneaking a "peer reviewed" article pushing creationism into a journal otherwise devoted to cataloging birds and butterflies.
I did not claim that the text was full of errors.
Not sure where you think I wronged you. I was only ever referring to the appendix in question.
The serious part of my question, though, was about Barbara J. Stahl's book "Vertebrate History: problems in evolution". The 1 reviewer on Amazon seems to think this is a rather brutally honest admission of the failure of the paleontological record to support evolution, written by a total evolutionary paleontology insider.
But whenever I think I've come across a book that provides a stunning critique of Darwinism, it turns out someone on this thread can tell me that it's full of errors or some such thing, so I was just wondering if someone could save me the time of reading it. Since talkorigins, you folks, all say that there is no problem in supporting evolution from paleontology. So someone's gotta be wrong.
Right?
(I'm really hoping someone says 'Stahl doesn't understand evolution'. That would be like Christmas, just funner.)