Bex,

Concerning your quotes from the textbooks. The choice of words by those authors is very poor, especially for a high school biology book. It can imply that the embryos pass through the other evolutionary stages in its development, even though it clearly states that the embryos only have characteristics like the embryos of other species. If they don't explicitly state in the section on embryo similarities that this does not mean the embryos actually become the creature during development and that having similarities does not mean the embryos are exactly alike, then they need to change the text. I don't have those books to look it up and the only things I could find on line were quotes of those same passages from creationist web sites. Since you seem to have those references available, could you look and tell me if those books provide a statement that says the embryos don't actually become the embryo of another animal?

Concerning Vestigial parts:

You are going to find all kinds of simplification concerning the explanation of vestigial parts. Simplifying something can leave out some details or even provide a slightly different meaning. In looking at the simplification you have to ask who the intended audience was and how they would take it. I am sure you wouldn't tell your 10-12 year old Sunday School class about the details of how David got the hand of Michal, or the Ezekial's comparison of Israel's actions to the sexual proclivities of a lustful woman.
I have never said vestigial parts are useless. That there is confusion outside of science concerning the definition is not surprising.

The question I had was: Can you find a quote from a biologist declaring that the tonsils and appendix are useless? Can you find a quote that states that the tonsils and appendix are vestigial organs? If they are, what do biologists claim is the organ that they originated from?

Quote
First of all, great historians use figurative language i.e. figure of speech, to dramatise their writing which is none-the-less truthful for that. The prodical son is announced clearly as a parable (a fictional story with a moral attached) i.e. forgiveness. It is introduced as an extended similie (comparison).

What are the literary cues that lead you to this conclusion and how do those cues differ from the way Genesis is written? What words in the text "announce" the prodigal son as a parable? What about the rich man and Lazarus?

Quote
It is clear also when Jesus is telling a story or factual direct reality. One of his phrases was "Amen, amen I say to you" (before giving us plain and often painful fact). The prodical son, if I'm not mistaken, was not given a name either, neither was the father!.
So if the people are not given names then that makes it a parable?

Quote
St Paul, writes about Jesus being the second Adam in such strong terms that there is no doubt about the original Adam or the original fall from grace. Jesus refers to Moses and states that "if they believe not Moses, how will they believe that one rose from the dead". There are references from the new testament to the old that refer to each other and their reality and confirm both. e.g. "As in the days of Noah, so will it be when the son of man returns". The prodical son was an obvious example, but still strongly reflected reality. E.g. the example He used with the sheep (when one goes astray, the shepherd going in search of the lost). It may have been a parable, but it was clearly a reality example! Even the "stories" Jesus told, always have their basis in truth. Jesus referred to the time of Noah as happening once again, near the time of his return and we can see that being played out today. The bible warns time and time again what happens in cases of widespread rampant sin and when things become so unbalanced that God finally acts out His justice and so it will be again. People then scoffed and they are scoffing today in much the same way.
I certainly hope you don't think I am scoffing. However, Jesus referencing the Old Testament stories is not necessarily a guarantee that He was stating they were history. He has been shown to use fictional stories to make his points (parables...et al). Why must the creation story and flood be literal history in order for Jesus to reference them to make a point? People do it all the time...referencing Shakespeare, or Melville or Milton. The point is then made. Assuming the history of the universe consisted of billions of years, and evolution,and assuming Jesus is God and knew all that, what heavenly truth could He have revealed by telling them that? It made more sense to use a reference they knew already.

Quote
There is an introduction that indicates Jesus is telling a story and at the end of the story, He explains it to His listeners.
Neither prodigal son, nor the Rich Man and Lazarus have an introduction or explanation.
Quote
I think alot of common sense is also involved and the use of figures of speech, such as "metaphor", "simile", "hyperbole" etc does not diminish, but rather enhances the truth in a dramatic way. Common sense can sort out the differences between actual truth and a story with a moral or lesson. You'll also notice that real names are used for real people and the real events that surround them. Jesus refers back to them sometimes in the new testament. Just as the prophets of the old testament referred to Christ in highly prophetic language!
And mixed prophecy about him with prophecy about other people...See Isaiah. (not for discussion here)
Common sense would tell you that there is not enough water to flood the Earth. Common sense also tells us that the sun goes around the Earth, science says differently.

Quote
When I read the bible, I become aware by the way it's written as to whether it is a parable or a direct warning/fact. If one does not wish to accept God at His word and they want to play-down, twist, mix-up, water-down, then they do so at their own peril. I believe God has made it very clear throughout the bible for anybody (even a child) to gain more than enough to understand. Unless we become as little children, we will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
So, how do you use this awareness of the way it is written to determine if the trees really were trying to anoint a king of trees?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke