Oh deary deary dear;
One thing I find amusing about creationist websites is that they rarely, if ever, link to sites putting forth opposing claims. Evolutionist sites refuting creationist claims LOVE linking to creationist websites - look at the following example;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
In this, an essay on Johnson's book, there are links to four web pages where Johnson or other creationists make their claims. Funny how creationists hide the evidence their opponents put forth and evolutionists publish it. How ... honest ... good to know the 'truth' has nothing to hide, eh?
I'll chop through some of this as I haven't got all day - the above link deals with Johnson well, and then we have...
Like Johnson, Denton points out that Darwinism is not a fact.
This is where the misleading statements and lack of real knowledge about the issue raise their head. No one, I think, at least no reputable scientist, has ever claimed
Darwinism is a fact. It is a
theory to explain the
evidence[b/], one of several [b]theories, some of which are by no means mutually exclusive. Anyone who had ever studied evolution itself, rather than making a special study of the refutation of evolution, would not make this mistake.
It is a mechanistic theory that is still without a mechanism. While moths and fruit flies do respond to environmental stimuli, our observations of this process have been unable to shed any light on the means by which we have come to have horses and woodpeckers and wasps.
This is either an outright lie, or perhaps another instance of the writer basing his arguement on the writing of people refuting evolution rather than any real knowledge of the subject itself. Speciation has been observed [
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html ]. We have evidence, from Darwin's finshes, to the fauna of Papua, from the speciation event that gave rise to the difference between Benobos and Chimpanzees, to artifical selection (animal husbandry), to fruit-flies, to humans, over the VARIETY of mechanisms, be they environmental, geographical, chronological, mutational, and more, that evolution takes place.
The origin of complex adaptations has remained a mystery. The fossil record is pockmarked with gaps in the most embarrassing places. Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms between major groups of organisms, yet the few transitions that are suggested are surrounded in controversy.
More lies;
transitional fossils? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
macroevolution? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html , http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
gaps? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
complex structures? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
The writer of the post would save themselves the embaressment of repeating distotions they have read elsewhere if they actually studied the subject that they are attacking themselves rather than leaving it to other people whose motives often seem uncertain.
Another "fact" that fails to withstand Denton's scrutiny is the assumption that similar biological structures owe their similarity to a common ancestry. Homology, which studies these similarities, assumes for example that the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are similar in structure because they evolved from the same source. Denton reveals, however, that these same classes of vertebrates go through remarkably different stages of early embryological development. This was certainly not a prediction of Darwinian evolution.
Errr... this fact does not contradict the 'prediction of Darwinian evolution' (define what that is, just to show us you can).
Even more importantly, Denton reports that comparison of the sequences of proteins from different organisms actually supports the pre-Darwin system of classification, which was based on creationist principles.
He states it, but if he told you a bucket of shit was icecream, would you eat it?
At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
[Above quote from a larger article debunking Denton on
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html]
The top most link deals with Johnson, but there's a few things that caught my eye in the post;
In other words, anything that smells of God must be creationist and must be stamped out.
This highlights the internal opinion of the writer; that if evolution is right, there is no god. There are loads of people who believe in god AND evolution. They just don't belive that the Bible is literal. But if you did that, I suppose you'd have to make a lot of other decisions about what's right and wrong, by using your brain and morals, rather than a religious text book written by Bronze-Age goatherds. I suppose you look down on people who believe in god AND evoltuion as well... how... Christian...
Conclusion
In summary, I have pointed out that many critical predictions of Darwinian evolution have not been fulfilled. As a result, naturalistic atheism, the underlying philosophy of much of the evolutionary establishment, has been threatened.
No, you haven't. And no it hasn't. You've trotted out a few books that have made no impact whatsoever upon the sceintific world as they are inacurate. You've also demonstarted you are arguing about a subject you know nothing about. Look at the reaction you made to the question about why whales have hind legs! Why don't you look for something from a creationist website to answer this, just as we provide answers to your drivel? TEll you what, I'd love it if you found ANYTHING on the subject, and here's a few more you won't be able to answer OR find creationist answers too;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
The response of many evolutionists has been to issue increasingly dogmatic statements that appeal to authority, not to evidence, play semantic word games where evolution is called both a fact and a theory, and wage an educational filibuster aimed at squelching all dissent.
In a just world your tounge would fall out for using the word filibuster in any other context than yourself. This above statement is a lie. I thought good Christian's didn't lie. Please find me one article where a evolutionist only makes appeals to authority and sites no evidence. And remember, a scientists appeal to authority is something like 'so and so has proved x', where they are merely citing the evidence that so and so has gathered, not the fact that so and so is so and so. You mention Johnsons a Doctor like we are gonna piss ourselves over his mighty brian.
The evolutionists are not likely to abandon these tactics anytime soon, but until they do, they can expect even more criticism from scholars such as Professor Philip Johnson
Hahahahahahahahahahaha... oh deary deary deary dear... criticism on fashion from a man in a kipper tie... Oooooo!
Say 'Hi' and give him the URL, I'd love to talk to him. Or you could give him the topmost URL, and he could knock up a response to the critique of his book and post it here...
Now, you seem very worried by 'our' theory of evolution.
What I am curious about is how you know that your theory of god is correct. Or do you think you have the facts about god? If so, prove it... I have a Hindu next door and dozens of Muslims in the company who would be fascinated to know why you are right and they are wrong.
Oh, but, if you are right and they are wrong, you are being dogmatic! Wow! You wouldn't want that!! Of course you could cite some evidence about why you are right. Evidence. You now, things that prove something was somewhere at sometime, that kind of thing. What do you mean you've got a book? Hell, my Hindu friend next door has got an older book, and ask any Muslim and they'll tell you the Quaran is superior to the Bible. I'm sure I can find a Mormom, they've got a book, and, well Scientologists have LOADS of books.
Anything other than a book? Lots of people believe it. Nah, you wouldn't say that, that's an appeal to authority. In anycase, I think more Muslims attend 'services' than Christians, so that's no proof.
Archaelogical evidence? Wow, you mean a book written thousands of years ago gets some historical facts right? Woohoo! But the Quaran does that too!
And it, just like the Bible, and Bhagadvavita, is demonstrably not a literal view of the world.
The sooner you get over that, the sooner you'll realise how big god might be if he actually exists.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
