Hmmm. The express purpose of presenting this topic was to give you the opportunity of commenting on the author's illumination of a very convincing refutation of the faith-based evolutionary's conjectures. What's the problem (rhetorical)?
Otherwise we can all reasonably conclude that you are really just blowing smoke.
Well, if so, it's not evolutionary pants-afire smoke, which is coming out of the contentions you made. Martin's book deals with them effectively.
The truth of the matter, again, is that you don’t speak for science, because you reject the defining scientific principle of natural explanations for natural processes.
Natural explanations may or may not be based on foundational truths. Some not: Phlogiston as source of energy. Stress causes ulcers. Tyrranosaurus rex was carnivorous. Fossilization requires thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Blood vessels or relicts of blood cells in dinosaur bones are from mummification of flesh prolonged hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Evolution is a process recognized by the ancients and thoroughly proven today. Et cetera, etc.
Prove that the explanations you propose are not just assumptions made to connect a gradualism time frame with (an) observed fact(s).
So what you are selling here is not science, but something else — your religious convictions.
I've not been "selling" either. Stick to disproving rather than ignoring the issues Martin deals with in "The Evolution of a Creationist." The purpose of the initial post is to bring the free availability of the book again to the attention of the community, not to troll for displaying my ability (or lack of it) as a creationist or debater.
Sorry, I'm not interested in that book.
But I am very interested in people who post on Free Republic to argue against Evolution Theory.
I enjoy the opportunity to take on their (your) arguments one by one, and respond with what I think is basic science.
So I'll say it again: spare me your arrogance and condescension, and make your best case -- here, on Free Republic.
Sure, link to whatever authorities you wish as your sources, but you make the argument, and let's see how well you can do, FRiend.
So I decided to have a look at this book. It had been a long time since I read any young earth creationist literature,
neo-creationism/intelligent design has been the more active movement recently.
There’s a lot here, so I figure I’d just post anytime I had an issue with something presented regarding the science involved.
It didn’t take me too long to run into something. Specifically, Marvel of God’s Creation #1, the bombardier beetle. This little guy (or guys, there’s are over 500 different and distinct species) has been a favorite example for critics of evolution to point to and say “that had to be designed”. But on seeing it, the only thing i could think was “please, get the chemistry right”.
Unfortunately, Dr. Martin does not, but instead repeats an incorrect account of how the whole process works. Duane Gish (whose work appears to be heavily referenced in the book) long held and erroneously stated in “Creationist Scientists Answer Their Critics” that the mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone found inside the beetle would explode spontaneously. Only by virtue of an additional inhibitor chemical added to the mix keeps the explosion at bay. When the beetle wants to fire, it adds an anti-inhibitor and thar she blows.
Only, that’s not how it works. The two chemicals do not explode when mixed without an inhibitor. This has been demonstrated and was apparently known to Gish as far back as 1978.
Now, it’s reasonable to assume that maybe Dr. Martin wasn’t completely up on the topic of Bombardier Beetles and didn’t know that particular mistake had long been corrected. Except, he references an article posted at the talkorgins archive that explicitly explains the error Gish made.
So, this author included an account of how the Bombardier beetle bombards that has been known to be false for decades. And then referenced an article that contradicted the included account.
I’m trying not going to prejudge the whole work on this one mistake. But it doesn’t exactly bode well for what will follow.
Oh, and for a pretty decent explanation of how the bombardier beetle(s) actually works and a possible scenario to explain their evolution, I direct you to the very article cited by Dr. Martin.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html