Replies

MM wrote"You can find a lot of interesting, but more importantly recent daggers into the heart of evolution, here: No Nonsense"

I read the entire site what new daggers do you refer to. First there is an admission that crationists not longer use the first, second, and sixth argument because they finally realized those old saws wont cut it.

The arguments that are left

The Third argument is irreducible complexity renamed. Creationists started that argument within a week of Darwin publishing and havent stopped yet even in the Face of a mountian of evidence that refutes the very idea of IC.

They try to use IC to prove evolution can not be tested. Another old saw which they try to resharpen. here is a quote from their site.

"These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. 5 "

All organism are one celled organism at their heart every animal, plant, or even human begins as a one celled organism. Now if the evolutionary process is proved to occur in one cell creatures such as bacteria evolutionary processes are proved to occur in sperm or ova which will become multicelluar creatures.

Your problem is that what you call macroevolution occurs always on the micro scale. Where does genetic change occur that chages the parent creature it occurs in the cellular plasm of its one celled blueprint.

The fourth argument is that scientists doubt evolution. There are two processes at work within this. Firsat is the deplorable state of our educational system which educated these new scientists. They leave the public school system believing all manner of psuedoscientific crap fed to them by half literate liberals who's very existence is to confuse rather than educate. They come into science with a belief in psychic powers, astrology, and all manner of new age spirtualism. Is it any wonder that an increasing number of scientists lack the abiltiy to think rationally.

That however isn't the argument that the web site postulates what they postulate actually contradicts their claim as they admit the more education a person has the less they believe in creationism. I am at a loss I believe what they mean to say is that most people don't believe in evolution thus it must not be true. Again this argument is over one hundred years old and of course as equally false.

The fifth argument is that because scientists argue over how evolution occurs that evolution must be false. This one is the only new one on the page and its not really worth the time to debunk it but I will.

to qoute the web page
"These disputes are NOT like those found in all other branches of science. For example, there was briefly a dispute about cold fusion, but it was quickly resolved because the experiments could not be reproduced, and the “excess heat” that was allegedly measured could be accounted for by experimental error."

These disputes are so common in scientific circles that they are the butt of a million in jokes among scientific professionals. In every scientific field where new knowledge is being assimilated everyday there are almost physical confrontation between scientists over which of their pet theories are correct. It happens in physics it happens in biology it happens in earth sciences. Imagine little bespeckled gentlemen waving their canes at each other menacingly because of a differing opinion on the origin of certain stellar matter.

The last argument is also over one hundred years old "The origin of Life". Creationists spend vast amounts of time harranging evolutionists to give them evidence of the first single celled creature. They do this without once considering the fact that they can not provide any evidence at all for the creationist side of the debate. At least evolutionists can infer how these first creatures arose.
The proper respose is you show the evolutionist the physical evidence of creationism and we will come up with an original cell. Creationists will never have the evidence on their side, evolutionists may just come up with theirs.

the web site says "In fact, they now know many more reasons why chemicals can’t spontaneously form something living than they did in the 1950’s"

This seems reasonable to me. Scientists looking for a way to recreate the origin of life systematically figuring out why something can't happen. If you know how it isn't done that could lead you to how it is done. Why argue that it means evolution doesn't work? It seems the first way evolutionist threw out that didn't work in creation of life was creationism.

MM come up with some new arguments these are old and very very tired.