Replies

Truly pathetic stuff. If the web site is more of the same, there's no need to read it.

Really? So can you refute any of the following points made in the article? Or are you insulting the article because it tells the truth? Are you going to tell us that the claims made by evolution below have not been refuted?:

-- Each evolutionary step moves ahead from a previous step. Go back far enough, and you run out of previous steps.
-- Spontaneous generation: Given the right environment, life just comes about from chemicals.
-- A cell so simple it could happen by chance.
-- The inheritance of acquired traits.
-- Normal variations between individuals chosen by natural selection were the principle mechanism of evolution.
-- Missing links exist. They will soon be found.
-- Evolution happens today. The peppered moths were dark colored and changed to light.
-- The many vestigial organs proved evolution to be true.
-- Comparative anatomy is evidence for evolution.
-- Embryology: The embryo in the womb retraces the stages of its previous evolution.
-- Uniformitarian Geology: Erosion, and sedimentation have always taken place at more or less the same rate as is average today. It was believed that great floods and other events that would deposit many layers of sediment in a short time had not happened.

What's to refute? Most of this guy's stuff is gibberish -- such as the "previous steps" thing, which makes no sense -- or an outright misrepresentation of what the ToE predicts -- for example, the ToE doesn't predict that a cell is "simple" or came about solely by chance, which is what this guy's blathering implies. "Inheritance of acquired traits" sounds like LaMarckianism rather than today's ToE -- unless by "acquired" you mean "acquired from the ancestors' genes", which fits with the ToE but hasn't been refuted that I've ever heard.

And some of his stuff is flatly wrong, rather than just nonsensical. For example, Kettlewell et al showed that the coloration of the peppered moth population did evolve in response to predation.

And what's this?: "It was believed that great floods and other events that would deposit many layers of sediment in a short time had not happened." If he's talking about any kind of flood at all, that's just stupid. Geologists have known about floods forever. If he's talking about the Noachian flood, though, he's right -- that it had not happened (as literally described in the Bible) is still the opinion of every reputable geologist.

I'm no expert at this stuff, but this guy's not even an amateur. It sounds like he's trying to do a low-rent version of "Icons of Evolution" -- redundant as that would be -- but doesn't understand Wells' arguments well enough even to plagiarize them.