Has anyone visited http://www.harunyahya.com/, if yes, would you still argue in favor of theory of evolution?

There is nothing new to be found on that website. It is all the same old fallcies, quote mining, Straw Man Attacks, and psuedoscience that we have already heard from creationists.

Yes, I would still argue in favor of evolution.

Everything that this towel-headed crackpot says is demonstrably false, and can be found refuted on the list of creationist arguments on both talkorigins and evowiki.

BTW, among your list of famous scientists is Michael Denton, who accepts evolution as a fact, but believes it was guided by an Intelligent Designer. Denton is not a young earth creationist, nor is he an ancient earth creationist. He is an evolutionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Phillip Johnson isn't a scientist. He is an architect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Johnson

If there is another P. Johnson, then he can't be very famous or notable, because both Google and Yahoo searches brought up NOTHING.

Richard Bliss is not any kind of a scientist. Having a fancy degree does not bestow scientific credentials. Bliss got his D.Ed. from the University of Sarasota in 1978. The U of S is a recognized diploma mill.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Even so, Bliss' arguments have been analyzed and found refutable.

Borel's Law

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq....

General YE argument refutation, some of which originated from Mr (Not Dr) Bliss.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea...

Werner Gitt, an ICR henchman, has been refuted on several different fronts.

Gitt's "Information Theory"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.h...

Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information

A reply to Answers in Genesis regarding the Apo AI Milano mutation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolip...

A refutation of the claim that "Information cannot be created by either natural processes or chance, so there is a law of conservation of information."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html

"Dawkins (1996) demonstrated a program that starts with a random string of letters and, via random copying errors, evolves it into the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" in just a few generations, demonstrating the power of natural selection unaided by intelligence. But intelligence is involved in predetermining the target sentence." An argument coauthored between Gitt and Carl Weiland.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html

Gitt claimed "The theory of a big bang has been shaken with unresolvable inconsistencies, such as an unexpectedly uneven distribution of matter in the universe and a need for dark matter. Several astronomers think it is no longer a valid theory." Also refuted...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html

Gitt's "Theory" of the Law of Conservation of Information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI010.html

All of the above refutations against the arguments that your "famous scientists" have came up with are open minded evaluations. I know you will immediately claim otherwise, and then attack TalkOrigins as an atheistic evolutionist conspiracy nest of crackpots, all without reading one word of any of their arguments. But each of the links I provided explain what was said by whom, and how these "famous scientists" were wrong.

Closed minded evaluations don't delve into the meat of any argument and simply dismiss them as wrong, and/or dismiss the authors of the arguments as prejudiced.

That is what creationists do, all day long, and every single time.

Now hurry up and vote for some creationists affirmation of your closed-minded beliefs, before the rest of us with truly open minds have a chance to vote for the real best answer.

BTW, I am a christian, and I believe God created us through evolution. My faith in God does not rely on bogus science, and I would be just as happy if it were to be proven that the earth is 6,000 years old and the first human was a ball of clay that God spit into. But I have examined the evidence for evolution, and I have evaluated the creationist arguments against it.

That is open minded.

I went to the site, looking for some new arguments alleged to disprove evolution, and instead received flashy pop-up ads inviting me to buy their latest book, which (they assured me) definitely would have the evidence.

All I could find on the site itself was a bunch of the same old arguments that have been disproved or explained thousands of times over the past century.

As to the various 'Professors' lauded above:

Phillip Johnson was a law professor, and is the father of the intelligent design movement, but knows less about evolutionary biology than I do about California tax law (which is to say nothing).

Michael Denton wrote a book in the '80s that denied that evolution occurred, however in his own investigations and learning he was no longer able to advocate his own view point. His newest book (1998) fully accepts evolution, abiogenesis and common descent, but he advocates that God 'Fine Tuned' the process as it was occurring - something which many scientists might agree with.

Richard Bliss has a Doctorate in Education, and apparently has some background in biology. I've never read anything he's actually written though, only seen some of his demands that Creation be taught in schools because... well... that's the way he thinks it should be.

Werner Gitt has a doctorate in engineering, and claims that evolution violates information theory. His claims have been dismissed by mathematicians as pseudoscience - specifically pseudomath. He knows less about evolutionary biology than I do about advanced calculus.

Wow. I have never seen such an illogical argument before! Why do people who do not understand science try and refute it?

The "Living fossil" movie... How about I just refute all of the points?

First "argument": Darwin is the main foundation of all destructive ideologies that have brought destruction in our age...

Rebuttal: So I guess all of the wars and bloodshed, that happened before Darwin suggested evolution were merely incidental? How about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Protestants by the Catholics by Mary I of England.... Oh wait, those were merely theological debates I guess...

Irony: The image shown links Darwin with Hitler, Stalin... implying association without proof. Yet lower down on the same page it is written "Slander is one of the ugly methods used by dishonest and immoral people." No arguments here...

Second "argument": That creatures have existed for millions of years without evolving.

Rebuttal: True, sharks and some insects haven't evolved, but the theory of evolution clearly explains why in natural selection. Natural selection selects those traits well suited to the environment, and the shark simply is very well suited to the environment. Perhaps creationists would like to demonstrate why there are no Plesiosaurs left alive, or why there is no evidence of dolphin fossils? This is exactly the type of half-truth and mis-information that the creationists use to support their stance.

Third "argument": 99% of fossils have been discovered.

Rebuttal: Quick! Tell the paleontologists! Where exactly is the scorecard of how many fossils there are in the world and how exactly do they know how many haven't been found?

Fourth "argument": There has been no intermediate forms found, they are all distinct species.

Rebuttal: Right... There is a single fossil out there, with 100 different characteristics, which is the one intermediate... How about 100 different animals with one slight change each, resulting ina major change? For example, how about Albertaceratops nesmoi, recently discovered in Alberta, Canada (link below)? It is "an intermediate between older forms with large horns, and the small-horned relatives that followed". Direct quote.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/05/scie...

Fifth "argument": Not a single 'intermediate form' has been discovered.

Rebuttal: In a grammatical sense, he's right... Hundreds of intermediate forms have been discovered! Just not one with the legs of an orangutan and the upper torso of a human....

General comments: The creationists always shout, "there is no proof of evolution". Why don't you show me some proof of creationism? Why do humans have appendices? Because God decided we should have something to become inflamed an kill us?

So to summarize, YES. I would still argue in favor of the theory of evolution, and I suggest you read more and stop wasting everyone's time!

Looks like a website with an agenda. I am sure the KKK has colorful flash sites that would convince anyone that was wanting to believe what they were saying in the first place. It is hard to understand how you use a belief system to discredit research. But to each their own. If you want to believe God said poooof - and humans popped up - then that is on you. As long as you try to make this world a better place to live on for our kids and future generations - we at least have a common goal.

Of course. Any religion is just as destructive if not more than creationism. To deny that is to be truly blind. Top scientists in their fields have stated the theories put forth by this group make way to many assumptions based simply on unreliable biblical scripture and an aching need to prop up their crumbling religions. Jesus isn't coming, he's going. He will be proven another lie.

I just visited so I could see the "evidence" against evolution - there is none.

People who choose not to believe in evolution have every right to do so. Religion is a very powerful thing, but it should not be confused with science.

If anyone's religion is not compatible with evolution, then great, so be it. But this website's scientific claims are pure garbage. Just like the Discovery Institute, Harun Yahya is trying to create scientific controversy where there is none.

The scientific evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. The evidence inconsistent with evolution is essentially non-existent.

If you want good science, look at published, peer-reviewed articles or reviews of the same, but not crappy websites.

Believe it or not, but actual practicing scientists (of which I know many) are extremely critical of one another and are usually hard to convince of anything.

If peer-reviewed journals don't publish anti-evolution work, it isn't because of a bias against non-believers, or against religion, it is because anti-evolution science cannot survive the intense scrutiny of peer review.

In other words, anti-evolution science is so full of holes that it cannot survive any rigorous review.

Since I am a catholic, I would really like to believe in creationism, but try as I might, I just can't do it.

I personally believe that God has put us here for a purpose. Why isn't possible that God guides evolution?

Yes to your first question, and yes to your second. All of the arguments advanced on harunyahya.com fit into one of the arguments on this list: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100

Follow the link on each argument to read a rebuttal.

LOL. this website is a scientific joke.