Sarfati Vs. Dawkins... Who has a better point?

The thing is... Mutations are mostly bad ones, or neutral ones that have slightly negative effects. While I don't doubt that they`do, indeed, have some part to play in natural selection and evolution, I think our current knowledge is not quite there yet... There needs to be madami research done on it and we need to do madami experimenting, so we can find a madami logical explanation, that doesn't necessarily advocate Creationism. While I do feel that Sarfati makes a lot of good points against Dawkins and, consequently, evolutionary theory/Darwinism, I also feel predisposed to believing a large part of evolutionary theory - I just think it needs a lot madami work put in. Anyway, I agree about the 'higher' organisms, I don't think they necessarily need to have had 'more' information, or DNA/genetic material... Just because current theory says that it is so, doesn't mean that it matches up and it seems that Sarfati has pointed out a good defense for Creationism in due respect to that part of the topic. I find the lack of evidence for fossil records quite disturbing, too... It is pointed out that a lot of organisms today are not actually related to many of the common ancestors, as evolutionary theory seems to state. That is a problem. madami work needs to be done in that part of the field, so we can glean a better idea of how Cambrian organisms are related to today's corresponding species, as well as the conundrum of how some organisms, like the whale, were related to land mammals, or evolved from land mammals to sea mammals. Another thing that got me was the surprising inability to Dawkins to explain away many of these problems - instead of debating, he blusters, exaggerates and formulates some strange ideas, as well as he seems unable to give straight answers, or decent ones.

Yeah, Dawkin's tends to be a little overly of a militant atheist in his arguments than an ardent scientist. Sarfati makes some good arguments, I'm just not sure he's making the final connection between the possibility of directed evolution, the lack of a complete fossil record (which I don't find to be all that disturbing - the fossils we've found say a lot, and others are likely to be discovered), and creationism. It's sort of the "Thank You For Smoking" argument - if I prove your side isn't fully correct, then I win. At the same time, there's not much you can do to prove creationist theories, since the whole idea is that they are fundamentally unprovable.

Heh, that much is true. It would still be an excellent find, if someone were to discover madami of these links, though.

This isn't a typical Craetionism Vs evolution argument, to be honest. Perhaps you might like to read Sarfati's book and comment further. His book has a lot of arguments in it, that seem to contradict evolution, hence my interest in it. Plus, I advocate evolution, madami than I do Creationism, which is why the book intrigues me so much. But, I do agree that they are not incompatible theories - the trouble is, a lot of people simply consider it to be that way, which is probably a somewhat narrow-minded way of looking at it... sa pamamagitan ng the way, if you want to know anything, read Whiteflame's answer and what I wrote in reply.