(May 4, 2014 at 11:48 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(May 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Rev plays a quote mine from a 54 year old source, ignoring all the evidence that has been gathered since.

I play "endogenous retroviral insertion".

Game over.

THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.

Yep. It's a transparent one and extremely dishonest.

(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

(May 4, 2014 at 11:48 pm)Beccs Wrote: THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.

I'm sure I remember an exchange over at the old Connecticut Valley Atheists, when some cretinist got exposed citing a decades-old paper, then countered by pulling one that was even older.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:53 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(May 4, 2014 at 11:48 pm)Beccs Wrote: THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.

I'm sure I remember an exchange over at the old Connecticut Valley Atheists, when some cretinist got exposed citing a decades-old paper, then countered by pulling one that was even older.

Let me guess - was it one that claimed to be about 2000 years old?

Not impressed.

Typical cretinist M.O.: define terms in idiosyncratic and dubious ways; cite someone obscure with the appropriate title or occupation (who usually turns out to be another cretinist) who states somewhere what it is the apologist wants to hear; knock the pieces over, shit all over the board and then brag about his victory.

Quote:“The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

Not sure it was true then.

Good news, however, more recent DNA evidence has made it more than a working hypothesis and its now a theory.

You rev I'm wondering, since what you would called micro evolution is readily observed, what is the mechanism that prevents these changes from accruing?

(May 5, 2014 at 1:13 am)whateverist Wrote: Not impressed.

Typical cretinist M.O.: define terms in idiosyncratic and dubious ways; cite someone obscure with the appropriate title or occupation (who usually turns out to be another cretinist) who states somewhere what it is the apologist wants to hear; knock the pieces over, shit all over the board and then brag about his victory.

Pigeons...

Pigeons everywhere...

(May 5, 2014 at 1:35 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You rev I'm wondering, since what you would called micro evolution is readily observed, what is the mechanism that prevents these changes from accruing?

Gawd, obviously.

(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”

Well that's stupid, as he's referring to abiogenesis, and not evolution.

Seems you got your definition from:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Definition_of_evolution

And the use of this "evolutionist" term is a clear indicator of a misunderstanding of basic biological science, as in:

Quote:Evolutionism, as opposed to Creationism, is the advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.[1] Therefore one who believes in or supports a theory of evolution[2] would be referred to as an evolutionist. Evolutionism, used in a general sense, encompasses any type of biological evolutionist. Broken down into two categories, "Evolutionism" and "Evolutionists" usually involve Atheistic/Agnostic Evolutionists (evolution without God) and Theistic Evolutionists (evolution with God). Those categories can be further broken down, but they are the main two.

Where there is no disagreement between the basic scientific fact of evolution accepted by biology and medical science. The only "disagreement" comes from "Intelligent Design" advocates, who have no scientific findings save from what they've stolen from biologists, and no alternative theories other than "No, but God did it using magic instead," and fabricate lies like the "macro vs micro evolution" distinction, and are not taken seriously by a single scientific institution worldwide, due in no small part to their status as known presumptive liars pretending to be scientists.

So, no disrespect intended, but it seems your argument #2 is indeed a looped gif of a bull defecating.



Congrats on that.