(May 5, 2014 at 11:02 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Please provide one citation for this absurd claim, because up to now that's the part where you keep falling down. Fiat assertions sans evidence =/= arguments.

Hey rev... have you seen this before?

(April 28, 2014 at 10:57 am)pocaracas Wrote: Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

I see you tried to follow my first piece of advice... sadly, you blundered the second.
However, your "view" still stands.

Do note that some of us are not addressing your argument because we don't have to. We are rather addressing your methodology, which has been very unscientific, leaving you consistently on the wrong end of what current scientific knowledge claims about the world.
Why are you presenting several wrong understandings of the world?

(May 5, 2014 at 11:25 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 5, 2014 at 11:02 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

The fact that you keep claiming this just shows that you aren't listening to a damn thing anybody else is saying to you.

Rev: Seriously, you need to pay close attention to that, because I don't want to have to deal with reports with your name on them with reference to General Forum Rule #1.

Moved thread from Atheism to Life Science.

I once encountered an ID proponent with a good layman's understanding of evolution. His position wasn't that far from Francis Collins' position, and he didn't misunderstand anything about evolution until he got into molecular biology. If I recall correctly, that discussion was on JREF and because he mostly actually knew what he was talking about, he was kind of challenging.

Just by way of letting people know that people who don't accept evolution and don't TOTALLY misunderstand it do exist. As far as I can tell, the closest person to fitting that description currently on the board is Heywood, and I don't think he'd touch this thread with a 10' pole.

(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.

As predicted:








Sorry, there was just too much fail for one GIF.

Okay, now everyone watch: watch as Rev skips over the larger responses that have actual content in them that everyone else has made, and then chastises Morgan for not staying on topic, and half heartedly has a go at Stimbo for telling him to pay attention and not break Rule One.

Watch. That's totally about to happen.

(May 5, 2014 at 11:36 am)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, now everyone watch: watch as Rev skips over the larger responses that have actual content in them that everyone else has made, and then chastises Morgan for not staying on topic, and half heartedly has a go at Stimbo for telling him to pay attention and not break Rule One.

Watch. That's totally about to happen.

What are you now? A prophet or something?!!

(May 5, 2014 at 11:34 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Sorry, there was just too much fail for one GIF.

Here's another I just made to add to the collection:

(May 5, 2014 at 11:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: What are you now? A prophet or something?!!

He'd better not be. Otherwise I foresee an arse-whupping.