(May 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

Um, like . . . creationism?

He said working hypothesis.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

You do not speak honestly. Evidence that your self claimed Christianity does not follow the basic teachings of your messiah figure.

P.S. Unless you believe that the teachings of Jesus are optional and not dictated by god, I don't want to claim to know your relationship with your messiah figure.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(May 5, 2014 at 6:43 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Well, good thing nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity gives a damn about what a know-nothing ignoramus thinks then isn't it?

Good luck living in the dark ages, kid. I'm sure a lot of people here will go methodically through the evidence and the structure of their arguments will revolve around charting the current model of evolution as we know it, but we both know that you don't give a shit about learning about anything don't we?

I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

Hundreds of millions of not billions of people grasp it and 'get it' just fine. Some of those people go further and attempt to build on huge theory and disseminate their findings to others. The weight of evidence is astounding, and it gets stronger each and every day as more research is conducted to challenge and advance the theory.

Then we have you, and your argument from ignorance.

Who are people more likely to take notice of?

(May 5, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: The problem with this argument that existed 50 years ago still is present today. That should tell you something. To me it screams.

It screams that creationists won't let anything die that they think supports their view. People like yourself are the only reason it is still present today. And even so, it's only present as another dishonest quote mine with key parts removed to change the meaning intended by the person who said it.

I am very sorry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you would not, yet AGAIN, post another dishonest quote mine. Apparently when your desire to find an 'evolutionist' saying something you want him to say conflicts with your inability to find one actually saying something you can use, you resort to lying by altering the text of a quotation that does NOT support your view, or, at the very BEST, take another quote off a creationist site completely unexamined despite having been burned multiple times for doing exactly that and having the quote turn out to be altered. Dishonesty can be fixed with a change of heart, stupid can't.

---

(May 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

Why are you still calling it a 'working hypothesis' when your source for calling it such has been proven a quote mine, and the zoologist in question actually regarded 'special evolution' as a completely valid theory?

Mendacity or stupidity come to mind, but I am open to the possibility of there being another alternative that I haven't considered.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Mendacity or stupidity come to mind, but I am open to the possibility of there being another alternative that I haven't considered.

Fundamentalist or Evangelical include mendacity and stupidity quite nicely.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

Rev, why do you insist on outright lying? Is it okay for you to lie in order to advance your worldview? Are you okay with being a demonstrable liar?

You are not open to learning science. Science has been presented to you on this very thread and you have not even taken the time to open the damned link. You will dismiss anything and everything that does not currently fit your worldview without investigating it, reading it, or even so much as looking at it, as is easily discerned by your responses to it, or lack thereof. You are intentional in being intellectually obtuse, you are careless in your research, and you have been asked to at least have the decency to not insult us by looking into the quotes and the sources that you are using, which you clearly have not done.

Why? You didn't respond to the very first response to your thread here.

You also didn't respond to when rasetsu showed that, yet again, your source quote mined and changed the original meaning of the quote, here.

Please address these. (I am sure this will be ignored.)

(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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_A._Kerkut

Quote:Kerkut's (54 year old) book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims.[1] In his book, Kerkut distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution, but also including abiogenesis).[2]

This is the best you can do? Really? Oh my.

rev Wrote:My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time.

And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for your argument is?

rev Wrote: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.

Straw man argument, since that is not what the science says, and not how evolution works. Evolution works in populations, not with individuals. Whether or not life originated via abiogenesis or some other means is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. Moreover, there are huge volumes of evidence that support the conclusion that all life on Earth is interrelated and that modern life ultimately originated from the earliest forms of life on the planet. What you are doing here is willfully ignoring that massive amount of data and simply quote mining from a 54 year old textbook that nobody uses any more (and that many have never even heard of) in order to further a religious agenda. I was taught in my youth by my religious parents that such behavior is a violation of the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Was there a religion-confab that was convened that I don't know about where it was decided that 'lying for Jesus' was now acceptable behavior in the Christian community? Because I am certain that my very religious, though scientifically literate family never got that memo.

His god is too small.

(May 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Thank you for your post. I would enjoy a conversation with Sir Francis Collins.

Francis Collins has not been knighted.