Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Bad Wolf]

Now Rev has confirmed what we all knew before. He is a total nutcase!
A world wide conspiracy amongst all scientists! Keep living in your dream world fucknut.

[Esquilax]

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

You don't need to be a prophet to predict the actions of the intellectually incurious, especially when they take it into their heads that it's okay to use the repertoire of a conman to get their point across.

It's a bit like trying to predict the behavior of chickens when they're feeling a bit sneaky.

[Revelation777]

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.

Just because some things are old doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue.

[Esquilax]

Now Rev has confirmed what we all knew before. He is a total nutcase!
A world wide conspiracy amongst all scientists! Keep living in your dream world fucknut.

In his defense, he only thinks that- literally, only thinks this is true- because Ben Stein told him so. Rev seems really enamored of the argument from authority, assuming that authority already aligns broadly with what he wants to believe anyway.

[Esquilax]

Just because some things are old doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue.

Am I seriously going to have to explain this to you step by step? Jesus, okay...

Rev, do we know more things today than we did fifty years ago? Has technology improved in fifty years?

Let's start there, okay?

[Revelation777]

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?

Show me the evidence that it accrued.

[Cyberman]

Just because some things are old doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue.

Of course; merely outdated, superseded and irrelevant.

[Crossless2.0]

Now Rev has confirmed what we all knew before. He is a total nutcase!
A world wide conspiracy amongst all scientists! Keep living in your dream world fucknut.

In his defense, he only thinks that- literally, only thinks this is true- because Ben Stein told him so. Rev seems really enamored of the argument from authority, assuming that authority already aligns broadly with what he wants to believe anyway.

. . . said beliefs being based on an authority for which he has not one shred of good supporting evidence. And 'round and 'round we go.

[Revelation777]

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:

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.

That gif is unnecessary.

[Cyberman]

As is your quoting it to point that out. Come on, Rev, don't be a twat all your life. Have a day off.