Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Bad Wolf]

May your delusions compensate you for the loss of respect you will always encounter in any legitimate field of inquiry.

Can I use this in the real world? This is yours right? No copyright or anything that I have to worry about?

[Whateverist]

Congrats on that.

That gif is unnecessary.

Speak for yourself. It put a lot of what you've been saying into context for me.

---

May your delusions compensate you for the loss of respect you will always encounter in any legitimate field of inquiry.

Can I use this in the real world? This is yours right? No copyright or anything that I have to worry about?

No trademark to worry about. It is just something that passed through me. Probably brought on by something I read.

[Crossless2.0]

God it must suck to be you. May your delusions compensate you for the loss of respect you will always encounter in any legitimate field of inquiry.

I suppose one can't entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus will be handing out juice boxes when the little bus empties at the pearly gates. Otherwise . . .

[Revelation777]

Game is far from over.

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

How did you get a red name?

[Cyberman]

Witchcraft!

[Revelation777]

Game is far from over.

The game is actually over if you insist on asserting that the game is not over when someone makes a telling point instead of even trying to refute it. Identical retroviral insertions in related species is something that only makes sense in the context of evolution. If you don't address that, you lose.

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

---

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.

Even if that were true (it isn't), what does that have to do with you dishonestly quote mining woefully out of date *opinions* as if they have any relevance today?

Because, I believe, as shown by Ben Stein in his movie Expelled. That there are scientists and professors who are out there who get strong armed if they challenge evolution. Shockingly similar to this forum I presume.

---

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.

Even if that were true (it isn't), what does that have to do with you dishonestly quote mining woefully out of date *opinions* as if they have any relevance today?

Because, I believe, as shown by Ben Stein in his movie Expelled. That there are scientists and professors who are out there who get strong armed if they challenge evolution. Shockingly similar to this forum I presume.

---

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.

Bad start. Despite what you should have learned in the previous thread, here you are quoting a biologist who happens not to be the pope of evolution who said something on the topic 54 years ago as though we should take it as gospel.

It's also been pointed out to you before that evolution doesn't depend on common descent, if another line of descent were discovered it would be interesting, but it wouldn't break evolution. There's nothing in evolution that precludes a second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) abiogenesis event.

Is it your intention to take everything you did wrong in the previous evidence thread and double down on it?

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.

All human beings start out as microorganisms, but we evolved from hominids. You'd have to go back over 3 billion years to find a single-celled ancestor to humans.

Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

Perhaps you should have titled this thread differently then, since abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. It wouldn't matter if God poofed the first microbe into existence, evolution applies thereafter.

And a more honest claim would be that there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell that you personally will ever find convincing because your mind is completely closed on the topic.

"All human beings start out as microorganisms, but we evolved from hominids. You'd have to go back over 3 billion years to find a single-celled ancestor to humans." Mister Agenda 2013 - AtheistForums.org

Ok, so you guys want a reputable recent quote,,,here you go.

---

Game is far from over.

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

I did...please read

---

Witchcraft!

No I think he got promoted.

---

Why are you threatening that you will give me a warning?

He isn't. Read again, carefully:

if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

Reading comprehension not your strongest suit, huh?

Ok, thanks Stimbo, now it makes sense. I am sure you believe I don't have many strong suits, do you?

---

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.

Please refer to Ben Steins documentary, feel free to grab some buttery popping corn!

---

Hey rev... have you seen this before?

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?

I would like to refer to the Bible but you guys don't want me to go there.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And to think I was hoping that Argument #2 would be something new and different.

Bad Boru. Bad, BAD Boru

[Revelation777]

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.

Invite Mr. HEYWORD to the thread. If you evolution is changes that take place over time within species that I accept that.

[Cyberman]

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

Well, like some of us have pointed out time and again, what you believe is far less relevant than what you can demonstrate.

Incidentally, we're not going to treat the place like a link farn again, are we? Did you learn nothing from last time?

Because, I believe, as shown by Ben Stein in his movie Expelled. That there are scientists and professors who are out there who get strong armed if they challenge evolution. Shockingly similar to this forum I presume.

Ben Stein is a known liar with an agenda to sell. There's more reality in five minutes of The Hobbit than in the whole of Expelled.

And if you have any complaints about unfair treatment on the forum, please bring them to the attention of Staff, either via Private Message or the report system, rather than making unfounded presumptions. Thank you.

Witchcraft!

No I think he got promoted.

You don't say!

He isn't. Read again, carefully:

Reading comprehension not your strongest suit, huh?

Ok, thanks Stimbo, now it makes sense. I am sure you believe I don't have many strong suits, do you?

That's your opinion. You could always demonstrate the strength of your suits for us all to see, then perhaps you wouldn't attract such comments.

[Revelation777]

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.

I don't understand, I got that from Ben Stein's documentary. Why can't I refer to a documentary? How is that breaking the rules?