Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Anomalocaris]

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

No, My evolution is the continuous and on-going creation of new species from the very first species to have ever existed, in a world that has no god.

What you accept is irrelevent. "Mr" Heywood is a posturing moron. He only seems smart to you because you are, incredible as it may seem, really even dumber than he.

---

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?

Because Ben is a lying moron whose purpose is not to report science, but to discredit science. Not for the correctness of science, but for what he imagined to be the negative effects of science independent of whether scientific discovery is valid or not.

[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.” 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.

Based on those GIFs, you think we evolved...!

[Anomalocaris]

Based on your behavior, you certainly didn't.

[Jackalope]

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

How did you get a red name?

Goddidit.

[Revelation777]

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.

Please refrain from using foul language..thanks.

[Cyberman]

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?

I don't care where you got your information. My response to you was prompted by Esqulax's observation that "The fact that you keep claiming [Stein's propaganda] just shows that you aren't listening to a damn thing anybody else is saying to you." (addition mine for clarification)

General Forum Rule #1 - our Prime Directive - reads:

This is a discussion forum. This means that members should interact with each other in a proper discussion, and not purposely / repeatedly evade rebuttals made to them. Whilst members are not forced or required to answer every post addressed to them, ignoring them all and continuing to post similar content will fall in line with our "No Spam" rule. This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread.

This is our primary rule and all other rules fall in line with this concept.

This is what got you into trouble last time. When you're not evading others' posts with snarky one-liners, you're spamming links to offsite apologist material as your entire argument. Think of it as writing an essay or report for an English class - expand on your cited material with your own thoughts, but don't hand in a photocopy of someone else's work and expect not to get called out on it.

[Jackalope]

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.

... and that STILL has nothing to do with your argument, even if it were true. It's irrelevant to your argument, which has to stand on it's own merit.

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

I did...please read

Where? Given that others are still asking you to do so, I highly doubt you've accounted for it. I doubt you've addressed it. I doubt you even *understand* what is being asked.

[Revelation777]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

Please refrain from using foul language..thanks.

Please refrain from being dishonest as dirt, as presumptious as a fart, AND dumb as post...thanks.

Couldn't do it, could you?

You can't help playing with the sorry cards your god dealt you. Other people can't help saying fuck when looking at the cards you can't help but put on the table.

[Revelation777]

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

Um, like . . . creationism?

No, this makes perfect sense to me and billions of other people.