Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Sejanus]

I've read this entire thread and not once did you address CD's demand that you explain endogenous retroviral insertion, or rasetsu's post:

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.

Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

— Implications of Evolution, G.A. Kerkut

So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.

How about you do that, rather than ignore refutations of your "argument" and post one liners to the less direct criticism of you.

[Revelation777]

Why do you believe everyone who believes in God is an imbecilic moron?

Intelligent theists do exist; however, based on your interaction here you cannot be counted among them.

My feelings are hurt.

---

God loves me even if you think I am simple minded. God loves you too even though your pride may getting in the way of you repenting. Anyways, God shows His creative work to us everyday. He did a great job.

What does any of this have to do with "Evolution of the Species"?

You guys have dismissed my argument so we now are on a tangent.

[Cyberman]

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation. Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

Rev - how many times do you need to be told that the truth or otherwise is not decided by opinion? It doesn't matter what these scientists believe - what counts, all that counts, is what they can demonstrate. Nor is truth dependent on the authority of the person speaking it. Einstein was also a practising alchemist; does that mean that we should believe in the Philosopher's Stone too?

I'm also wondering what any of this has to do with your current "argument". You remember? The one you gave such a buildup to last week.

I'll give you this, though... you're fond of your red herrings.

---

Edit to accomodate late-breaking news:

You guys have dismissed my argument so we now are on a tangent.

You're actually conceding this?

[SteelCurtain]

You guys are not addressing my argument so we now are an a tangent.

Not true.

The FIRST response in this thread, Rev:

It took you a week to come up with that?

I have a feeling that no matter what you have already come to the conclusion that there is not and will never be any evidence for evolution.

DNA Evidence for Evolution

A much cited scholarly article explaining Genetic AND Fossil Evidence for Evolution

The Evolution of the Horse

Also, rasetsu called you out for yet again LYING:

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.

Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

— Implications of Evolution, G.A. Kerkut

So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.

[Cyberman]

Wait wait wait; this could be an important breakthrough. Rev altered his wording (presumably) to concede that his "argument" has been dismissed.

Either that or he's sulking.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So, after having been told why Answers In Genesis is not a reliable, unbiased source, you link to a site that recommends AiG as a source?

Really?

Really?

I found something interesting that I would like to share with my skeptical atheist friends -

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Group Creation Theistic Evolution Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

That's a bit skewed. There are creationist scientists, and if I remember correctly the guy who runs the Human Genome project is one.

There are also a lot of generically Christian scientists who accept evolution.

I can't believe I have to repost this, but:

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_..._evolution

Don't conflate "Christian" with Young Earth Evolution Is A Lie And The Scientists Are All In On It -ism.

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation. Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

According to skewed results from a study conducted under unknown circumstances by an organization no one's ever heard of.

Even listed in the article:

Subject: "Science is against the theory of evolution."
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:25:52 -0400
From: P
To: [email protected]

Dear Do-While Jones

I was interested to discover your web site at http://www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.org

You say: "The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution."

According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, 95% of scientists (and over 98% of "life and earth scientists") in the US support the basic tenants of evolution. (A minority, like biochemist Michael Behe, claim there is evidence of an outside "designer").

You say: "We are a secular, non-profit corporation, not associated with any church. If you want answers about religious questions, ask a religious organization." But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?

I look forward to hearing from you.

P

Also, here are the references for your article:

1 Ashton, In Six Days (1999) Page 284 (Cr+)

Do some basic biology courses into human anatomy and see why the designer was incompetent.

He hath done all things well. Unfortunately, the destructiveness of sin has tainted His once perfect creation. So He sent a Savior!

Right. It's our fault an omnipotent, omniscient creator couldn't build better humans, and decided to punish us for his ineptitude like an alcoholic father with anger management issues.

[The Valkyrie]

[hide]

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation. Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

Rev - how many times do you need to be told that the truth or otherwise is not decided by opinion? It doesn't matter what these scientists believe - what counts, all that counts, is what they can demonstrate. Nor is truth dependent on the authority of the person speaking it. Einstein was also a practising alchemist; does that mean that we should believe in the Philosopher's Stone too?

I'm also wondering what any of this has to do with your current "argument". You remember? The one you gave such a buildup to last week.

I'll give you this, though... you're fond of your red herrings.

---

Edit to accomodate late-breaking news:

You guys have dismissed my argument so we now are on a tangent.

You're actually conceding this?

Red Herrings? I think Rev owns the cannery

---

So, after having been told why Answers In Genesis is not a reliable, unbiased source, you link to a site that recommends AiG as a source?

Really?

Really?

I found something interesting that I would like to share with my skeptical atheist friends -

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Group Creation Theistic Evolution Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation. Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

---

Do some basic biology courses into human anatomy and see why the designer was incompetent.

He hath done all things well. Unfortunately, the destructiveness of sin has tainted His once perfect creation. So He sent a Savior!

So, all you can do to counter my argument is to post bullshit?

Gotcha.

So let me respond in kind: He hath fucked up thins so royally that he is ashamed to showeth his face and dependeth upon the uneducatedeth to defendeth his incompetence - eth.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Just a cogent topical response would be nice. Just one.

[Revelation777]

I've read this entire thread and not once did you address CD's demand that you explain endogenous retroviral insertion, or rasetsu's post:

Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:


So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.

How about you do that, rather than ignore refutations of your "argument" and post one liners to the less direct criticism of you.

THat was addressed, I gave a link to it already.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I've read this entire thread and not once did you address CD's demand that you explain endogenous retroviral insertion, or rasetsu's post:
How about you do that, rather than ignore refutations of your "argument" and post one liners to the less direct criticism of you.

THat was addressed, I gave a link to it already.

You linked a website which lists Answers in Genesis as a reference.

The bibliography includes references to another paper hosted on the same website

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/