Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[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.

Okay! So, first of all, Kerkut's definitions, from what I've been able to read, are simply wrong; it's not up to him to decide what things mean, there's an entire scientific community that disagrees with him on that. You don't get to cherry pick the opinions of a single man, whose ideas were not shared by the majority of mainstream science, and expect us all to suddenly scramble to deal with that, any more than we're allowed to pick some insane cultish corner of your religion that sacrifices babies to god, and demand that you defend that. Play by the rules, Rev.

More importantly, Kerkut died a decade ago, and the books he published are now over fifty years old; the science here has improved in leaps and bounds, and it's not the same field as it was when Kerkut published his- still erroneous- book. In the same manner as you wouldn't want us discarding the new testament and pretending that the old testament is all christianity is, don't discard half a century of scientific progress in order to make your point. It's dishonest.

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.

So, first of all, abiogenesis isn't evolution, no matter how hard you like to pretend. Second of all, your "microbe evolved into a human" crap is profoundly dishonest, as it shows how little you bothered to research before spewing this stuff; microbes to people doesn't happen without many, many transitions, and we do have plenty of genetic evidence that shows humans are connected to the last transition in the chain, apes: human chromosome 2 is adequate evidence of that, and if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

As to your last claim, about non living chemicals producing life... yes, that is possible, and we do have evidence.

Hey Rev, how much research did you do before you decided it was okay to flatly assert demonstrably incorrect things as truth? Is that what Jesus would have wanted?

Here is a source you have been pleading for, someone who believe in the so called theory as you do. You seem to keeping beating the dead horse of ...that's dishonest, that is a lie... please, focus on the argument instead of side stepping the issues.

The genetic connections you speak of is not evidence at all. Some similarities doesn't constitute proof.