RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:39 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 11:09 am by Mister Agenda.)
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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?
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.