Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Angrboda]

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.