RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 11:34 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 11:35 am by Clueless Morgan.)
(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.
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.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.