Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Mister Agenda]

The problem with this argument that existed 50 years ago still is present today. That should tell you something. To me it screams.

It screams that creationists won't let anything die that they think supports their view. People like yourself are the only reason it is still present today. And even so, it's only present as another dishonest quote mine with key parts removed to change the meaning intended by the person who said it.

I am very sorry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you would not, yet AGAIN, post another dishonest quote mine. Apparently when your desire to find an 'evolutionist' saying something you want him to say conflicts with your inability to find one actually saying something you can use, you resort to lying by altering the text of a quotation that does NOT support your view, or, at the very BEST, take another quote off a creationist site completely unexamined despite having been burned multiple times for doing exactly that and having the quote turn out to be altered. Dishonesty can be fixed with a change of heart, stupid can't.

---

I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.

Why are you still calling it a 'working hypothesis' when your source for calling it such has been proven a quote mine, and the zoologist in question actually regarded 'special evolution' as a completely valid theory?

Mendacity or stupidity come to mind, but I am open to the possibility of there being another alternative that I haven't considered.