Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

Game is far from over.

The game is actually over if you insist on asserting that the game is not over when someone makes a telling point instead of even trying to refute it. Identical retroviral insertions in related species is something that only makes sense in the context of evolution. If you don't address that, you lose.

This critiques your stance on this, I believe game is still in progress.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1e.asp

---

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Even if that were true (it isn't), what does that have to do with you dishonestly quote mining woefully out of date *opinions* as if they have any relevance today?

Because, I believe, as shown by Ben Stein in his movie Expelled. That there are scientists and professors who are out there who get strong armed if they challenge evolution. Shockingly similar to this forum I presume.

---

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Even if that were true (it isn't), what does that have to do with you dishonestly quote mining woefully out of date *opinions* as if they have any relevance today?

Because, I believe, as shown by Ben Stein in his movie Expelled. That there are scientists and professors who are out there who get strong armed if they challenge evolution. Shockingly similar to this forum I presume.

---

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?

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.

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.

"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." Mister Agenda 2013 - AtheistForums.org

Ok, so you guys want a reputable recent quote,,,here you go.

---

Game is far from over.

Account for the evidence of endogenous retroviral insertions then.

Good luck with that, you intellectually dishonest fuck.

I did...please read

---

Witchcraft!

No I think he got promoted.

---

Why are you threatening that you will give me a warning?

He isn't. Read again, carefully:

if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

Reading comprehension not your strongest suit, huh?

Ok, thanks Stimbo, now it makes sense. I am sure you believe I don't have many strong suits, do you?

---

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Please provide one citation for this absurd claim, because up to now that's the part where you keep falling down. Fiat assertions sans evidence =/= arguments.

Please refer to Ben Steins documentary, feel free to grab some buttery popping corn!

---

Hey rev... have you seen this before?

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

I see you tried to follow my first piece of advice... sadly, you blundered the second.
However, your "view" still stands.

Do note that some of us are not addressing your argument because we don't have to. We are rather addressing your methodology, which has been very unscientific, leaving you consistently on the wrong end of what current scientific knowledge claims about the world.
Why are you presenting several wrong understandings of the world?

I would like to refer to the Bible but you guys don't want me to go there.