(May 5, 2014 at 8:53 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: You guys are not addressing my argument so we now are an a tangent.
Not true.
The FIRST response in this thread, Rev:
(May 4, 2014 at 10:42 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: It took you a week to come up with that?
I have a feeling that no matter what you have already come to the conclusion that there is not and will never be any evidence for evolution.
DNA Evidence for Evolution
A much cited scholarly article explaining Genetic AND Fossil Evidence for Evolution
The Evolution of the Horse
Also, rasetsu called you out for yet again LYING:
(May 5, 2014 at 10:43 am)rasetsu Wrote:(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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:
Quote: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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---