Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Esquilax]

Here is a source you have been pleading for, someone who believe in the so called theory as you do. You seem to keeping beating the dead horse of ...that's dishonest, that is a lie... please, focus on the argument instead of side stepping the issues.

You tell me not to sidestep the issues, but I notice you've managed not to address a single point of the argument I raised in your response to it. What do you have to say to those of us who point out that the opinions of a single person, made without evidence half a century ago, do not significantly impact the workings of a scientific theory? What do you say to us when we rightly point out that science had moved on, in leaps and bounds, in the 54 years since the book you quoted from was published, and that even if Kerkut as right when he wrote that, he certainly isn't now?

What do you say to any of the actual points that have been raised against you? It's so terribly telling that you started out ignoring all the more voluminous posts in this thread in order to tell a few people to stay on topic; so far you've spent more time talking about staying on the point than you have rebutting the scientific sources that have been arrayed against you!

The genetic connections you speak of is not evidence at all. Some similarities doesn't constitute proof.

And when you do address them, your response is nothing more than "nuh uh!" But let's have some fun with this: all I said was "human chromosome 2," that was literally the extent of my allusion to genetics. You could have looked it up because that was plenty to light a google search up, but instead you just tell me about "similarities," a word that I never used, and actually- and this is the smoking gun for how little you know what you're talking about- isn't applicable to the situation at hand anyway.

You told me that similarities in genetics doesn't constitute proof, when the thing I was talking about has nothing to do with similarities. Be honest, Rev: did you even look up human chromosome 2 before you responded?

What is it, and why are scientists claiming that it's proof of our common ancestry with apes? It's certainly not because the chromosome is similar to ape chromosomes, so... why? What information do you have on this right now, before you look it up for the first time now you've been called out, and why did you think it was okay to disagree with me without even knowing what we were disagreeing on?

Are you that completely lazy and dishonest that you won't even do a cursory wikipedia search on the things people point you to, in a thread you've made ostensibly about people debating these issues with you?

Have you even opened a single other link that's been posted to you on this thread?

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

I'm not threatening you, I'm warning you that posting more nonsense from AiG will get you laughed at. That's not me talking in an official capacity, which I would have thought was obvious from the context of the rest of the statement.