Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

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.

[SteelCurtain]

[Cyberman]

So your entire second argument is built upon the definition of a phrase mined from a single 50-something-year-old book by one zoologist?

Wait while I get the popcorn.

[The Valkyrie]

Using the term "evolutionist" immediately puts you forth for mockery.

If that's the common usage do you also call other scientists by silly names for their profession? What about "gravitationalist"?

I personally now want to be known as a "pullinsidesoutegist".

[Anomalocaris]

Using the term "evolutionist" immediately puts you forth for mockery.

If that's the common usage do you also call other scientists by their silly names for their profession? What about "gravitationalist"?

I personally now want to be known as a "pullinsidesoutegist".

Revs speaks of "his argument". It appears revs thinks so long as he can imagine he is in the make belief good graces of the fictional Jesus, any shit he care to lay in public in a sorry attempt to buttress his fantasy would constitute "an argument".

[Jackalope]

Rev plays a quote mine from a 54 year old source, ignoring all the evidence that has been gathered since.

I play "endogenous retroviral insertion".

Game over.

[Esquilax]

[Minimalist]

If that's the common usage do you also call other scientists by silly names for their profession? What about "gravitationalist"?

That would make Revs a "bullshitist."

[The Valkyrie]

Rev plays a quote mine from a 54 year old source, ignoring all the evidence that has been gathered since.

I play "endogenous retroviral insertion".

Game over.

THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.

[Minimalist]

The pull the same shit with archaeology. Anything after W. F. Albright is not acceptable to the Great Deluded.