Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[pocaracas]

Rev, I am disappointed...
I told you to research your sources.
I told you to research your science.
You did none of that... and here's the result... a turd not worth refuting.

[Confused Ape]

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.

And what are you trying to prove by your arguments? That God created everything? Why bother when millions of Christians believe that evolution is the way God did it?

Here's a suggestion for you. Email Francis Collins and tell him he's wrong about evolution being the way God did it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

Well, good thing nobody with an ounce of intellectual integrity gives a damn about what a know-nothing ignoramus thinks then isn't it?

Good luck living in the dark ages, kid. I'm sure a lot of people here will go methodically through the evidence and the structure of their arguments will revolve around charting the current model of evolution as we know it, but we both know that you don't give a shit about learning about anything don't we?

[Esquilax]

I need to ask, Rev: did you even pause when you saw that the source you were quoting from was fifty years old? Did it occur to you at all that fields like science and technology tend to advance in half a century? Did you even consider the prospect that science works on a consensus basis, that this is the foundation of the peer review process that keeps science honest, and so therefore one person's opinion- phd or not- means as much as any one theologian's opinion?

Or did you just find something that went with the flow of what you wanted to believe? I guess that's the most important question; how much time and thought passed between when you initially found that quote, and when you posted it here?

[Crossless2.0]

I can't even muster the enthusiasm to be snarky. This is just sad. Rev, please, please tell me you don't homeschool your kids.

[KichigaiNeko]

Not worth the effort of reading the thread

[Zen Badger]

This is why I don't bother arguing with cretinists anymore.

Why marshall your best and most incisive arguments and points when all you're going to get in reply is " I can does typings" scrawled in electronic crayon.

[Crossless2.0]

Here's a thought for you, Rev. In the time between your first argument's thread having run its course (which was days before you apparently thought it did) and your presentation of argument 2, you could have read an up-to-date book on evolution and spared yourself a train load of much deserved ridicule and contempt.

You seem to think that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive positions, but you have been told repeatedly that this is not the case. Again, Francis Collins is a Christian and a prominent and highly respected biologist who knows damn well that the evidence for evolution is compelling. Most Christian denominations accept the evidence for evolution. Your issue isn't with the science, which you don't understand. Your issue is really theological and about how your particular approach to the Bible forces you into these weird contortions. Since you have demonstrated no desire to learn the science, why are you arguing about it with a bunch of atheists? Your beef should be with your fellow Christians -- the ones who think your approach to scripture is wrong.

[KichigaiNeko]

http://youtu.be/a-apdGwBPz4

[DarkHorse]

I should have known this "argument" would be a disappointment.