Posts: 2009
Threads: 2
Joined: October 8, 2012
Reputation:
26
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 8:22 am
Right off the bat....
(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.” ... you started off wrong.
So, I imagine it'll be all downhill from there.
Posts: 1543
Threads: 40
Joined: April 4, 2014
Reputation:
46
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:09 am
Posts: 658
Threads: 25
Joined: February 13, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:27 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am by Revelation777.)
(May 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: (May 4, 2014 at 10:57 pm)Beccs Wrote: 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".
Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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.
Try focusing on the issue that I brought up instead of focusing on a missed dotted "i" or a slanted crossed "t".
Posts: 13900
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am
(May 5, 2014 at 10:27 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.
It has been addressed.
Time to move on.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 658
Threads: 25
Joined: February 13, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 10:30 am by Revelation777.)
(May 4, 2014 at 10:57 pm)Beccs Wrote: 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".
That doesn't have much to do with the argument at hand.
(May 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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.
Game is far from over.
Posts: 31905
Threads: 205
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:31 am
(May 5, 2014 at 10:27 am)Revelation777 Wrote: (May 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Chuck Wrote: 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".
Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.
(May 4, 2014 at 10:49 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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.
Try focusing on the issue that I brought up instead of focusing on a missed dotted "i" or a slanted crossed "t".
Your joking, right? You posted the *opinion* of one person, quote mined from a 54 year old book, that ignores all of the substantial research that's been done since.
There is literally nothing to address. Your source is obsolete.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:34 am
(May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Game is far from over.
You have no game, son.
Posts: 658
Threads: 25
Joined: February 13, 2014
Reputation:
3
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:36 am
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:38 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2014 at 10:38 am by Cyberman.)
(May 5, 2014 at 1:06 am)max-greece Wrote: (May 5, 2014 at 12:53 am)Stimbo Wrote: I'm sure I remember an exchange over at the old Connecticut Valley Atheists, when some cretinist got exposed citing a decades-old paper, then countered by pulling one that was even older.
Let me guess - was it one that claimed to be about 2000 years old?
You'd think so, wouldn't you? As I remember they never got that far. That or they were going for academic credibility by citing only carefully-mined scientific sources..
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 13900
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
May 5, 2014 at 10:39 am
(May 5, 2014 at 10:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Game is far from over.
Your first point has been totally demolished so why aren't you adding anything new?
There is literally nothing to argue against until you post something that adds value to your argument.
Is there anything or are just going to keep coming back here and going "Aha"?
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
|
