Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[LostLocke]

Right off the bat....

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.

[RobbyPants]

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

[/thread]

Revelation777, please post question #3.

[Revelation777]

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.

---

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".

[downbeatplumb]

Instead of putting me down, try addressing the argument.

It has been addressed.
Time to move on.

[Revelation777]

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.

---

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.

[Jackalope]

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.

---

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.

[Crossless2.0]

Game is far from over.

You have no game, son.

[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.

Okay! So, first of all, Kerkut's definitions, from what I've been able to read, are simply wrong; it's not up to him to decide what things mean, there's an entire scientific community that disagrees with him on that. You don't get to cherry pick the opinions of a single man, whose ideas were not shared by the majority of mainstream science, and expect us all to suddenly scramble to deal with that, any more than we're allowed to pick some insane cultish corner of your religion that sacrifices babies to god, and demand that you defend that. Play by the rules, Rev.

More importantly, Kerkut died a decade ago, and the books he published are now over fifty years old; the science here has improved in leaps and bounds, and it's not the same field as it was when Kerkut published his- still erroneous- book. In the same manner as you wouldn't want us discarding the new testament and pretending that the old testament is all christianity is, don't discard half a century of scientific progress in order to make your point. It's dishonest.

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.

So, first of all, abiogenesis isn't evolution, no matter how hard you like to pretend. Second of all, your "microbe evolved into a human" crap is profoundly dishonest, as it shows how little you bothered to research before spewing this stuff; microbes to people doesn't happen without many, many transitions, and we do have plenty of genetic evidence that shows humans are connected to the last transition in the chain, apes: human chromosome 2 is adequate evidence of that, and if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

As to your last claim, about non living chemicals producing life... yes, that is possible, and we do have evidence.

Hey Rev, how much research did you do before you decided it was okay to flatly assert demonstrably incorrect things as truth? Is that what Jesus would have wanted?

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.

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

[Cyberman]

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..

[downbeatplumb]

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"?