Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Jackalope]

Yep. It's a transparent one and extremely dishonest.

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Even if that were true (it isn't), what does that have to do with you dishonestly quote mining woefully out of date *opinions* as if they have any relevance today?

[Mister Agenda]

Here is a source you have been pleading for, someone who believe in the so called theory as you do.

That's not what we've been asking for at all, liar. We've asked for credible sources, period. What have you allowed your religion to do to your brain that you think finding a random zoologist who wrote something you agree with fifty years ago carries any authority? The only authority in science in evidence. Who says something doesn't matter, only whether what they say is correct.

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.

Beating a dead horse may be tiring and a waste of time, but it's in no way dishonest in itself. Sometimes that's what happens when you're dealing with somone incapable of taking on board new information. They want to move on to their next point without ever successfully making their previous point and are incapable of acknowledging that. That's what leads to abuse of deceased horses.

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

Science deals in evidence, not proof. Proofs are for math and whiskey. And apparently we can add 'evidence' to the growing list of words you think you understand but don't. Of what else would those similarities be evidence? Hint: evolution alone predicts those genetic similarities, all ID can do is attempt to hijack them for re-purposing to the conclusion ID has decided in advance of the evidence.

[Cyberman]

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

He isn't. Read again, carefully:

if you quote AiG in defense of that, you will be roundly laughed at, be warned.

Reading comprehension not your strongest suit, huh?

[Crossless2.0]

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

Right, because Ben Stein says so. I can't believe how willfully dense you are.

You should focus on responding to retroviral insertions, which are devastating to your "case." You're just too obtuse to understand why.

Also, it would be a good idea to acknowledge that Rasetsu busted you on yet another dishonest use of someone's words. Do you imagine that Jesus is proud of you when you resort to such lies?

[Mister Agenda]

Yep. It's a transparent one and extremely dishonest.

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

There's a Nobel Prize waiting for any biologist who 'falls out of line' with evolution if they can show good evidence for doing so. But teaching creationism or ID in a biology class is akin to teaching astrology in astronomy class: it's not just wrong, it's a dereliciton of a teacher of science's duty to teach actual science. Professors can believe whatever they want, but if they're teaching science, they have to teach actual science, not some crap pseudo science that has never, ever, been useful in making a successful prediction that wasn't already predicted by evolution. ID isn't science, it is merely parasitic on science.

[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.

[Mister Agenda]

Look son at the picture that is slightly crooked on the wall, pay no mind to the elephant in the room.

And we're already to the mere quips in response to posts. Can this thread be over now instead of dragging on for twenty more pages of weak sauce replies to serious posts?

[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.

Try focusing on the issue that I brought up instead of focusing on a missed dotted "i" or a slanted crossed "t".

...What?

Anyone else get the impression that Rev's having a private conversation of his own and only occasionally do we get little snippets of it?

[Esquilax]

Part of the problem is that there is a pressure in the scientific community to fall in line with evolution or jeopardize your credibility, lose your funding, and be ostracized.

The fact that you keep claiming this just shows that you aren't listening to a damn thing anybody else is saying to you.

Once again: there is no conspiracy to silence creationism in science, it's just that there is no evidence for creationism, and there is mountains of evidence for evolution, whether you want to accept that or not. If a creationist wants to be taken seriously, they should start by furnishing evidence for their beliefs, something they never do; do you understand how much things would change if anyone could actually demonstrate creationism, or overturn evolution? That's an immense discovery, that completely alters the course of over a century of scientific knowledge and enterprise; that level of finding is Nobel Prize winning stuff, and that's even discounting all the funding those scientists would get from the multi-million dollar religious lobbyists for that research.

When you say things like you're saying, you are claiming that there's a conspiracy among scientists, many of whom are religious, across the entire world, that gives no benefit to those doing the conspiring, and actively stops them from earning millions of dollars and being world famous, prize winning super geniuses. It's just absurd.

Rev: Read this post. Listen. Respond after thinking. Don't just follow Ben Stein, he is a liar.

[Jackalope]

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".

Do you understand that what you're doing is the intellectual and academic equivalent of fraud?

It is hardly minor.