Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Chas]

Given the (lack of) quality of the first two of seven "arguments", I can only hope that this is a best of seven series and he gets banned after we trash him four straight.

[Esquilax]

You rev I'm wondering, since what you would called micro evolution is readily observed, what is the mechanism that prevents these changes from accruing?

Show me the evidence that it accrued.

The fact that "micro" evolution is observed is the evidence that it accrues. You're attempting to shoehorn in an extra layer of complexity by claiming that there's some force preventing those changes- that we already do demonstrably observe- from building up, and therefore you have the burden of proof in demonstrating that that extra layer exists. Stop trying to shirk it.

We don't need to prove to you that if I keep typing letters here, more letters will show up. That's an obvious corollary of the premises of the scenario. So is the accrual of changes in evolution.

[SteelCurtain]

Just because some things are old doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue.

Yes, Rev, that is certainly sometimes the case. But can you appreciate the idea that in this case, since science is a constantly changing and updating library of knowledge, that this is a misguided and misrepresented idea on the subject? Can you appreciate the fact that (despite apparently searching for a week), you couldn't find a more recent quote to (once again) quote mine? Can you at least address the fact that literally EVERY TIME YOU HAVE POSTED SOMEONE'S IDEAS ON EVOLUTION, THAT IDEA HAS BEEN REDACTED IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENDED MEANING? (I see creationists do the CapsLock thing quite a bit, I'm thinking they think it means super serial)

Can you appreciate the dishonesty in that?

[Revelation777]

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.

Then refute it and be on your merry way.

---

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.

You guys should know that the majority isn't always correct. I am not arguing creationism in this thread.

[Crossless2.0]

Rev, since you seem to have a short attention span, allow me to remind you that you need to address retroviral insertions.

[Revelation777]

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?

The problem with this argument that existed 50 years ago still is present today. That should tell you something. To me it screams.

[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.

Then refute it and be on your merry way.

Others have done so, better than I would... and you've ignored them.
Why should I waste my time repeating the others only to have you ignore me?

[Revelation777]

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.

My child is too young for school but I will teach Him God created this great planet.

---

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.

Thank you for your post. I would enjoy a conversation with Sir Francis Collins.

[pocaracas]

The problem with this argument that existed 50 years ago still is present today. That should tell you something. To me it screams.

Argument #2.1/2 - Look up guys, what do you see?
The sun revolves around the Earth. The moon too. And all the other celestial bodies. Some are fixed up there. Isn't it amazing how the Earth is exactly at the center of the Universe?!


this argument was used for centuries, until some 400 years ago... it can still be presented today... that should tell you something... to me, it screams

[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.

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?

I am open to learning Science, but not working hypothesis that can't get past first base.