Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Jackalope]

You haven't even shown that there is a baby yet. You just keep asserting it.

Is it ok for me to copy and paste sections from the website?

Have you even bothered to look at mainstream scientific sources, or only those that will serve to confirm your presupposed viewpoint?

[Cyberman]

Is it ok for me to copy and paste sections from the website?

As long as you give proper citation and expand on the material you present (such as why you think it's relevant or how you think it helps your case) then go for it. If all you're going to do is build a wall of copypasta in a game of "so-and-so says", then what would be the point?

Oh, and part of the game is that you respond to your critics in a meaningful way. You know, sort of like a discussion.

[Revelation777]

Is it ok for me to copy and paste sections from the website?

As long as you give proper citation and expand on the material you present (such as why you think it's relevant or how you think it helps your case) then go for it. If all you're going to do is build a wall of copypasta in a game of "so-and-so says", then what would be the point?

Oh, and part of the game is that you respond to your critics in a meaningful way. You know, sort of like a discussion.

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

---

You haven't even shown that there is a baby yet. You just keep asserting it.

This particular baby was stillborn and has long since been buried.

hardy har har har

[The Valkyrie]

As long as you give proper citation and expand on the material you present (such as why you think it's relevant or how you think it helps your case) then go for it. If all you're going to do is build a wall of copypasta in a game of "so-and-so says", then what would be the point?

Oh, and part of the game is that you respond to your critics in a meaningful way. You know, sort of like a discussion.

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

---

This particular baby was stillborn and has long since been buried.

hardy har har har

Yes, I'm hilarious.

I've always said so.

[Cyberman]

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

Put it down to frustration at having to keep explaining the basic protocols of forum behaviour. It's just my defence mechanism; especially when it's waaay past my bedtime.

At the risk of digging deeper, maybe you ought to consider a thicker skin if you want to survive the wolfpack around here. Just a suggestion to keep you from getting hurt. Keep telling yourself "it's just the internet".

[SteelCurtain]

As long as you give proper citation and expand on the material you present (such as why you think it's relevant or how you think it helps your case) then go for it. If all you're going to do is build a wall of copypasta in a game of "so-and-so says", then what would be the point?

Oh, and part of the game is that you respond to your critics in a meaningful way. You know, sort of like a discussion.

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

Wow. The fact that you see a request that you actually engage in discussion as a dig is telling.

Care to respond?

---

You guys are not addressing my argument so we now are an a tangent.

Not true.

The FIRST response in this thread, Rev:

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

Also, rasetsu called you out for yet again LYING:

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.

Here's the full quote from Kerkut, with your extracts in blue:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

— Implications of Evolution, G.A. Kerkut

So Kerkut wasn't referring to the theory of evolution as commonly understood, which he contrasts as the "Special Theory of Evolution," but rather to an expanded, non-standard definition of his own which includes abiogenesis. So, your second argument is to quote mine and misrepresent the words of a scientist in a way that is dishonest and does not impact the standard definition of evolution in the slightest. That's fucking weak.

---

[orogenicman]

Interesting that the Rev hasn't bother to respond to my post or that of Brian Boru, and if he ever does, it will be this one, and he'll insist that we repeat ourselves because he can't be bother to go looking for our previous posts.

Which post # are you referring to.

I rest my case.

[Revelation777]

thanks,,,but had to slip a dig in there didn't you.

Put it down to frustration at having to keep explaining the basic protocols of forum behaviour. It's just my defence mechanism; especially when it's waaay past my bedtime.

At the risk of digging deeper, maybe you ought to consider a thicker skin if you want to survive the wolfpack around here. Just a suggestion to keep you from getting hurt. Keep telling yourself "it's just the internet".

Thank you.

[orogenicman]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_A._Kerkut

Kerkut's (54 year old) book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims.[1] In his book, Kerkut distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution, but also including abiogenesis).[2]

This is the best you can do? Really? Oh my.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time.

And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for your argument is?

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.

Straw man argument, since that is not what the science says, and not how evolution works. Evolution works in populations, not with individuals. Whether or not life originated via abiogenesis or some other means is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. Moreover, there are huge volumes of evidence that support the conclusion that all life on Earth is interrelated and that modern life ultimately originated from the earliest forms of life on the planet. What you are doing here is willfully ignoring that massive amount of data and simply quote mining from a 54 year old textbook that nobody uses any more (and that many have never even heard of) in order to further a religious agenda. I was taught in my youth by my religious parents that such behavior is a violation of the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Was there a religion-confab that was convened that I don't know about where it was decided that 'lying for Jesus' was now acceptable behavior in the Christian community? Because I am certain that my very religious, though scientifically literate family never got that memo.

Bump

[Esquilax]

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

This is the problem with you, Rev: you present this argument in your first post, and the response has unanimously been that science has advanced considerably in fifty years, and that the lack of evidence Kerkut mentions no longer exists, that in fact, there is plenty of evidence now. Many of us linked you to that evidence. Your response back is "but the argument still exists, therefore it must be true!"

Your inability to understand what is being said to you, does it stem from ignorance, or disinterest? We understand that the argument still exists, but unfortunately for you, the objection it raises no longer does. Anybody raising this argument today is just speaking nonsense, akin to somebody letting us know that standing on the earth, it looks like a flat disc, is an argument for a flat earth. Our understanding of the subject has moved on.

Incidentally, would you please respond to this point I made on page six, that you completely skipped over?

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?