Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 1:44 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
#1
Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
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.
Reply
#2
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
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
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#3
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
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.
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.'
Reply
#4
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
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".
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply
#5
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(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".
Reply
#6
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
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.
Reply
#7
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: 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.

Quote: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? Thinking
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#8
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
Quote:If that's the common usage do you also call other scientists by silly names for their profession? What about "gravitationalist"?

That would make Revs a "bullshitist."
Reply
#9
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(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.

THat's a common creationist ploy, though.

I remember arguing with one elsewhere who linked to articles no more modern than 1931.
Dying to live, living to die.
Reply
#10
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
The pull the same shit with archaeology. Anything after W. F. Albright is not acceptable to the Great Deluded.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What's your stance on bringing back extinct species? Fake Messiah 80 1609 March 12, 2024 at 8:50 am
Last Post: brewer
  New human species discovered in the Phillipines downbeatplumb 5 621 April 13, 2019 at 6:17 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Bumblebee officially added to endangered species list Foxaèr 13 1296 July 3, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Without rape, most animal species would go extinct Alexmahone 34 4283 May 25, 2018 at 11:25 am
Last Post: sdelsolray
  Strange troglodyte species found in Turkmenistan cave Foxaèr 4 840 September 26, 2017 at 7:18 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  New Species Found in Oregon brewer 31 6232 February 11, 2016 at 10:34 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Do you think we could/will ever have two dominant[prime] species? Heat 11 3280 November 21, 2015 at 9:12 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Remains of new human species found ignoramus 32 6526 September 10, 2015 at 7:34 pm
Last Post: MTL
  Is there enough time for SPECIATION for million species drkfuture 11 6092 July 30, 2015 at 7:52 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Invasive Species IATIA 11 2616 July 17, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Last Post: rado84



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)