The vast complexity of living things proves that God exists (proof 1)

[Bad Wolf]

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.

Come on now, we've been over this. A kind, does not exist, you can't even define it anyway.

So all of observational science is also against your theory.

Okay.....1) its not our theory. It was formulated by scientists 2) that means scientists agree with evolution theory since they are the ones who made it and continue to study it.

[Esquilax]

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that.
So all of observational science is also against your theory.

Oh wow, how did I miss this?

So Gracie, remember when I challenged you to find a scientific source that uses the term kind, or describes evolution the way you do? Like, a week or two ago? Your silence has been deafening: why not just admit you were lying?

Oh, and where's my debate?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that.
So all of observational science is also against your theory.

Oh wow, how did I miss this?

So Gracie, remember when I challenged you to find a scientific source that uses the term kind, or describes evolution the way you do? Like, a week or two ago? Your silence has been deafening: why not just admit you were lying?

Oh, and where's my debate?

There are many creationists web sites that use the term kind and describe evolution the way I use it.

I already gave you some of those sites:

icr.org
answersingenesis.org
creationtoday.org

I already explained that Biblical kind can be species, genus, or family.


The use of garbage accusations proves you have no argument. By all rules of debate, you have lost.

[Kayenneh]

answersingenesis.org

Citing that site as a good source is like thinking that just because Dr. Seuss wrote about it, that the Grinch exists. Whoo, you are the dumbest bitch I've come across.

[max-greece]

"Except we only observe like kind producing like kind offspring.
We never observe anything other than that."

Well here's the good news Gracie - if you ever do observe "kind" not producing like "kind" offspring then you have just proved evolutionary science WRONG.

Subject, of course, to what the fuck "kind" means.

[Doubting Thomas]

There are many creationists web sites that use the term kind and describe evolution the way I use it.

Gee, you don't think that they're all wrong or lying, do you? I've seen white supremacist websites which claim that the Holocaust never happened, so I guess that makes it true, right? Several of them made that claim and were in agreement, so that makes it true, right? You don't think they'd have a reason to lie, do you? Of course not.

[Angrboda]

There are many creationists web sites that use the term kind and describe evolution the way I use it.

I already gave you some of those sites:

icr.org
answersingenesis.org
creationtoday.org

I already explained that Biblical kind can be species, genus, or family.


The use of garbage accusations proves you have no argument. By all rules of debate, you have lost.

Fine. Link to or paste a definition from one of those sites, and explain how, using that definition, the pattern of reproductive isolation in a ring species makes sense. Divide your ring species up into 'kinds' according to your definition. I don't believe you can do it.

Wikipedia:

Or read my summary description .

[Esquilax]

There are many creationists web sites that use the term kind and describe evolution the way I use it.

I already gave you some of those sites:

icr.org
answersingenesis.org
creationtoday.org

And as I explained to you when you first did that, none of those are recognized, mainstream scientific organizations, and moreover, I'd like you to look at their statements of faith; you can generally find them in the "about us" sections. I quoted them way back when you first trotted them out- apparently you missed that- but they admit to an assumption of god, and blatantly say that any evidence that conflicts with the bible will be ignored. According to your own logic ("That uses the "no god" assumption and is therefore invalid" I believe you've said) they are wrong by default.

Now, do you have an actual scientific source you'd want to use, or would you like to admit that you're lying?

I already explained that Biblical kind can be species, genus, or family.

How convenient! Let me guess: it also means whatever else you need it to mean, changing according to whatever will allow you to slip out of another argument.

Besides, I asked for a scientific source that uses the term, and you provided ICR and answers in genesis, two websites run by buffoons that would have an allergic reaction if they were ever exposed to the facts that a real science source would present.

So, find someplace accredited and peer reviewed, or admit that you're lying, please.

The use of garbage accusations proves you have no argument. By all rules of debate, you have lost.

Now, are these actual debate rules used by sapient humans, or Gracie-rules, wherein you get to decide everything so that it turns out in your favor beforehand? I just want to be sure, because if it's the latter, then that's really pathetic.

The truth is, you're scared to take me on in a real debate, because you know, deep down, that your position has nothing even approaching a fact in it. You know you'll lose.

[Bad Wolf]

There are many creationists web sites that use the term kind and describe evolution the way I use it.

I already gave you some of those sites:

icr.org
answersingenesis.org
creationtoday.org

What scientific, peer reviewed e-journal are these? I have never heard of any of them before. I wonder why....

[daandaan]

You knew they were the products of people. Because we know people make things and what the things people make tend to look like. We know things that aren't made by people by the characteristics that distinguish them from things people make: signs of manufacture, similarity to other artificial products, and so on.

Your argument boils down to 'because we can tell that things that look artificial were made by intelligent beings, we can conclude that things that don't look artificial were made by intelligent beings'. In other words, we can tell they're the same because of the way in which they're different.

But we really, really, can't claim that legitimately.

I can give you many products which I have never heard of, or seen. You would conclude that man made it.

It is simple observational science.

nope , ur nonexisting god who lives in a nonexisting realm created none existing creatures like we can read in the buybull..

like The Behemoth The First Beast The Second Beast Unicorns Abaddon’s Locusts The 200 Million Horsemen Daniel’s Beasts The Dragon The Nephilim Leviathan and a golem out of clay, adam ..and a cloned golem , eve..

nothing more...