(April 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: "Kind" is extremely important and wish you wouldn't cast it to the side.
You want me to take that term seriously, you've only got to do one thing: define what it means in specific terms, and then stick to that definition regardless of all the problems we'll undoubtedly find with it.
See, most creationists use the term interchangeably with a variety of other, mutually exclusive scientific terms like species and genus and so on, so that they can have this magic handwavey thing to object to evolution with, without ever being held accountable to what it means. I'm sure you can see how dishonest such a tactic is, and so you'll surely have a definition of "kind" that you'll tell us before we get into an actual discussion on it, right?
Quote: Yes, when we pet a poodle we both can agree that this may of evolved over many many years from a different looking dog. But you lose me if you say that billions of years ago this evolved from a frog.
And again, merely asserting that without explaining the mechanism that would stop small changes from accumulating into larger ones isn't compelling. It's just an argument from incredulity; the fact that you think it's implausible isn't an argument against evolution, it's a demonstration of your inability to properly absorb facts.
"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!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!