A question about "kinds."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Simple way to expose the base of faith the argument relies upon: ask, what limits the change within a "kind" from becoming a change in "kind" altogether?

Evolution doesn't have a stop-sign.

[Anomalocaris]

Simple way to expose the base of faith the argument relies upon: ask, what limits the change within a "kind" from becoming a change in "kind" altogether?

Evolution doesn't have a stop-sign.

When confronted with questions like this, creationists behave so predictably that they give lie to their claim that their god gave them free will.


1st, they will dissemble as a way to throw up a skirmish line.

2nd, when their skirmish line is staved in they would recruit ready made obfuscations from places like answers in genesis to throw up what they imagine to be a more solid defense.

Finally when their flanks are turned and centers routed, they will retreat to their make belief bastion which nonetheless provides real security from any threat of enlightenment, called "god".

[ignoramus]

Hey creatards, checkout all the transitional fossils from a 4 legged mammal to a whale.
Complete with the nose moving progressively to the top of the head for better breathing.

It's all there on YouTube.
(I'm suspecting some skeptical "Christians" will feel deep down inside that we made these fossils and buried them at night when no-one was looking)

[Mudhammam]

I think the answer is pretty obvious, Esquilax. They're terrified-- perhaps with some measure of good reason-- that the idea that man is biologically related to a tree renders mankind too insignificant and could be used to justify mistreatment of people deemed a burden.

[Crossless2.0]

Creatards are a kind.

And they don't evolve.

[Cato]

I sometimes lose sight of the fact that there are otherwise reasonable people that are legitimately terrified of the idea of hell. So much so, that they become a mental contortionist in an attempt to reconcile what they accept as truth, evolution in this case, with conflicting Biblical accounts. They have been taught that the Bible is the true inerrant word of God and that they are going to hell if they don't accept it (we must also ignore for the moment that this isn't in accordance with learned theology).

This kinds business is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the known size of the imaginary ark with the number of species that were to have been aboard.

[Crossless2.0]

I sometimes lose sight of the fact that there are otherwise reasonable people that are legitimately terrified of the idea of hell. So much so, that they become a mental contortionist in an attempt to reconcile what they accept as truth, evolution in this case, with conflicting Biblical accounts. They have been taught that the Bible is the true inerrant word of God and that they are going to hell if they don't accept it (we must also ignore for the moment that this isn't in accordance with learned theology).

This kinds business is nothing more than an attempt to reconcile the known size of the imaginary ark with the number of species that were to have been aboard.

I suppose that for such believers there is the fear of the slippery slope. If the Noah story is not true, what else follows? Once Genesis is accepted as a collection of legends and just-so stories, inerrancy goes out the window, and everything is up for grabs. Of course, adopting a more "liberal" approach to scripture is always an option, but their approach to the Bible pretty much rules that out. They double down on silly apologetics because they tend to see it as an all or nothing situation. Their reading of the Bible must be defended at all costs.

What I don't understand is why they expend so much energy arguing with atheists about it. It seems to me that their real quarrel should be with their fellow Christians -- the ones who disagree with their approach to understanding the Bible.

[Anomalocaris]

Creatards are a kind.

And they don't evolve.

You make the elementary mistake of thinking evolution means progress. It doesn't. It means better adaptation. Creatards evolved to better adapt to the dumb niche by losing their brains.

[Crossless2.0]

And they don't evolve.

You make the elementary mistake of thinking evolution means progress. It doesn't. It means better adaptation. Creatards evolved to better adapt to the dumb niche by losing their brains.

So we either ramp up efforts on all fronts to change the environment so radically that there is no niche left for them (time consuming and uncertain of success) or we start eating them. Creatard: Tastes like chicken kind.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Simple way to expose the base of faith the argument relies upon: ask, what limits the change within a "kind" from becoming a change in "kind" altogether?

Evolution doesn't have a stop-sign.

When confronted with questions like this, creationists behave so predictably that they give lie to their claim that their god gave them free will.


1st, they will dissemble as a way to throw up a skirmish line.

2nd, when their skirmish line is staved in they would recruit ready made obfuscations from places like answers in genesis to throw up what they imagine to be a more solid defense.

Finally when their flanks are turned and centers routed, they will retreat to their make belief bastion which nonetheless provides real security from any threat of enlightenment, called "god".

Exactly. The entire point of the question is to demonstrate the vapid nature of their "reasoning."