|
Debunking Creationism #1 - How Human Evolution Works
|
 (May 13, 2022 at 10:01 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:(May 13, 2022 at 9:56 pm)Helios Wrote: Yes Actually, 'kind' is used by a lot of YEC to help them explain way the impossibility of the Ark story by using 'kind' as equivalent to 'genus'. Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
  RE: Debunking Creationism #1 - How Human Evolution Works
May 14, 2022 at 10:07 am
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2022 at 10:16 am by Anomalocaris.)
(May 13, 2022 at 10:01 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:(May 13, 2022 at 9:56 pm)Helios Wrote: Yes Sorry, boy, the concept of “definition” hasn’t been created yet when the maker uppers of your god were busing making up all the bullshit, including the so call genesis, about your god. You see, “definition” is a component invented for and needed by intellectual vigor. Nothing associated with either your bullshit religion or the bullshitters who made all the crap such as genesis that is your religion, have ever had any use whatsoever for intellectual rigor because Intellectual rigor reveals for all to see the bullshit of your religion for what it is, and the bullshitters who made up your religion for what they are. That’s why they would never bother with it, or parts of it such as concept of definition, as they invented your beloved bullshit.  (May 14, 2022 at 10:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:(May 13, 2022 at 10:01 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: Then you should know that 'kind' and 'species' are synonymous and have the same definition. Boy?, Ah, I see we're going old school with it... In the bible God decreed that every seed must reproduce according to it's 'kind', if two creatures cannot produce fertile offspring, then they obviously don't belong to the same kind... that is the biblical definition of 'species'. The biological definition of 'species'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species Quote:A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. (May 14, 2022 at 11:06 am)Huggy Bear Wrote:(May 14, 2022 at 10:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Sorry, boy, the concept of “definition” hasn’t been created yet when the maker uppers of your god were busing making up all the bullshit, including the so call genesis, about your god. You see, “definition” is a component invented for and needed by intellectual vigor. Nothing associated with either your bullshit religion or the bullshitters who made all the crap such as genesis that is your religion, have ever had any use whatsoever for intellectual rigor because Intellectual rigor reveals for all to see the bullshit of your religion for what it is, and the bullshitters who made up your religion for what they are. That’s why they would never bother with it, or parts of it such as concept of definition, as they invented your beloved bullshit. If you and your wife both carry a recessive gene that when manifested in your offspring prevent them from reproducing, then you and your wife are not of a kind? What are of a kind with asexually reproducing “seeds”? What about a ring specie?  (May 14, 2022 at 11:06 am)Huggy Bear Wrote:(May 14, 2022 at 10:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Sorry, boy, the concept of “definition” hasn’t been created yet when the maker uppers of your god were busing making up all the bullshit, including the so call genesis, about your god. You see, “definition” is a component invented for and needed by intellectual vigor. Nothing associated with either your bullshit religion or the bullshitters who made all the crap such as genesis that is your religion, have ever had any use whatsoever for intellectual rigor because Intellectual rigor reveals for all to see the bullshit of your religion for what it is, and the bullshitters who made up your religion for what they are. That’s why they would never bother with it, or parts of it such as concept of definition, as they invented your beloved bullshit. Feel free to explain ring species under this theory. It's well-known that the definition of species can be problematic. Is the biblical concept of kind also problematic? ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
One way to achieve speciation is to prevent sex; how does such square with the Biblical commandment to go forth and be "fruitful & multiply"?
The videos I link literally address how the biblical concept of kinds can't be used to mean the same thing as the modern idea of species. It makes no sense in terms of taxonomy and it only gets worst as you go up the taxonomic tree.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! ![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843) “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM (May 14, 2022 at 11:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:*emphasis mine*(May 14, 2022 at 11:06 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: Boy?, Ah, I see we're going old school with it... I don't think pointing to an abnormality is the own you think it is...
Actually it is an own in fact every response so far is an own because you don't know what the heck your talking about
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse! “No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?” –SHIRLEY CHISHOLM |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
