My Water Kind Challenge

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The proper way to treat these supposed challenges is to ignore the too limited and usually wrong choices of the OP. That is why my answer earned the highest judgments.

There was a challenge? I hadn't noticed. I thought it was a quaint little word play.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The OP is well known for these so called "challenges". The best answer was "spaghetti".

The fact that, from within the given choices, "kind" is analogous to "genus", is no challenge at all to the theory of evolution. One might as well claim that the synonymy of Ovine to Sheeplike would be a challenge
 
  • Winner
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The fact that, from within the given choices, "kind" is analogous to "genus", is no challenge at all to the theory of evolution. One might as well claim that the synonymy of Ovine to Sheeplike would be a challenge
Nothing that the OP posts is a threat to evolution. But the OP thinks that it is. There are literally thousands of such threads here by the OP. One would think that he was a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The fact that, from within the given choices, "kind" is analogous to "genus", is no challenge at all to the theory of evolution. One might as well claim that the synonymy of Ovine to Sheeplike would be a challenge

The OP, like the vast majority of creationists, don't know anything about the science they oppose. In that sense, they can never challenge such science.

Most creationists seem to use to "evolution" as a placeholder for atheism, heresy, and/or apostasy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BryanJohnMaloney

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
640
364
58
Carmel
✟25,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The OP, like the vast majority of creationists, don't know anything about the science they oppose. In that sense, they can never challenge such science.

Most creationists seem to use to "evolution" as a placeholder for atheism, heresy, and/or apostasy.

Ah, kind of like how one could use "Evangelicalism" as a placeholder for narcissism, heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ah, kind of like how one could use "Evangelicalism" as a placeholder for narcissism, heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy.
I've noticed over the many years that people dish it out.

Then when you dish it back, they report you.

They can talk about Numbers 31 slaughter of men, women, children, and animals with aplomb; but mention seven people dying in an explosion and you get reported.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I've noticed over the many years that people dish it out.

Then when you dish it back, they report you.

They can talk about Numbers 31 slaughter of men, women, children, and animals with aplomb; but mention seven people dying in an explosion and you get reported.
Maybe it's you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Water is to dihydrogen monoxide as kind is to:
  1. family
  2. friends
  3. genus
  4. oceans

When you start from the assumption that the Biblical Kind means exactly the same thing as genus in order to show that kind means genus, you are starting from a very weak position.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When you start from the assumption that the Biblical Kind means exactly the same thing as genus in order to show that kind means genus, you are starting from a very weak position.
It can be twice as weak as you think it is, but it is still much stronger than what academia thinks it is, since academia doesn't know what it is.

At least I'm willing to assign it a working definition.

If you think "kind" is weak, then you must think "genus" is too.

Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield's joke about the guy who brought his girlfriend home to meet his parents:

"I brought my girl home to meet my parents. She looks like mom, sounds like mom, walks like mom, talks like mom, and even dresses like mom. And guess what? Dad don't like her!"

I give "kind" the same label as "genus" so academia can stop wondering what it is, and guess what?

Academia don't like it!

LOL
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It can be twice as weak as you think it is, but it is still much stronger than what academia thinks it is, since academia doesn't know what it is.

At least I'm willing to assign it a working definition.

If you think "kind" is weak, then you must think "genus" is too.

Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield's joke about the guy who brought his girlfriend home to meet his parents:

"I brought my girl home to meet my parents. She looks like mom, sounds like mom, walks like mom, talks like mom, and even dresses like mom. And guess what? Dad don't like her!"

I give "kind" the same label as "genus" so academia can stop wondering what it is, and guess what?

Academia don't like it!

LOL

The trouble is that you are making an arbitrary decision to claim that kind and genus mean the same thing, and then you are holding up your arbitrary decision as evidence that the Bible got it right.

I can easily claim that Paul Karason is a Smurf, and therefore Peyo had it right all along, but that doesn't make it real, does it? You are doing the same thing as that. You are saying, "This particular thing (which has no real world evidence) is the same as that other thing (which does have real world evidence), so this source I have here which talks about the first thing must be right." It's bad logic, AV, and you shouldn't be using it.

Of course, if you can show that there's some actual basis to justify your claims, then that would be a different story, but so far you haven't done that.
 
Upvote 0