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.
The OP is well known for these so called "challenges". The best answer was "spaghetti".There was a challenge? I hadn't noticed. I thought it was a quaint little word play.
The OP is well known for these so called "challenges". The best answer was "spaghetti".
It's not a mockery though.Keep in mind that your version of creationism is not everyone's version of creationism.
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].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 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
What is the point of linking to past failures of yours?QV please: Post 143
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.
I've noticed over the many years that people dish it out.Ah, kind of like how one could use "Evangelicalism" as a placeholder for narcissism, heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy.
Maybe it's you.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.
In fairness, it wasn't like there was much else going on in this forum. It's been quite dead as of late.
Science is on a hike somewhere.We now get a selection of science-lite news clippings.
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?