Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2016, 09:53 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
I want to see what 'kind' they think a Fossa is, or if they think a mouse-like marsupial and a placental mouse are the same 'kind.'

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Loom's post
04-06-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(29-05-2016 07:05 PM)Dracomalice Wrote:  Many creationists love to use the tired ploy of kinds to deny evolution but trying to get them to define let alone defend the concept is like pulling teeth so the purpose of this post is to categorize and dissect some of the more common pseudo-definitions and silly justification creations use to defend their non-existent concept not this isn't an attack on all concepts of kinds only the ones that commonly show up on forum debates

...

Thoughts?
That is one hell of a long sentence.

Spanners in the works of this Creationist "kinds" is obviously DNA evidence, in particular common DNA markers, as well as animals such as marsupials which have filled some similar adaptive spaces that placental mammals have filled. Thankfully Australia was isolated from placental mammals and hence the marsupials are still around.

We also have whales and dolphins etc which most definitely aren't fish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(30-05-2016 02:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Another problem that Creationists have is explaining the divergence of animals from the original "kinds". It seems to me that divergence is just another term for evolution. But of course you won't hear them use that word.
They have invented the terms macro and micro evolution and define them as being completely different things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-06-2016, 09:32 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(04-06-2016 03:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-05-2016 02:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Another problem that Creationists have is explaining the divergence of animals from the original "kinds". It seems to me that divergence is just another term for evolution. But of course you won't hear them use that word.
They have invented the terms macro and micro evolution and define them as being completely different things.

Actually as usual creationist merely stole the words micro and macro and twisted their original meaning to suit their agenda it never ceases to amaze me just how low they'll sink

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2016, 09:48 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(04-06-2016 03:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-05-2016 07:05 PM)Dracomalice Wrote:  Many creationists love to use the tired ploy of kinds to deny evolution but trying to get them to define let alone defend the concept is like pulling teeth so the purpose of this post is to categorize and dissect some of the more common pseudo-definitions and silly justification creations use to defend their non-existent concept not this isn't an attack on all concepts of kinds only the ones that commonly show up on forum debates

...

Thoughts?
That is one hell of a long sentence.

Spanners in the works of this Creationist "kinds" is obviously DNA evidence, in particular common DNA markers, as well as animals such as marsupials which have filled some similar adaptive spaces that placental mammals have filled. Thankfully Australia was isolated from placental mammals and hence the marsupials are still around.

We also have whales and dolphins etc which most definitely aren't fish.

1. Yeah sorry about my sentences i tend to rant as creationism and how it and it's cultists twist science

As For the marsupials they have some crazy psedo theories on that one

1. We have the Robert Bard brain theory that god alakazam ed all the placental mammals that ended up in Austrailia that arrived there (somehow)into marsupials for some unknown mysterious reason .

2. They just arrived in Australia and for some mysterious unknown reason only marsupials survived and again for unknown reasons all traces of all the non-marsupials just disappeared

3. All creatures of a certain group were once marsupials and god just magicked some the to be non -marsupials

You can stop bashing your head off the table now or catch your breath from laughing

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dracomalice's post
05-06-2016, 10:46 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(05-06-2016 09:48 PM)Dracomalice Wrote:  1. We have the Robert Bard brain theory that god alakazam ed all the placental mammals that ended up in Austrailia that arrived there (somehow)into marsupials for some unknown mysterious reason .

2. They just arrived in Australia and for some mysterious unknown reason only marsupials survived and again for unknown reasons all traces of all the non-marsupials just disappeared

3. All creatures of a certain group were once marsupials and god just magicked some the to be non -marsupials

You can stop bashing your head off the table now or catch your breath from laughing

Too late! Sadcryface2

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2016, 12:19 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
By far thou my favorite creationist excuses have to be these

1. all dinosaur to bird transitional are just birds that just happen to have lots and lots of reptilian features because god for no reason put them there or they just look reptilian

2. all similarities between species are just common design because even thou god is not limited by materials or technique and thus could easily have made each kind totally differently he choose instead for some unknown reason to plot life out in a way that just happens to look like common descent ether god lacks an imagination or hes's fucking with us

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dracomalice's post
06-06-2016, 01:24 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(04-06-2016 03:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-05-2016 02:51 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Another problem that Creationists have is explaining the divergence of animals from the original "kinds". It seems to me that divergence is just another term for evolution. But of course you won't hear them use that word.
They have invented the terms macro and micro evolution and define them as being completely different things.

Indeed, but of course then the question to them has to be, what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter? That's when the creationist then goes quiet.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
06-06-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(06-06-2016 01:24 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  
(04-06-2016 03:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They have invented the terms macro and micro evolution and define them as being completely different things.

Indeed, but of course then the question to them has to be, what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter? That's when the creationist then goes quiet.

Oh creationists will just say it's like Ruseels teapot they don't need to propose a mechanism because we have not shown that it's possible (even thou we have and they have not shown it impossible

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(06-06-2016 11:00 AM)Dracomalice Wrote:  
(06-06-2016 01:24 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Indeed, but of course then the question to them has to be, what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter? That's when the creationist then goes quiet.

Oh creationists will just say it's like Ruseels teapot they don't need to propose a mechanism because we have not shown that it's possible (even thou we have and they have not shown it impossible
Their argument is that a fish has never given birth to a monkey, a monkey has never given birth to a human.

What they fail to grasp is that this is consistent with the ToE
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: