• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
See Genesis 7:1-4
I'm not sure how that clarifies anything. If anything, it complicates this more.

You said this was so simple a child could understand it. So you should be able to provide a simple definition and/or answer my follow-up questions, don't you think? I mean, you attempted to insult my intelligence, and yet you can't seem to explain what it is you're talking about.

Why you refuse to answer my follow-up questions is a mystery.
 
Last edited:

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
How about dingos? wolves?



How about tigers and lions? Cheetahs?



Of course, they are NOT monkeys. They are apes. That you don't know the distinction is telling.



Are all bears in on kind? Or is there a different kind for polar bears and black bears? How about pandas?



Why, specifically? Biologically, we have *all* the characteristics of an ape.



No, it is just too vague to be useful. You want to divide up species as you think they should be divided up in spite of what the biology, genetics, and fossil evidence say.

Genesis 7
2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.


Noah seemed to be able to tell what kinds God was talking about. I guess this sort of thing isn't everyone's cup of tea.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how that clarifies anything. If anything, it complicates this more.

You said this was so simple a child could understand it. So you should be able to provide a simple definition and/or answer my follow-up questions, don't you think? I mean, you attempted to insult my intelligence, and yet you can't seem to explain what it is you're talking about.

Why you refuse to answer my follow-up questions is a mystery.

Noah understood it well enough. He is the only one who ever really needed to.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Genesis 7
2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,
3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.


Noah seemed to be able to tell what kinds God was talking about. I guess this sort of thing isn't everyone's cup of tea.

So, you have no answer.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
It clarifies nothing. It doesn't exactly illuminate anything you've said. Your lack of responses to direct questions also clarifies nothing.

A few pages back the question was addressed.

If you don't get Genesis 7 you'd probably best just forget about it. You don't need to know, anyway.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
The problem is not my getting it or not.
The problem is that you have not defined the word "kind" in any meaningful or useful manner.

So the fail is yours, not mine

You've got Google, right? I don't need to define anything for you.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
A few pages back the question was addressed.

You and I have been going back and forth for a few pages and I'm still not any closer to getting any answers out of you. Why can't you just answer my questions? Why so elusive?

You know what's really funny? Every conversation with anybody asserting "kinds" always seems to end up with the person giving up and/or resorting to insults when they fail to adequately explain themselves. Why is it so difficult to get a "simple" definition out of creationists? Perhaps now you can see why creationism isn't the slightest bit scientific.

If you don't get Genesis 7 you'd probably best just forget about it. You don't need to know, anyway.
You started this thing by trying to insult my intelligence and now I see you were just using that as a deflection because you actually have no idea what you're talking about. And now you're just trying to rudely dismiss me.

I'm sorry but you don't get to dictate to me what I need to know. And if you want to dismiss evolutionary theory and have anyone take creationism seriously, you creationists better start figuring out how to explain your terminology much better than this.
 
Last edited:
Top