Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

Name one.

Sheesh...there have been a few posted in this thread. But unlike you and 6days, rather than just leave it at that, I'll show you where...

Musterion post #5: "A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation".

Crucible post #33: "a particular type or variety of person or thing".

6days post #67: "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind."

:idunno:

Thanks for once again illustrating the emptiness of creationism. :thumb:

Sure.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No Greg..... You misunderstood.
The problem is for evolutionists who think it took millions of years. The best answer to the large chalk deposits is found in God's Word.

No 6, I didn't. I'll highlight it again for you.

The article explains "For the chalk formations to have reached the thickness they are today in a few thousand years, the production of microorganisms would have had to greatly increase sometime in the past. In fact, under the right conditions, rapid production and accumulation of these microorganisms on the ocean floor is possible. These conditions include turbulent waters, high winds, decaying fish, and increased temperature and nutrients from volcanic waters and other sources
"With catastrophic volcanic activity warming the oceans and releasing large amounts of CO2, and with the torrential rains and the churning and mixing of fresh and salt waters, the Flood of Noah’s day produced the right conditions for a “blooming” production of microorganisms and the chalk’s rapid accumulation. The three major sections of the White Cliffs of Dover give evidence of three major “blooms” in chalk formation, which would have taken place during the year-long Flood."

It's already boldnened by you, and I have underlined the part you need to see, and then italicized an even more specific part of it. The article is very clearly trying to explain how the Dover Cliffs could have possibly formed if the Earth is only 6000 years old. It literally tells you that almost verbatim.

 

[Stripe]

Musterion post #5: "A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation".

Crucible post #33: "a particular type or variety of person or thing".

6days post #67: "if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind."

Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.

Learn to respond coherently and then you need to retract your silly assertion.

Thanks for once again illustrating the emptiness of creationism.

Fortunately, my knowledge does not constitute the substantiality of creationism. You seem to think I should be able to answer every question. Do you hold yourself to the same standard? If we ask a question you cannot answer, is Darwinism "empty"?

Is that why you're forever making things up?

 

[Stripe]

No 6, I didn't. I'll highlight it again for you.



It's already boldnened by you, and I have underlined the part you need to see, and then italicized an even more specific part of it. The article is very clearly trying to explain how the Dover Cliffs could have possibly formed if the Earth is only 6000 years old. It literally tells you that almost verbatim.

Darwinists are forever running from a discussion when they are shown ignorant.

The YEC explanation of the diversity of animals is based on a rational and secure definition of kinds, while Darwinism relies on a vague and malleable term.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists are forever running from a discussion when they are shown ignorant.

Do all YECs believe that repeating false things over and over again eventually makes them true? You and 6days certainly do.

The YEC explanation of the diversity of animals is based on a rational and secure definition of kinds, while Darwinism relies on a vague and malleable term.

Did you mean to quote a different post or did you think your words applied to mine? Because they have nothing to do with mine.....I was talking about geology......Do you understand the difference between geology and evolution?

 

[6days]

Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.

Progress???
He is now admitting several people have provided definitions.

 

[6days]

One of 6days' links has the entire chalk deposits of southern England deposited in six days.

GC..... So now that you have posted the link, are you admitting you mis-stated things?

They explain it can be as little time as six days... not what you said.

 

[Stripe]

Did you mean to quote a different post or did you think your words applied to mine? Because they have nothing to do with mine.....I was talking about geology......Do you understand the difference between geology and evolution?

Try reading the thread title. :up:

Progress???
He is now admitting several people have provided definitions.

He knew the definition at least a year ago. At this rate, he'll be able to comprehend a paragraph in about 2052.

 

[gcthomas]

GC..... So now that you have posted the link, are you admitting you mis-stated things?

They explain it can be as little time as six days... not what you said.

That the authors think it was plausible suggests that they haven't taken basic science principles into account. Their six days claim makes their entire article unscientific and unusable.

Do you agree with your source that the deposition could have taken place in 6 days?

 

[Jose Fly]

Notably, none of your quotes contradict my definition and as expected, you have no evidence that any of these people disagree with me.

Sheesh...try and keep up. When I asked you if Musterion's definition fit with yours, you said "Nope. My definition is sufficient."

Learn to respond coherently and then you need to retract your silly assertion.

Learn to keep up with a conversation.

Fortunately, my knowledge does not constitute the substantiality of creationism. You seem to think I should be able to answer every question.

Your ":idunno:" speaks for itself.

Do you hold yourself to the same standard? If we ask a question you cannot answer, is Darwinism "empty"?

It's not just your ":idunno:" that is indicative of the emptiness of creationism, it's also the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.

 

[Stripe]

Sheesh...try and keep up. When I asked you if Musterion's definition fit with yours, you said "Nope. My definition is sufficient."

Predictably, you've pulled a bait-and-switch.

Regarding Musterion's input, you said:

They don't really overlap either. But in the interests of clarity again, should the definition of "kind" now be...

No. Your mash-up is not necessary. My definition is sufficient.

Your desperate ploy to find disagreement among creationists is both pathetic and useless. What do you hope to gain?

Learn to converse with honesty.

Your ":idunno:" speaks for itself.

Would you prefer I made something up?

Is Darwinism empty if we ask you a question you can't answer? Is that why you always make things up?

It's not just your ":idunno:" that is indicative of the emptiness of creationism, it's also the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.

:darwinsm:

 

[6days]

Your desperate ploy to find disagreement among creationists is both pathetic and useless. What do you hope to gain?

Unfortunately for us creationists.... evolutionists are always in complete agreement.:devil:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Try reading the thread title. :up:

So that's a no, you don't understand the difference between geology and evolution. Sounds about right

 

[Stripe]

So that's a no, you don't understand the difference between geology and evolution. Sounds about right

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic. When it is shown how useless their terminology is, they desperately seek to change the subject.

 

[Jose Fly]

Predictably, you've pulled a bait-and-switch.

Your definition is different than Musterion's. I asked if they meshed, you said no.

But either way, next time the conversation turns towards "Biblical kinds" I will ask the creationist if they agree with your definition and we'll see what happens.

Would you prefer I made something up?

Your ":idunno:" speaks for itself.

Is Darwinism empty if we ask you a question you can't answer?

Nope, but creationism is empty since it hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over 100 years.

 

[Stripe]

Your definition is different than Musterion's.

Which is of exactly no relevance to your desperate attempt to pull the conversation as far as possible from the exposure of the uselessness of Darwinism and its terminology.

I asked if they meshed.

Trying another bait and switch after being called for a bait and switch was not the way to go.

Your post is right there; go read it.

You didn't ask if they meshed; you stated that they do not overlap. Then you asked if they should be merged.

You said no.

That's right. They don't need to be merged. My definition is sufficient.

Can we move on? You're boring us.

But either way, next time the conversation turns towards "Biblical kinds" I will ask the creationist if they agree with your definition and we'll see what happens.

:AMR:

Why? What do you think you will gain?

Your ":idunno:" speaks for itself.

Nope. A lack of knowledge does nothing to devalue the veracity of an idea.

You need to apply common sense to your input here. Would Darwinism be empty if we asked you a question you could not answer?

Is that why you're forever making things up?

Ceationism is empty since it hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over 100 years.

:darwinsm:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic. When it is shown how useless their terminology is, they desperately seek to change the subject.

You project so much. Just.....so much

 

[Stripe]

You project so much. Just.....so much

We know why you cannot contribute anything of substance: Darwinism's terminology has been exposed as frail, while the Biblical term has a well-defined and useful definition.

You will continue to post nonsense to put as much space between the criticism of your precious religion and the present as you can.

 

[Greg Jennings]

We know why you cannot contribute anything of substance: Darwinism's terminology has been exposed as frail, while the Biblical term has a well-defined and useful definition.

So you've been saying for ten years now. Lot of headway you've made there

You will continue to post nonsense to put as much space between the criticism of your precious religion and the present as you can.

Ok, I guess here is some more "nonsense" in the form of questions that make YECs squirm: Do you want to explain the KT boundary for me? Why are there no dinosaurs above it, but everywhere below it? Why are there no modern mammal fossils found below the boundary?

I assure you Stripe, I will be happy to stick with this KT boundary subject for as long as you'd like.

 

[Stripe]

So you've been saying for ten years now. Lot of headway you've made there.

Fortunately, the truth does not depend on how much headway is achieved.

Ok, I guess here is some more "nonsense" in the form of questions that make YECs squirm: Do you want to explain the KT boundary for me? Why are there no dinosaurs above it, but everywhere below it? Why are there no modern mammal fossils found below the boundary? I assure you Stripe, I will be happy to stick with this KT boundary subject for as long as you'd like.

We know why you're desperate to change the topic: It is because your Darwinist term "species" has been shown useless, while the creationist term "kind" is well-defined and useful.

You will do anything to put distance between that and the present.