Question for creationists

1) What is a "kind", (definition)
2) What limits evolutionary change to only occurring within kinds? Some barrier? I assume you have evidence to show since you believe this.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• goanimate
• cartoon
• Question
• for
• creationists
• atheist
• atheism
• atheists
• christian
• christians
• christianity
• creationism
• creationist
• god
• jesus
• kind
• barrier

[Wallyrus]

I love how whenever you ask a creationist to define a particular word they instead jump into showing you examples of it being used. When you ask them to define a 'kind' they just start listing examples of Dog Kind, Cat Kind.

[Wallyrus]

In biology all life forms on our planet are of the same "kind", the concept of a species is entirely superficial & manmade. Creationists are talking about how the animal LOOKS but evolution is blind and so this is irrelevant.

[melis256]

@sethecx

Good job, right there you had him stuck between the truth and a hard place.

It is a function which can only be solved by accepting that there never was a worldwide flood.

[utubedetective72]

@sethecx I have to agree with you there. Everyone (except the freemason, jks) is agnostic, they just don't know it yet.

[sethecx]

@utubedetective72

You can call me an agnostic atheist anytime... but isnt everyone agnostic?

(no answer required)

Thanks for participating.

[utubedetective72]

@sethecx The difference between mutation and variation is quite basic, you don't need to be a specialist in any advanced feild to understand.

Anyway its been a great convo and thanks for putting up with my snide remarks, but I can see you don't have the answer that will save me from my belief in creation. Plus I found something funner than calling an evolutionist religious; calling an agnostic an atheist. Now thats something everyone can enjoy.

Cheers, Victory for the People of the Cross

[sethecx]

@utubedetective72

i dont get your point. lacks

creationists may understand basic biology, but they also claim evolution lacks reliable evidence or violates natural laws, something which have been rejected by most scientists. the creationist explanation doesnt even meet the basic scientific standards to make a scientific alternative to evolution. the bacteria evolved "nylon eating" through mutations, whats the problem`?

im with scientists because they understand ADVANCED biology.

[utubedetective72]

@sethecx I'm sorry you are mistaken. You do not understand the difference between variation and mutation. One is the result of normal and the other is the result of abnormal reproduction. Variation produces benificial traits through natural selection, mutation produces random traits. Mutations are not necessarily detremental however because the DNA has been mismatched they usually are.

I'm with creationists because they undrstand basic biology.

[sethecx]

@utubedetective72

those new traits may be random, but mutating organisms will reproduce or fail.

and the MINORITY of mutations are harmful, most mutations to noncoding DNA are neutral.

"they have the capacity to eat through artificial products" After evolving they could eat nylon

[utubedetective72]

@sethecx As for the bacteria. They are a hardy creature which feed of a vast array of natural substances, it makes sense that they have the capacity to eat through artificial products as well.