Online, I have known many evolutionists, even some of them for years yet they still don't know some of the basic answers creationists have to the, "problems" they put forward. It indicates floccinaucinihilipilification. (Hope I spelled that right)
I am not so much talking about complicated or difficult matters but rather SIMPLE matters, where there are actually very simple, straight forward solutions to the "problems" evolutionists pose.
And this might sometimes be reflected by the popular atheists such as Attenborough or Dawkins.
You see you may equate us as creationists, with flat-earthers but unlike flat-earthers there are provably easy answers to a lot of the, "problems" you pose.
These, "problems" are repeated ad-nauseam, endlessly, when all it would do to solve them is to read a creationist source FOR BEGINNERS. (example; "where did Cain get his wife?")
For example, such poor arguments as, "why did God create this worm for the human eyeball?" Or, "why did God create this disease?"
In fact disease and defect arise in time, not at creation week. Or do you think God invented covid for humans?
Symbiotic hosts can become extinct for example. When you think about it it doesn't really take much thinking to solve some of the "simple" level problems you pose then endlessly repeat as though there are no answers to them. (mendacious)
The wiring of the retina for example. But it's been answered now for years on end, eye-specialists have said there isn't any wrong wiring of the eye nor any defect caused by the wiring.
Also a lot of the whining from atheists isn't usually scientific but theological because their complaints usually start with, "why would God do thus and so?"
That isn't a scientific motive in asking such questions and reveals your bias. If you were objective and open to the truth you wouldn't reveal your true motive which is to attack God, you would simply and honestly WONDER if there really are answers to why God does things beyond a limited human perspective. After all it doesn't take any brain power to surmise that an omniscient mind might have omniscient reasons a human mind can't grasp.
What better demonstration of this is found in how humans make errors and jump to conclusions when they are plainly in the wrong? This behaviour is ubiqitous and we all do it. You can't tell us humans are full of bias and ineptitude and are fallible on the one hand then tell us your judgement is perfectly objective and righteous on the other.
You bore people with talk of things such as confirmation bias, post-hoc reasoning, memory bias, pareidolia, and all the other human foibles yet when you ask child-level questions about God you think your first thought is going to be accurate and then a flippant dismissal of the issue.
"You can't define kind."
MOOT. And you should know that by now. Because not being able to define the original kinds as a classification wouldn't mean it would follow they don't exist. If one type of creature has more genomic or morphological plasticity than another and members of the kind have gone extinct it may not be possible to class them in such a way, in essence the "define kind" argument from evolutionists is just a bit of a red-herring now. "score through this hoop we know you can't score through....hehe, impressed?"
The kinds arguments is evolutionists being OPPORTUNISTIC. They see there is a legitimate struggle to nail a classification simply because of a lack of data and they use this to pretend that any amount of macro change is therefore justified. But it isn't because there is generally an absence of any macro in the fossil record.
The fact is we can define kind generally by defining them as the creatures God made. As long as there was a polyphyletic special creation then it's tautological they will exist even if we can't class them accurately in the modern world because of a lack of data. But suffice to say all bats would have started out as something, "batlike". So then since we don't make any macro-scale uphill claims such as, "this bat evolved a wing", then why does it matter?
Answer; it doesn't. And all it took was some basic thought.
"Geologists back in the day dismissed a flood."
This is the silliest one for me personally. Why? The, "geologists" back then didn't know anything. LOL. It was Berthault in the 1970s that discovered how facies can be laid down by hydraulic action, in flume experiments. It was creation-geologists POST 1970 that discovered a lot of the now-argued evidence for a flood. The geologists back in the day didn't have a clue about any of the models they put out there now such as the B.E.D.S model and it's likely evolutionist geologists themselves don't know the science-arguments for a flood and couldn't tell you what that acronym means.
It's the genetic fallacy.
You forget nobody bothered to study a flood and what evidence it might create if it was way more complicated than the "bath-tub" model of the Victorian age. LOL.
OVERALL CONCLUSION; In their eagerness to spread propaganda about us creationists it would seem evolutionists have never actually read anything we say despite them being the ones that call us ignorant.
(think about it, we at least read your position, but you simply dismiss ours and therefore have a poor understanding of us generally speaking.)
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.