Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Creation/Evolution Miscellany ⇒

Questions Creationists Never Answer

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 31 of 141 (240186)
09-03-2005 3:22 AM 		Reply to: Message 30 by randman
09-03-2005 2:53 AM

Re: should be a rule
The problem with that definition of "kind" is that creationists often implicitly use another definition - one that CAN be identiifed now. THey define macro-evolution as "evolution between kinds" and claim that it has never been observed. For that we need a definition of "kind" that would allow us to tell if "macro-evolution" had occurred. Without such a definition the creatiniost claim is just dishonest obfuscation.
​
Are you aware of such a definition ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 2:53 AM randman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:32 AM PaulK has replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 38 of 141 (240194)
09-03-2005 3:53 AM 		Reply to: Message 33 by randman
09-03-2005 3:32 AM

Re: should be a rule
I would think that if there were another definition used by creationists, and if creationists refuse to give it then it would be directly relevant to the discussion.
​
And exactly what issue am I suppsoed to be dodging ? My post is on the issue of the creastionist definition of "kind". You refuse to discuss that and try to change the subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:32 AM randman has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:03 AM PaulK has not replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3

Normal Thread Display
Message 42 of 141 (240200)
09-03-2005 4:03 AM 		Reply to: Message 39 by randman
09-03-2005 3:56 AM

Re: should be a rule
In provide an on-topic answer to your question, we don;t know if that sort of macro-evolkution has been observed because creationists won't gice the relevant definition of "kind".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 3:56 AM randman has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024