Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Like, cats and dogs and stuff, you know.
What animals fall under this cat kind and dog kind?
Like, cats and dogs and stuff, you know.
What animals fall under this cat kind and dog kind?
Doesn't sound like much of a challenge to me.
A "kind" is a group of life forms that are kinda like each other.
Is this supposed to be some sort of pathetic attempt to debunk Intelligent Design, or something?
Why not give them a real challenge. Why not ask them to isolate and measure the very properties of the Designer itself?! And, do so in a manner that can be reliably replicated by independent parties.
It's futile to prove, to a creationist, that Evolution is better science, on systematics alone. They can brush that stuff off like dust on an table. Real science achieves results. Challenge them to obtain reliable results!
A consistent and useful definition for "kind" is harder to pin down than it may seem.
Yes. I have no idea where the OP is going.
I want a creationist to define kind. We will see where it is going once that is done.
If man evolved from apes, why do we still have creationists?
If god made us from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Steve S
Should they also define "sort"? Because it seems they're supposed to be different.
Well, God is English, after all.