Evolutionists love the [genetic] fallacy. I think they are fooled by the name. :chuckle:
Because "species" is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific discussion, while "kind" had a rock-solid, clear definition. It clearly delineates opposing views without equivocation.
Only if you ignore the ideas the Bible plainly presents.
Why not? :idunno:
False Stuu..... What I said is that evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and are NOT science.
Actually that's more of a creationist thing (I'm assuming you mean genetic fallacy).
You can dispense with your naked assertions. Show us evidence and the utility of your ideas, as Linneaeus did. There was a creationist actually interested in science.
Really, the Bible presents the idea that sheep and goats are really the same kind because they changed from a common ancestor? The Bible presents the idea that lions and leopards shared a common ancestor at the flood and they separated in the time since the flood? Evidence or stop talking.
Ever heard the phrase about not reinventing the wheel?
Forensic scientists would agree with me. They perform science using testable, observable, and repeatable experiments then make conclusions about the past.*Alate_One said:
Using good forensic techniques, we do testable and repeatable experiments on all the available evidence including the eye witness testimony from the only One who was there at the beginning. We then examine the 'smoking gun'... God's Word.Alate_One said:
Well, given that it was you — an evolutionist — trying to sneak a genetic fallacy past people, we'll stick with my assessment. :up:
No.
No need, in this situation. "Kind" has a rock-solid definition, while "species" is vague and malleable. This is uncontested.
No. The Bible makes it clear that kinds are separate groups of animals and outlines broad classifications of examples of the term.
So I should stop doing science because you've got a phrase? :AMR:
Given that the "problem" was raised by people determined to reject the Biblical account who made no effort to understand scripture, I think it is up to you to actually raise a reasonable objection, rather than trying to sneak in another genetic fallacy.
Nope. My definition is clearly consistent and supported by scripture. And trying to sneak in a third genetic fallacy shows that it is indeed the realm of the Darwinist.
When you buy a car, it has already begun to degrade. Because it is close to its "creation", you don't notice it. It will keep its "new car smell" for quite awhile. Nevertheless, it is still degrading. Eventually it will rust into the ground. Animals closer to the creation event still had their "new car smell". :car:
It's uncontested in your mind alone.
Species are separate groups of animals and everything named in the bible is now considered a species.
I didn't invent them. Ken ham specifically stated them. That the "dog family" and the "cat family" each reflect a separate kind. But maybe you should actually read this thread?
And here's how to tell you are no scientist. Science does not evaluate every idea, only ideas that are testable. Your "kind" definition is not testable since it is not specific enough to make predictions.
Other than the one you just stated.
There you are! Now tell us how kinds are testable. Give us a test you could use.
However, we notice you do not contest the idea. :chuckle:
Evolutionists love to demand that their regime be asserted everywhere, even where it is explicitly denied.
The Bible does not specify that there is a cat kind and a dog kind.
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. I did not present an idea; I gave a definition.