I no longer support Trey Smith

since you usually know so much...

True, but I have never had the opportunity to vet Trey Smith personally. If I did have that opportunity, then I would have been able to uncover any evil that may have been within him at that time. Yes I do know so much, but I do not have superpowers that would enable me to notice evil within someone who never displays any signs of evil in front of me.

However, that point is not to be confused with the fact that I can almost always spot true darwinist fake Christians who post on IMDB after having read only a few of their posts, because their posts clearly reveal their evil, even when their slip-ups are subtle and would not be noticed by less godly people.

An opinion is not fact

Agreed - so then why don't you stop being a hypocrite by constantly claiming that your faith-based beliefs in evolution are "facts?!?!?!?!"

People thinking in terms of devolution commonly assume that progress is shown by increasing complexity, but biologists studying the evolution of complexity find evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution

Translation: "We cannot prove evolution, so to solve that problem, we will simply play shady semantic word games, re-label devolution as evolution, and then pretend that our re-labelling proves evolution and hope no one notices our scam!" As always, darwinists play shady semantic word games in lieu of proof/evidence for their outlandish claims - because they have none, because it doesn't exist.

beginning with Darwin at least, poses no such presumption

Bull crap. darwin promoted the idea that evolution means onwards-and-upwards-style progress. But even if he didn't, that still doesn't solve your fundamental problem that evolution is not devolution. No matter how many times you pretend & repeat that it is, it still isn't and never will be.

vestigiality

Oh please! LOL! KiBL his debunked the "vestigiality" myth thousands of times on this very board! "Vestigiality" is completely imaginative idea that is arbitrarily applied based on what darwinists assume/guess happened. KiBL always had the best response to this bogus argument: he said something like, if you really believe in "vestigiality," then go ask doctors to remove every one of your organs that darwinists have at one time or another called "vestigial." No darwinists ever do that, because they are not really as committed to their myth as they claim to be, and because they know that if they did do that, then they would die (because their own claims of "vestigiality" are untrue crap).

So everything alive today is the same 'kind' as it was when first created?

That depends what you mean by 'same.' They are the same in that no kind has ever transformed into a higher form of life (as the evolution myth requires). However, they are not the same in three ways.

One, there is variation to the extent that some genes in one organism have different combinations of being "on" or "off" when compared to other organisms.

Two, there is also variation to the extent that organisms become more debased/degraded/devolved over time, so today's organisms are vastly inferior versions of the original created kinds.

Three, there is also variation in the fact that all created kinds were originally 100% perfect with no defects or corruptions whatsoever. They were designed to live forever and death was not even a thing. So all created kinds beginning post-Fall and continuing up until the end of the earth are vastly, vastly, vastly inferior to the original created kinds for that reason, in addition to reason number two (points two and three are similar but not identical).

Where is the modern dog in the ancient fossil record? Or the modern horse?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fossil record." Do you mean "fossils + the imaginative stories that darwinists make up about those fossils?" If that is what you mean, then "the fossil record" says whatever the darwinist storytellers who wrote it want it to say, which will always inevitably result in a pro-darwinism pushing story.

please give the scientific definition of 'kind'

The different creatures/animals/life forms that God spoke into existence during Creation Week, and mankind who God created from the dust of the earth and woman from man's rib.

By the way, your so-called 'scientific' definitions of 'species' are arbitrary and also they don't work - which goes to prove once again that darwinists act like they know what they are talking about, but really have no clue and they just make crap up and then slap 'science' and 'fact' and 'truth' labels onto their imaginings. You act as if you have figured out "kinds" by calling them 'species' and 'genus' etc. and by applying non-working arbitrary rules to your labels. But the truth is, your definition of "species" holds up far worse than does God's definition of kinds. So much for 'science!' LOL

something taken from a working biological scientist in an authoritative publication.

So, you are invoking an appeal to authority logical fallacy. LOL If you want to appeal to authority, then I appeal to the authorities of God and the Bible, both of which are infinitely higher authorities than is any darwinist who ever lived.

new super-bugs, which acquire an immunity which is then passed on to succeeding generations

And they acquire it not though evolution, but rather through variation within a kind and/or devolution. Calling that "evolution" is just another example of PR/spin-doctoring to push your own agenda.

But your misrepresentations or misunderstandings of the modern evolutionary synthesis have been pointed out to you before, many times and so I don't think you will pay any attention this time, either.

What you said there is bogus.

No darwinist has ever provided any evidence for their outlandish, extraordinary claim that bacteria transformed into all forms of life. You are doing a whole lot of hemming & hawing to try to deflect attention off of that fact. However, what you are not doing is ponying up the evidence to prove your outlandish, extraordinary claim that bacteria transformed into all forms of life.

One thing is certain for sure; we have never seen complex life appear in a puff of smoke from the supernatural

And you have also never seen space aliens jizz on the earth to create bacteria which proceeded to transform into all forms of life via death, destruction, evil, and corruption. Yet that is what your myth claims and you pretend as if your imaginings about those things are 'facts' and 'science.' LOL!

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" – Gilman

reply share

add reply

formatting help