Posted: Mar 28, 2018 6:08 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
I notice that you failed to adress the first part of my post.
Care to explain why?

Wortfish wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
1. Kind isn't a rigourous term and as such has no relation to biological evolution.
2. God creating kinds constitutes neither speciation nor a flexibility of species. Rather the opposite.


On the contrary,

Yes, I know you like to make counterfactual assertions.
We're under no obligation to treat them as anything more than the rectally extracted nonsense that it is.

Wortfish wrote: the existence of the "kinds" necessitates speciation in the creationist worldview.

I just pointed out that kind isn't a rigourously defined term and that the way it is described in the bible isn't speciation.
What do you do?
Mindlessly regurgitate the very claim I just refuted.


Wortfish wrote: This is because there are clearly reproductively separate populations (i.e. species) of the same "kind" of animal. So, there are many species of cats, whales, mice, worms etc.

:picard:


Wortfish wrote:
Except that's exactly what is being described. On god's command the earth produces vegetation ex-nihilo.
So at best, you could argue that it isn't god directly who creates things out of nothing.
Which would be a silly technical minutiae.


On the contrary,

Yes, yes, you like making shit up. We know.

Wortfish wrote:the verse implies that the land produces the vegetation.

No, it literally says that. It does NOT however say how or from what, meaning it's very much ex-nihilo.

Wortfish wrote: In other words, the plants arise from the earth/soil rather than appearing from nowhere.

Plants are not made up of earth/soil Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:
Could it be that you left that bit out because it refutes your position?
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Not so.

:sigh:

Wortfish wrote: The verse shows that the Lord God made the man from the dust of the ground, a pre-existing material, rather than from nothing.

And if you did not need to resort to dishonest quote-mining that would be a valid rebuttal.
You left out the bit where I pointed out that humans aren't made of dust of the ground.

Wortfish wrote: He had to "form/fashion" the man, rather than simply make him appear by fiat.

He made a golem, which isn't a human being.

Wortfish wrote:
Utter horseshit. This is not at all analogous to evolution. Evolution works with living organisms, not inamite matter like dust or ribs.


The principle is the same.

If it weren't so depressing, it would be amazing how you manage to competely ignore the facts and just mindlessly regurgitate your counterfactual assertions.
If something is in no way analogous to something else, it is not the same in principle either.

Wortfish wrote: Evolution works with pre-existing parts to make new ones. Same in this biblical verse.

Pathetic.
Birds and planes both fly. That doesn't mean planes are birds.

Wortfish wrote:
He needed to create the pre-existing parts Wortfish. How did he do that exactly?


The man was formed from dust (star dust to be precise: http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52).

Except the bible claims it was from earth dust, not star dust and we were not formed directly from star dust either.
Your disengenuous conflations and counterfactual assertions demonstrate that you either don't know what you're talking about, or as I've guessed for some time now, simply trolling.