Creationists: Why do you think that saying we only see 'kind after kind' is evidence against biological evolution?

We arent very smart 2 start with

People don't deny evolution because there are kinds. The argument doesn't work in that direction. People deny evolution because it requires a miracle (i.e. matter has to come into existence and remain animated until we get here), and because we have genealogies to Noah. Read After the Flood by Bill Cooper. It's free online. Put the two together, and you'll make excuses against Darwinistic speciation too.

So, as a Creationist, I say you have a good point. But also as a Creationist, it doesn't do anything to harm my world view.

What is a "kind" even? Is it a species? A sub-species? What qualifies as a "kind"?

My guess is that by "kind" the creatards mean a species. And what they mean by "kind after kind" is that no member of species X has ever produced offspring of species Y, for example no monkey has ever produced human offspring.

If that is the case then the whole thing is simply a result of the cratards lack of understanding of evolution.

When ever creatards talk about evolution it just makes me want to blow my own brains out. And even if they disproved evolution right now beyond a shadow of a doubt it still would not mean that their scientifically completely unfounded creation myth is any more valid.

Creationists: Why do you think that saying we only see 'kind after kind' is evidence against biological evolution?

- They are dumb enough to believe it, so they figure everyone is that dumb.

I don' think it is. Evolution is apparently how species gradually change, so different types could come from creation and evolution.

Science doesn't use "kind". So you've already lost any debate. Gota use the same language to be understood.

I think that in most cases they haven't had the education to properly understand the fundamental facts of the theory. This is either due to poor teaching in some parts of the world or the influence of preachers that teach against it.

In some cases however I feel that it is far more nefarious, these are people who fully understand evolution and deliberately misrepresent it to people for their own financial gain. I'm thinking of Ray 'Bananaman' Comfort and Ken Ham, they've had evolution presented to them so clearly by so many people they can't not understand it but to present it honestly would hurt their bottom line.

Most creationists have little to no education in science. They can not understand scientific method. Then, even worse, they decide to remain ignorant.

Creation VS Evolution

Atheists found out that Darwin based his whole THEORY of evolution on the Islands of the Galapagos. There are different animals on all the continents, many of whom are not in the areas he studied.

Evolutionists can ridicule all they want (it’s all they have left), but they can’t prove that inorganic matter evolved into organic matter that evolved into the complex life forms we are and see around us. Evolutionists can’t get from atoms to people. It’s even worse for them since they can’t account for the original matter or the organized information necessary to organize the matter.

To believe in evolution is to believe in magic — literally. At least stage and street magicians start with a deck of cards, a coin, or a rabbit. Magicians can’t really make something appear out of thin air. But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim for evolution. When I say exactly, Imean exactly. Here’s an example found in the prestigious Scientific American:

“It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”[1]

It’s impossible to imagine because it’s impossible, but that’s what evolutionists believe. One of the first scientific truths a biology student learns is that spontaneous generation is not science, and yet in order to be an evolutionist, you must believe in it even though it’s contrary to logic, experience, and experimentation.

Did you notice that the authors describe cells as “machines”? When has a machine ever spontaneously come into existence? Never! “But there was this time 3.7 billion years ago. . . .” Helmuth writes, “Whatever levels of analysis you care to use, from molecular to planetary, they all mutually reinforce the discovery that all living things evolve through a process of natural selection. Absolutely nothing in the 154 years since Origin was published has undermined the theory.” “Absolutely nothing”? Do I detect a hint of desperation and fear?

OK, like you, I started with the molecular. Using observation (no one was around 3.7 billion years ago and no one has seen nothing become something) and experimentation (no one has been able to produce life in the lab), demonstrate to us how evolution took place. Don’t theorize. Don’t assert. Don’t propagandize. Show us. You can’t and neither can Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist living or dead.

And they call us Christians stupid.

http://www.joel2army.simplesite.com/

http://www.ufosarereal.simplesite.com/

Well if the fossil record actually demonstrated what you claim, rather than sudden appearance of new forms and then millions of years of stasis, you would have a point.

Why do evolutionists deny that the lakes buried in the Mt. St. Helen's eruption demonstrates perfectly catastrophism in the rock layers? So-called simple life forms are found at the bottom, exactly where they dwell in the here and now. So-called intermediate life forms are found in the middle, exactly where they dwell in the here and now. And so-called advanced life-forms inhabit the top of the scheme, exactly like they do here and now. Exactly as they would if covered by a world-wide flood and convulsions of the earth.