Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Actually they have provided methods by which they identify and distinguish between "Kinds".... It's just that the results end up undermining the argument they're trying to make. So instead of "Kinds" being evidently unrelated, they end up being nearly indistinguishable.
Showing some...
Not sure if this would be of any use to AronRa or if he's even going to see this, but I think it would help if he's aware of the extent of biodiversity Creationists already accept within "Kinds" to show that they clearly accept that Macroevolution happens.
Baraminology and Grafting...
To be fair, Creationists actually do attempt to identify "created kinds", however, it ends up often looking like this [1] whenever you compare a "Kind" to the "Kinds" closest to them, which undermines the argument they're trying to make.
A better question would be, what is preventing the...
Knowing that creationists (YECs) already accept Macroevolution, I fail to see why they can never understand it.
Baraminology and Grafting Compatibility in Plants, 2020: [citations within link]
Written by: Emotionally Stunted Emoticon
In an article from Evolutionnews.org [2], Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute attempted to critique a 2010 paper on the evolution of Antifreeze in Antarctic Eelpouts [1]. Although numerous claims were made throughout the article, I'll be focusing on...
That's the same thing I try to explain to Creationists all the time. But because they don't understand the significance of Phylogenies, they don't understand the significance of the argument.
Written by: Emotionally Stunted Emoticon
Creationists tend to argue that the 98.5 percent DNA similarity between Humans and Chimps is a myth [9]. They argue this by pointing out several "anomalies" in the comparison such as Chimps having an 11.5% larger genome to Humans [2], and the fact...
You're beginning to play with me. The paper clearly describes not only that the plants are all variants of the same species, but also describes how they were cultivated to look the way they look.
Do you accept the fact that these plants are related? If not, give reasons for your answer and...
I've already given you evidence, but apparently it isn't enough.
But what "evidence" are you really looking for though? Do you want me to show you a banana tree not reverting back into its wild type form? What would you expect the evidence to be or look like?
I'm trying my best to give you...