Debate Info

True continuous chain of kinds No, God did it - here's how
Debate Score:2
Total Votes:3
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 True continuous chain of kinds (1)
 No, God did it - here's how (1)

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe(4334) pic

Limiting variation within biblical kinds is unsupported

Premise 1: The bible describes land and water animals as different "kinds" (Genesis 1:20-25)

Premise 2: Kind(Coelacanths)=Kind(Eusthenopteron) and Kind(Eusthenopteron)=Kind(Panderichthys) and Kind(Panderichthys)=Kind(Tiktaalik) and Kind(Tiktaalik)=Kind(Acanthostega) and Kind(Acanthostega)=Kind(Ichthyostega) and Kind(Ichthyostega)=Kind(Tolerpeton) - (I created a sub-debate for each one in case you would like to provide some definition for "kind" where Kind(A) is not the same as Kind(B))

Conclusion: Kind(Coelacanths)= Kind(Tolerpeton) and the biblical use of kinds is not supported

True continuous chain of kinds

Side Score: 1

No, God did it - here's how

Side Score: 1
No arguments found. Add one!
0 points

For the longest time I was a believer in theistic evolution. However, the theory is supported by whimsical beliefs and a book that was forced to be taken out of context. Darwin set out to support intelligent design with proving evolution of species. The publishing company forced him to have a more conclusive book ending so he then set out to say the common ancestor but it was only a few sentences and has no support.

My challenge to you is can you show a fossil record transition of all these?

Side: No, God did it - here's how
1 point

The premises above are not dependent on Darwin's book - you are free to dispute either one of them...

Side: True continuous chain of kinds