Wow. You just don't get it. I asked for a simple explanation of why you, the reader, might think evolution contradicts the Bible. And then, given no satisfactory answer I fuck with you and your ridiculous diversions. If pretending the question was too hard and storming out is a way of doing that, and it often is because the reader doesn't have enough sense to see how that provokes them, and so making their reaction that much more ridiculous, then damn it! [pounds on desk] that is what I will do.
But, at the same time there is, buried beneath all of the trollery, the answer, plain and simple. The examples you gave were not contradictory to the Biblical kinds meaning that macroevolution, or whatever you want to call it, isn't contradictory to the Bible.
Why would I allegedly see that as a loss on your part in a debate? Because ideologically evolution is your justification for not being accountable to God. That is the primary purpose, intended or not, of evolutionary theory.
No — I get it. What you’ve done here is exactly what every dishonest challenger eventually does when they’re cornered by the facts: you pretend the whole thing was performance art. You admit you didn’t want an answer — you wanted to “fuck with” people. You didn’t ask a serious question — you staged bait. And when the evidence came crashing through the wall you built, you acted like the collapse was the plan all along.
The desk-pounding doesn’t hide what happened. You asked for an example of evolution contradicting the Bible. You got one. You got several. You were shown speciation through ring species — violating your own fertility boundary for “kinds.” You were shown the evolution of brand-new functions — not variation, but innovation — in nylonase-producing bacteria. You were shown Tiktaalik, a fossil predicted by evolutionary theory, with fish and tetrapod traits, contradicting Genesis’s order of creation. You were shown the two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis itself.
And now you’re claiming none of it counted — not because you refuted it, but because it doesn’t fit your interpretation of “kind,” which you’ve conveniently left elastic enough to include anything you want to ignore. That’s not argument. That’s intellectual retreat dressed up as superiority.
Worse — you’ve dropped the mask and gone full projection: now you’re saying the real reason we defend evolution is because we “don’t want to be accountable to God.” That’s a weak man’s final move — the moment when argument ends and accusation begins. Let me be very clear: evolution is not a worldview. It’s not a religion. It’s not an excuse for anything. It’s a testable, falsifiable, predictive framework backed by converging lines of evidence. You’re not being attacked by an ideology. You’re being confronted by reality.
You weren’t provoked. You were exposed. And the only reason you’re now pretending this was never serious is because someone finally took your challenge seriously — and you had no answer left.
You want to mock, belittle, insult? Fine. But don’t think for a second that anyone watching this can’t see exactly what just happened:
You lost the debate.
Then you called it a performance.
Then you attacked the audience.
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s retreat.
And all the pounding in the world won’t cover the silence that followed when your bluff got called.
I've already responded to this. I responded to it again above. I'll respond to it again so that maybe eventually you can intellectually grasp it. Your examples are not contradictory to the Biblical kinds. Note, that isn't to say they aren't contradictory to interpretations of creationism or evolutionary ideologues, but to the Biblical kinds themselves
No — what you’ve done is repeat, not respond. You keep saying, “These examples don’t contradict Biblical kinds,” but never once do you address how they don’t. You’ve been handed examples that match your own definition: reproductive isolation, brand-new genetic functions, anatomically transitional fossils. And instead of engaging a single one, you just chant “not contradictory” like that settles it.
But saying it doesn’t make it true.
You’ve defined a kind as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Ring species violate that — and you ignored it. You said kinds have natural limits — nylon-eating bacteria evolved a brand-new enzyme never seen before in their lineage. You didn’t touch it. You were shown Tiktaalik, predicted by evolutionary theory, with traits from both fish and tetrapods — directly contradicting Genesis’s creation sequence. You skipped it.
All you’ve done is assert, dismiss, and pretend you’re holding a high ground you never earned.
If your idea of a response is “I already said no,” you’re not having a discussion — you’re putting your fingers in your ears and calling it intellect. And if “Biblical kinds” can absorb every observed evolutionary change, then your definition has no boundary and your challenge has no point.
You’re not defending the Bible. You’re defending a word you refuse to define — because the moment you do, you lose.
Not contradictory to Biblical kinds.
Then your “Biblical kinds” have no limits, no structure, and no meaning.
You defined a kind as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The warbler ring species meets your exact criteria for crossing that boundary: a single population diverges gradually, and the two end populations — despite descending from the same source — can no longer interbreed.
That’s not “variation.” That’s reproductive isolation — the very line you claimed defines kinds. If that doesn’t count as a contradiction, then your definition of “kind” is so elastic it can stretch over any evidence and pretend nothing happened.
This isn’t a debate over interpretation anymore. It’s you denying your own terms because the facts walked straight through them.
Define species. Define kind. I had already done that before you posted your insufferably tedious diatribe. I even linked that again in the same fucking thread. Here. Again. For the not so intelligent as they might think.
According to the source you linked, a “Biblical kind” is defined as a group where organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and the boundary is crossed when fertility between groups ceases. You admit variation can happen within kinds, but claim there’s a natural limit before it becomes “something else.”
Well, here’s your contradiction: ring species like the greenish warbler demonstrate a gradual divergence around a geographic barrier where adjacent populations can interbreed, but the terminal populations cannot. They are reproductively isolated — no fertile offspring. That’s not theory. That’s observable speciation — and it crosses the exact boundary you defined.
This isn’t about “macro” vs. “micro.” It’s about a real-world, documented case where a single species split into two that no longer meet your own fertility-based criteria for being the same “kind.”
So either:
• Admit your definition was just violated by real evidence,
• Or abandon the definition altogether and admit “kind” is just a placeholder for “whatever doesn’t challenge my beliefs.”
You were answered using your own terms. And your only defense now is to throw insults and pretend no one read the fine print. But we did — and it collapsed the second your definition got applied to the real world.
Yes. And like I've said repeatedly. Not contradictory to the Biblical kinds.
Then your definition of “Biblical kind” just imploded.
You defined a kind as a group that can vary, but only within natural limits — with no crossing into new functional categories, and with reproduction and fertility as the boundary. But nylonase isn’t just variation. It’s a brand-new enzyme — a new biochemical function that didn’t exist in any ancestor, and that arose through mutation and selection in direct response to a synthetic material invented in the 20th century.
That’s not “minor adaptation.” That’s functional innovation, and it directly disproves your claim that evolution can’t generate new traits beyond a kind’s limits. This isn’t speculation. It’s been observed, replicated, and studied.
So here’s the problem: if a “kind” includes an organism that did not have a function yesterday and does today — a function that allows it to exploit a man-made compound — then your “natural limits” are meaningless. If evolution can generate entirely new functional traits within your definition of a kind, then your kind boundary isn’t a boundary. It’s a blank check to explain away anything.
This isn’t variation within a kind. It’s a direct challenge to the very limits you claim exist.
And it beat your definition in the real world.
I asked for something that contradicts the Biblical kinds, your examples don't. Can't you get that? You failed the assignment because you told me things that didn't contradict the Biblical kinds. I asked for something that did. Like I said, if that's too complicated for you to comprehend how am I to take your dissertation seriously anyway?
No — what’s too complicated for you is facing the fact that the evidence did contradict your definition. You just refuse to deal with it.
You said a Biblical kind is defined by reproductive boundaries — that organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and that variation stays within “natural limits.” That was your standard.
So when I gave you:
• Ring species that become reproductively isolated,
• Bacteria evolving entirely new enzymes that didn’t exist in any ancestor,
• Transitional fossils that show major structural shifts between groups,
• Genetic evidence of shared viral insertions and broken genes in humans and chimps,
— and when all of that violated your boundaries, your answer wasn’t to refute it. It was to declare it doesn’t count and pretend the conversation never happened.
You’re not rejecting these examples because they fail to meet your challenge. You’re rejecting them because they did — and now you’re stuck.
So no, I didn’t fail the assignment. I delivered exactly what you asked for: observed evolutionary change that breaks your supposed boundaries of “kinds.” What you’re really saying is that the assignment only passes if no one challenges your belief. And that’s not a test. That’s a trap you can’t even admit you built.
You lost the argument the moment the evidence walked through your definitions. And every breath since then has just been you refusing to own it.
I issued the challenge! And actually, if anyone did meet the challenge it was me. I said microevolution wasn't contrary to the Biblical kinds but macroevolution was. That wasn't even right, which I posted when I compared the two with the same images of the finch. Someone could have at least said, well maybe we should take a look at that. What is micro and macro? You can answer that question without giving an answer to my request. It doesn't matter what you call things, what's involved in them like genus, etc. Does the damn thing contradict the Biblical?
I haven't been showed anything. I never asked for an argument. There was no argument. It wasn't about creationism vs evolution. It was a simple question. Where does it contradict?
You issued the challenge. And you lost control of it the second the evidence arrived.
You asked: Where does evolution contradict the Biblical kinds? We answered: observed speciation, functional genetic innovation, transitional fossils, and molecular inheritance — all of which violate your own definition of a kind as a boundary based on interbreeding and fixed variation.
You say “I haven’t been shown anything,” but that’s a lie. You were shown bacteria evolving new enzymes that didn’t exist in any ancestor — not microadaptation, but new function. You were shown ring species that became reproductively isolated — your own definition of when a kind ends. You were shown Tiktaalik, a fossil with traits of fish and early land animals, predicted by evolution and contradicting Genesis’s sequence. You were shown the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 that you yourself admitted would be a contradiction if both were chronological.
You didn’t refute a single one of these. You just yelled “not a contradiction,” hoping repetition would cover the fact that you never addressed the content. Now you’re flailing, ranting about finch images and pretending the challenge was really about something else all along. That’s not a defense. That’s a tailspin.
This wasn’t about “micro vs macro,” and you know it. You were given the contradiction — you just weren’t ready for it. So now you’re melting down, pretending the entire exchange was off-topic, while screaming that no one said “maybe we should look at that.” We did. You ignored it.
You weren’t just given an answer. You were given your answer, on your terms, using your definition — and you’ve been running from it ever since.
That final “fuck” at the end of your post? That’s the sound of your bluff being called.
Why would I?! I said they don't contradict. You want me to argue a contradiction when there isn't one?
Yes — because if you’re going to claim there isn’t a contradiction, then you have to actually show why not. Just repeating “they don’t contradict” isn’t an argument. It’s a dodge.
You were shown ring species where the ends can’t interbreed — violating your own fertility-based definition of “kind.” You were shown bacteria evolving a new enzyme never present in their ancestors — proving new functions can evolve beyond “variation.” You were shown transitional fossils that contradict Genesis’s sequence. You were shown genetic evidence that confirms shared ancestry with primates. Every one of these hits the boundaries you claimed evolution couldn’t cross.
And your only response is: “Why would I refute them?” That’s not confidence. That’s surrender.
If you won’t engage the examples, you don’t get to say they failed. All you’ve done is deny, repeat, and duck. You asked for the contradiction. You got it. The only thing missing is the courage to face it.
There was none outside of your mind.
No — the contradiction exists outside of my mind. It exists in your book and in observable reality.
Genesis says land animals were created after sea creatures. Evolution shows land animals descended from sea creatures. That’s not a personal interpretation — it’s a direct, testable, historical contradiction in sequence and mechanism.
You said “kinds” are defined by fertility boundaries. Ring species break that. You said there are natural limits to variation. Nylonase didn’t just vary — it emerged entirely new. You said macroevolution breaks kinds. Tiktaalik crosses major anatomical boundaries predicted by evolutionary theory and denied by creation accounts.
The contradiction is everywhere — in the fossil record, in genetics, in your shifting definitions, and in the fact that you can’t answer any of it without pretending it’s “just in my head.”
But you don’t get to call it imaginary just because you’ve run out of ways to deny it.
The alternative explanation is that they don't constitute a contradiction. Evolution doesn't contradict the Bible outside of ideology. It's a perceived contradiction that doesn't exist for sociopolitical justification. Moral and intellectual cowardice. Stupidity.
Calling it a “perceived contradiction” isn’t an explanation — it’s a retreat. You’re not offering an alternative. You’re just repeating your conclusion and pretending that ends the discussion.
You’ve been shown specific, observable contradictions — between the Genesis creation order and the evolutionary sequence, between your own definition of “kind” and cases of speciation and functional innovation. None of those are ideological. They’re documented, testable facts.
But instead of addressing a single one, you claim it’s all about “sociopolitical justification,” then default to name-calling — “cowardice,” “stupidity.” That’s not argument. That’s you flailing for insult because the facts cracked your shell.
If you can’t refute the evidence, you call it ideological. If you can’t answer the contradiction, you call it perceived. That’s not defending the Bible. That’s defending the need to never be wrong.
You don’t offer alternative explanations — because any explanation that faces the facts would cost you the illusion of certainty. And that’s what you’re really protecting here. Not truth.
Control.
Make me a list of all the ways I failed because you couldn't briefly answer a simple request you say you answered.
Jesus.
You want a list? Fine. Here’s exactly how you failed your own challenge, by your rules, on your terms.
1. You asked me to show a contradiction to “Biblical kinds.” I gave you one: ring species that start as a single interbreeding population and end as two groups that can’t reproduce. That violates your own fertility-based definition. You didn’t refute it — you just waved it away without explanation.
2. You claimed kinds can’t develop new functions. I gave you bacteria that evolved a brand-new enzyme to digest nylon — a completely man-made compound. That’s not variation. That’s innovation. You responded with “still the same kind,” which destroys your claim that kinds have natural limits.
3. I showed you transitional fossils like Tiktaalik — predicted by evolutionary theory, with traits bridging fish and land animals, and found in exactly the layer it was expected. That contradicts Genesis, which claims land animals and sea animals were created as separate acts, not connected stages. You said nothing.
4. I showed you genetic evidence — broken genes and viral insertions in humans and chimps, matching in location, structure, and mutation. That doesn’t happen without common ancestry. You avoided it completely.
5. I laid out the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. One says animals came before man. The other says man came before animals. You admitted — in your own words — that if both were chronological, it would be a contradiction. Then you claimed one “wasn’t,” because that’s the only way to make it fit. That’s not explanation. That’s evasion.
6. You never clarified your own criteria. You said kinds were defined by fertility. I gave you an example that breaks that. You said kinds had “natural limits.” I gave you examples that passed those limits. And every time, you moved the boundary.
7. You said this wasn’t a debate — but then you argued every reply. You said it wasn’t about ideology — then accused people of defending evolution to avoid accountability to God. You turned the moment you were proven wrong into a performance to save face.
8. You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. You failed to engage with a single piece of it. And now you’re melting down, asking for a list — because silence didn’t help you, and mockery isn’t working either.
You didn’t run a test. You ran a game.
I played it. I beat it.
Now you’re stuck pretending it never started.
You weren’t exposing failure.
You were exposing fear — your own.
NHC
