Spaz

God dammit, can't they just drop their friggin "kind" crap? People over 2000 years ago weren't fuckin rocket scientists, when they said kind they meant different animals like a hippo and a giraffe, not some quasi-common ancestor, DAMN. Well that's my opinion on the issue anyway .

acidphos

Tried out this argument-

Made one creationist get very quiet very quick.

Made one stop using any AiG sources (has only been about 10 days though)

One really didn't get it.

The only escape hatch I see is that they can try to redefine "truely fertilized" and say that the organism would never develop so it couldn't be "truely fertilized". Either way, until AiG addresses that I don't think their followers will think of it.

Albion

I tried the argument too on another forum. My first attempt was pulled by the mods for excessive quoting (even though my post made it clear that the whole abstract was posted at a couple of other discussion boards, but they were worried about copyright issues - unlike when a creationist comes along and posts screeds of stuff from creationist websites, which are usually left alone by the very same mods). My second attempt resulted in one creationist quibbling about what "fertilised" really means (compete with lay dictionary definition and ignoring the scientific definition) and another creationist going on a rant about why the atheists among us are obsessed with insisting that humans and apes are close relatives. In other words, one of them started quibbling about irrelevant details and the other missed the point. Sort of par for the course for creationists.

keyser_soze

Don't feel bad, I've never seen a creationist or especially a YEC nutcase that was intellectually honest. They all lie, most certainly to themselves at the least.