Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationists: Define a Dog Kind

sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 1:26:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I want anyone to show the borders of a dog kind, simple. Dogs seem to be a favorite of the creationists so here is the challenge: Please present the dog kind to Debate.org. Does it include dingoes, wolves, coyotes, etc. Tell us! Show me the barriers.
1. Define dog.
2. Show all the species in the kind or baramin
3. Explain how you came to this conclusion
4. Show how all known fossil evidence supports your claim
4. Cite your sources

This is science. Show us. I use dogs to explain evolution so I am really interested in the dog kind (I know it does not exist, so I am not worried). Show us what you have found. Good luck, you will need it.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2009 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nothing. Not one response from the creationists. Here is a fun article on the subject, several years old, but this guy put some effort into it. Tell me what you think.

http://debunkcreationscience.hostse.com...

Not bad.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 3:51:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/8/2009 1:26:28 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I want anyone to show the borders of a dog kind, simple. Dogs seem to be a favorite of the creationists so here is the challenge: Please present the dog kind to Debate.org. Does it include dingoes, wolves, coyotes, etc. Tell us! Show me the barriers.
1. Define dog.
2. Show all the species in the kind or baramin
3. Explain how you came to this conclusion
4. Show how all known fossil evidence supports your claim
4. Cite your sources

This is science. Show us. I use dogs to explain evolution so I am really interested in the dog kind (I know it does not exist, so I am not worried). Show us what you have found. Good luck, you will need it.

ALL of the above are KINDS of dog, they are ALL descended from the first two dogs.
A dog is a different KIND of creation to a cat or a bear or a bird or a bat.

Your appeal to 'science' is an appeal to play by some arbitrary rules set up by liars for liars to enjoy their lies by.

Toodle pip..
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:47:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 3:51:49 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 12/8/2009 1:26:28 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I want anyone to show the borders of a dog kind, simple. Dogs seem to be a favorite of the creationists so here is the challenge: Please present the dog kind to Debate.org. Does it include dingoes, wolves, coyotes, etc. Tell us! Show me the barriers.
1. Define dog.
2. Show all the species in the kind or baramin
3. Explain how you came to this conclusion
4. Show how all known fossil evidence supports your claim
4. Cite your sources

This is science. Show us. I use dogs to explain evolution so I am really interested in the dog kind (I know it does not exist, so I am not worried). Show us what you have found. Good luck, you will need it.

ALL of the above are KINDS of dog, they are ALL descended from the first two dogs.
A dog is a different KIND of creation to a cat or a bear or a bird or a bat.

Your appeal to 'science' is an appeal to play by some arbitrary rules set up by liars for liars to enjoy their lies by.

Toodle pip..

Thanks, master necromancer for the resurrection.

You gave examples, not a definition. You dont understand the difference between the two, do you?
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2010 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Datcmoto … welcome back. Your answer is hardly satisfactory, but I will work with it. Datcmoto has stated that wolves, dingoes and coyotes are filed in the same "kind". I now ask how he came to this conclusion. Present your methodology (I asked for it in the OP). The term wolf is fairly generic and may be used to define the family Canidae or it is more often used in reference to the gray wolf. When Datcmoto presents his methodology we can work which ever definition he chooses. All of the animals I listed are members of the Canidae family. Here is the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org.... They do pretty good here so we can use it for a discussion board, I think. Datcmoto will need to make clear if he intends to include the fox in this "kind". If so, then we can assume he equates "kind" to "family". I believe Datcmoto has made this distinction before, but I am not certain.

I finally got an answer so I really do want to continue with this, but Datcmoto, I need to know how you came to this conclusion and would like for you to address all the points I listed. In addition, answer these questions:
1. Do you consider the scientific classification "family" to be synonymous with "kind"?
2. If I can show you a common ancestor between two different families, would you include both families within the "kind"?
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 3:24:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/23/2010 10:40:07 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Datcmoto … welcome back. Your answer is hardly satisfactory, but I will work with it. Datcmoto has stated that wolves, dingoes and coyotes are filed in the same "kind". I now ask how he came to this conclusion. Present your methodology (I asked for it in the OP). The term wolf is fairly generic and may be used to define the family Canidae or it is more often used in reference to the gray wolf. When Datcmoto presents his methodology we can work which ever definition he chooses. All of the animals I listed are members of the Canidae family. Here is the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org.... They do pretty good here so we can use it for a discussion board, I think. Datcmoto will need to make clear if he intends to include the fox in this "kind". If so, then we can assume he equates "kind" to "family". I believe Datcmoto has made this distinction before, but I am not certain.

I finally got an answer so I really do want to continue with this, but Datcmoto, I need to know how you came to this conclusion and would like for you to address all the points I listed. In addition, answer these questions:
1. Do you consider the scientific classification "family" to be synonymous with "kind"?
2. If I can show you a common ancestor between two different families, would you include both families within the "kind"?

I came to this conclusion because the people who were actually around at the time (Adam and Eve, Noah and family, Moses etc) have left us an amazingly detailed record of the 'Genesis' of life on this planet.
By rejecting the Genesis account out of hand you are being amazingly unscientific.. by the same criteria you would have to discard ALL historical records.

I do not accept terms such as Family or species or any other terms BECAUSE you can then, by some slight of hand twist things, there is ZERO evidence that one KIND of creature (dog, cat, bear, bird, etc) has turned into another KIND.
THIS is why the definition is so hotly disputed.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 5:09:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
By rejecting the Genesis account out of hand you are being amazingly unscientific.. by the same criteria you would have to discard ALL historical records.

So what you are saying is that you also accept the fact that it was Brahma and Vishnu created the world, but also that Chaos gave rise to Gaia who created the world (and went on to rescue Zues from Cronus), and that humans were created by the Great Spirit out of mud and cooked like pottery, some were burnt and became dark skinned, some were undercooked and were light-skinned and those who were perfected by the Great Spirit had the red skin of the native Americans.

Boy it must be confusing if you trust all the "historical records" you read!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 9:20:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 3:24:53 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I came to this conclusion because the people who were actually around at the time (Adam and Eve, Noah and family, Moses etc) have left us an amazingly detailed record of the 'Genesis' of life on this planet.
By rejecting the Genesis account out of hand you are being amazingly unscientific.. by the same criteria you would have to discard ALL historical records.
Oh wow, how blind i was... Youre right.

From this point onwards, i accept all historical records as scientifically accurate and true.

Ill start with Homers Oddyssey, and try to prove the existance of Sirens, and move onto the Quran!

Thank you Datcmoto, for opening my eyes. I just hope that you are able to heed your own advice and accept all historical documents as equal evidence for their truth.
I do not accept terms such as Family or species or any other terms BECAUSE you can then, by some slight of hand twist things, there is ZERO evidence that one KIND of creature (dog, cat, bear, bird, etc) has turned into another KIND.
THIS is why the definition is so hotly disputed.

Which is why we asked for a definition of a "kind". All you gave us was examples. Examples are not a definition.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 3:14:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Stop dancing Dactomoto. Genesis does not give a detailed account of kinds and in no way provides a methodology for one to determine the process to discover these kinds. You reject that kinds are the same as families so we are now back to square one. We can try it this way:
1. List all the creatures within the dog kind, simple. I have helped but I wonder if the fox is in the dog kind. You use the term kind so you must have some idea of the parameters and you must be able to determine these parameters by some means. Genesis will not answer these questions as the accounts are not detailed. So we will stick with the fox for now. Is the fox part of the dog kind? If so, we can include the domestic dog, wolves, coyotes, and foxes into the kind. I am making every effort here so save the rhetoric. If you intend to use Genesis as a source, please list the verses that help determine what the parameters for the dog kind are so we can see them.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2010 8:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Bible implies in multiple places that anything within the same kind can breed with each other (still male and female of course). This would give us a way to experimentally determine which animals belong to which kind. Whichever of these groups contains domesticated dogs is what we should call the dog kind.

The above is only to get the party started a little bit. I apologize for not being a biology major. :P
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:04:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 8:28:05 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
The Bible implies in multiple places that anything within the same kind can breed with each other (still male and female of course). This would give us a way to experimentally determine which animals belong to which kind. Whichever of these groups contains domesticated dogs is what we should call the dog kind.

The above is only to get the party started a little bit. I apologize for not being a biology major. :P

First off, the bible states 5 definate kinds. Thats all. Therefore, according to the bible, the kinds are fish, birds, beasts, creeping things and mankind. Which means that Cats and dogs should be able to mate and produce children, but alas they do not.

However, your argument fails when tested. For example, Domestic Cats and Margays can mate to produce offspring. Margays and ocelots can mate to produce offspring. And ocelots and cougars can produce offspring. Cougars and leopards can produce offspring, and leopards and lions can produce offspring.

Yet, Domestic cats cannot produce offspring with Lions. Therefore, your definition, your application of what a "Kind" is, fails.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 7:45:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 4:04:31 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/27/2010 8:28:05 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
The Bible implies in multiple places that anything within the same kind can breed with each other (still male and female of course). This would give us a way to experimentally determine which animals belong to which kind. Whichever of these groups contains domesticated dogs is what we should call the dog kind.

The above is only to get the party started a little bit. I apologize for not being a biology major. :P

First off, the bible states 5 definate kinds. Thats all. Therefore, according to the bible, the kinds are fish, birds, beasts, creeping things and mankind. Which means that Cats and dogs should be able to mate and produce children, but alas they do not.

However, your argument fails when tested. For example, Domestic Cats and Margays can mate to produce offspring. Margays and ocelots can mate to produce offspring. And ocelots and cougars can produce offspring. Cougars and leopards can produce offspring, and leopards and lions can produce offspring.

Yet, Domestic cats cannot produce offspring with Lions. Therefore, your definition, your application of what a "Kind" is, fails.

First of all, my statement "the Bible implies" is hardly a definition that I am offering. I made it plain as day that I was just trying to get the conversation started a bit, as I know I haven't had enough education on this subject to give a detailed explanation.

Secondly, if you are SERIOUSLY looking for an explanation of what Creation scientists explain as a kind, why don't you go research it? The internet is a big place you know. Why you are looking for the answer (if you honestly want one) on debate.org? I hate when people pretend to ask a serious question on this site and laugh in the face of anyone who attempts to provide some info.

How about you go read the Bible for yourself, do some research on what Creation scientists define as a kind, analyze their analysis, and present to us where the reasoning fails and what a more likely explanation is? THAT would be the basis for a healthy discussion, not your predetermined aim to insult the logic of anyone who provides some info.

Congratulations, evidently no one on DDO possesses a PhD in baraminology. If you think you've proved a point by the lack of responses to your question on a site largely visited by teenagers, you are sadly mistaken.

And I will advise you in advance to not even attempt to insult Creationists on this site for believing in Creation but not being able to define a kind. By that logic, no one has the right to believe in evolution without possessing at least a PhD in biology, zoology, paleontology, and geology. Just a friendly warning.
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 1:57:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/28/2010 7:45:31 AM, nickthengineer wrote:
First of all, my statement "the Bible implies" is hardly a definition that I am offering. I made it plain as day that I was just trying to get the conversation started a bit, as I know I haven't had enough education on this subject to give a detailed explanation.
Fair enough. Its just that youve used the bible so many times in so many posts to propagate what you seem to believe in, its hard to understand where the bible ends and your beliefs begin.

Secondly, if you are SERIOUSLY looking for an explanation of what Creation scientists explain as a kind, why don't you go research it? The internet is a big place you know. Why you are looking for the answer (if you honestly want one) on debate.org? I hate when people pretend to ask a serious question on this site and laugh in the face of anyone who attempts to provide some info.

Ive already researched it. And the defintion that creationists provide, is for the most part the same definition that biologists provide in regards to species. I never laughed at your answer. I seriously addressed the flaws that your answer provides. When someone seriously asks where Lightning comes from, and another, seriously answers "Zues makes them fall", why is it a bad thing to come along and scrutinize that answer?

Although i didnt make this thread, if someone, a creationists, a person who believes the literal interpretation of the bible comes along and gives an answer, id like to start a conversation too. Id like to point out the flaws in the answer and ask them to possibly explain these flaws and why they are not detrimental to the validity, the truth of the answer. I fail to see why this is bad, and i fail to see why i am laughing at you.

How about you go read the Bible for yourself, do some research on what Creation scientists define as a kind, analyze their analysis, and present to us where the reasoning fails and what a more likely explanation is? THAT would be the basis for a healthy discussion, not your predetermined aim to insult the logic of anyone who provides some info.

I did. I just provided the reason why the answer, the argument fails. And if you want me to present a more likely explanation, thats fine too. If you dont believe in this creationist "Kind" stuff, and you were just providing info, then i apologize for suggesting that this was your belief. I dont think i insulted you, and that wast my predeterminted aim either, but if i did insult, id be happy to apologize, as well as possibly ask what part of my post was insulting.

However, in my defense, i feel as though i am partially justified in assuming that these were your beliefs. Ive talked to you in multiple different topics in this forums, and in our discussion, youve done nothing but propagate the bible and the beliefs within the bible, and my discussion with you regarding Evolution reads like spark-notes from a christian creationist website, possibly because the only ciritique of evolution youve heard of comes from people who are christian or hold some sort of religious belief. As i said above, i apologize if im mistaken and if this isnt your belief, but its hard to see where the bible ends and your beliefs begin.

Congratulations, evidently no one on DDO possesses a PhD in baraminology. If you think you've proved a point by the lack of responses to your question on a site largely visited by teenagers, you are sadly mistaken.

I had to look up what Baraminology was. I admit i laughed a bit. But my response is something that has been asked by scientists, evolutionists, the general community, quite frequently. There is more than one problem with the definition and application of the word "Kind", but the reason why there seems to be an utter lack of evolutionists addressing this on creationist websites, is because they purposely ignore these problems in favor of ignorance.

And I will advise you in advance to not even attempt to insult Creationists on this site for believing in Creation but not being able to define a kind. By that logic, no one has the right to believe in evolution without possessing at least a PhD in biology, zoology, paleontology, and geology. Just a friendly warning.

Now were really getting the ball rolling. Quite frankly, this is great. I love discussion and debate. :D

First off, it doesnt take a PhD to define what a species in Biology is(Which is comparable to what a "Kind" is). I mean, internet search aside, this stuff is taught in high school. Therefore, your "logic" is sorely mistaken, and this certainly doesnt mean that a creationist on this website, who also has the resources, the ability to go look up what he believes, cannot provide a definition of what a "kind" is. I mean, is there some sort of internet filter that prevents creationists on this website from searching these stuff?

Secondly, by sheer practicality, we cannot know all the knowledge that mankind has attained. Therefore, there is some degree of "argument from authority" that must take place. This does not mean that we should believe everything a scientist says. However, when the majority of the scientific community, and by majority, i mean an upwards of about 90% and beyond, simultaneously have studied and agreed upon a specific theory, for the most part, i find no reason to object to believing in it too. Thats why creationists try to propagate evolution as some sort of mass conspiracy of scientists.

Thirdly, i will insult creationists who believe in something but do not understand or cannot explain what they believe. The reason being, i want them to feel insulted, to feel humiliated so that they will go back and examine their belief. So that they will try to learn and understand what it is they truly believe. And, at the end of such investigation, the next time he argues, he is prepared to answer, and then we can continue our discussion further.

This is what is colossally wrong with Creation. It provides sound-byte answers that are simple and fast. Godsands is a prime example. He misunderstands much of evolution, and provides a concept of evolution as if he read a parapgraph from a grade 10 science textbook and stopped reading. And, im sorry to say this, but so are you. If youve never heard of something called an Insertion Mutation, then, im sorry to say this, but you havent researched this stuff at all. You havent examined what you believe, or what your opponent believes. You lack investigation, and if my insults make you angry, make you feel as though you want to beat me at my own game, and forces you to investigate, research this stuff, then im happy for you, and im glad that i insulted you.

This reply took 2 saves and 3 different classes to finish. Hope you read it, and i apologize its length, but i really want to have a good discussion with you and want you to investigate, learn the basis of science. I really do.

Anyways, yeah. Im tired now, and i wont be on for another 3 hours till i get home.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2010 4:06:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nick,
Do you honestly think we have not searched for the elusive "kind" from the creationists? I first mentioned baramins in this thread and I gained the information on the pseudo scientific field from the baraminologists themselves. I purchased Dr. Kurt Wise's books and have checked out well over 100 creationists texts and still no definition of a kind. Watch AIG wiggle out of it here. http://www.answersingenesis.org... This article says ... Nothing! Creationists cannot even supply the limits to variation which their beliefs must have so they dismiss it and attack evolution. A horse and a zebra in the same kind? WHY? BY WHAT CRITERIA? The closest explanation we have is from the BSG http://www.creationbiology.org...
These guys are fumbling over themselves because they are stuck in a nasty spot. See, they cannot use genetics to classify kinds because the closeness of 1,000 species genetically into one kind would lump <gasp> humans and chimpanzees into a kind which is not allowed since this would contradict the selective view these guys hold concerning scripture. They only allow research and peer review from people who sign a statement validating their belief in a young earth and recent creation. Are you kidding?
We ask questions like this because we want to know where creationists are getting this stuff. I promise you I have read more "peer reviewed" creationism than any young earther I have debated. I am studying their materials and I cannot believe any honest person would subscribe to such nonsense. As for a Ph.D. in baraminology … you need a field first and some poor soul willing to teach it without laughing at himself. As for these teenagers on the website, I recommend you review the debates and you will see we have some very sharp young people on here.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 3:11:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 9:20:25 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/27/2010 3:24:53 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I came to this conclusion because the people who were actually around at the time (Adam and Eve, Noah and family, Moses etc) have left us an amazingly detailed record of the 'Genesis' of life on this planet.
By rejecting the Genesis account out of hand you are being amazingly unscientific.. by the same criteria you would have to discard ALL historical records.
Oh wow, how blind i was... Youre right.

From this point onwards, i accept all historical records as scientifically accurate and true.

Ill start with Homers Oddyssey, and try to prove the existance of Sirens, and move onto the Quran!

Homers oddyssey does not even purport itself to be an historical document, as for the Koran it has elements of truth within it but a lot of lies.

Thank you Datcmoto, for opening my eyes. I just hope that you are able to heed your own advice and accept all historical documents as equal evidence for their truth.
I do not accept terms such as Family or species or any other terms BECAUSE you can then, by some slight of hand twist things, there is ZERO evidence that one KIND of creature (dog, cat, bear, bird, etc) has turned into another KIND.
THIS is why the definition is so hotly disputed.

Which is why we asked for a definition of a "kind". All you gave us was examples. Examples are not a definition.

You have it exactly the wrong way around! the kinds are defined by the original pairs..
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 3:15:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/27/2010 3:14:15 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
Stop dancing Dactomoto. Genesis does not give a detailed account of kinds and in no way provides a methodology for one to determine the process to discover these kinds. You reject that kinds are the same as families so we are now back to square one. We can try it this way:
1. List all the creatures within the dog kind, simple. I have helped but I wonder if the fox is in the dog kind. You use the term kind so you must have some idea of the parameters and you must be able to determine these parameters by some means. Genesis will not answer these questions as the accounts are not detailed. So we will stick with the fox for now. Is the fox part of the dog kind? If so, we can include the domestic dog, wolves, coyotes, and foxes into the kind. I am making every effort here so save the rhetoric. If you intend to use Genesis as a source, please list the verses that help determine what the parameters for the dog kind are so we can see them.

I do not know for sure (as you say they are not detailed in Genesis) whether foxes are related to the first dogs.. I would hazard a guess that they are.

What do hope to gain from this? to disprove God, and so morality and so judgement?

Even if you impress yourself and a few others it will not make the return of Jesus Christ or His Judgment disappear..
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 5:58:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 3:11:00 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Homers oddyssey does not even purport itself to be an historical document, as for the Koran it has elements of truth within it but a lot of lies.
Please explain to me how you have determined that the Koran has lies.

You have it exactly the wrong way around! the kinds are defined by the original pairs..

The bible states that there are originally only 5 kinds. So, today, there are only 5 kinds as well?
heyarnold
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:22:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 5:58:35 AM, tkubok wrote:
The bible states that there are originally only 5 kinds. So, today, there are only 5 kinds as well?

Satan created the rest. They are all hell hounds.
Hitler was a gay prostitute, he was a basterd from a jewish boy who had a relationship with the cleaning lady ..! The boy was from the rothchild family ...!
As a homeless prostitute hitler was not able to grow up anything other then a retard..!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:38:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:22:28 AM, heyarnold wrote:
At 1/29/2010 5:58:35 AM, tkubok wrote:
The bible states that there are originally only 5 kinds. So, today, there are only 5 kinds as well?

Satan created the rest. They are all hell hounds.

Okay.
heyarnold
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:42:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:38:10 AM, tkubok wrote:
Okay.

This pretty much explains it http://www.x-evolutionist.com...
Hitler was a gay prostitute, he was a basterd from a jewish boy who had a relationship with the cleaning lady ..! The boy was from the rothchild family ...!
As a homeless prostitute hitler was not able to grow up anything other then a retard..!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:53:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:42:08 AM, heyarnold wrote:
At 1/29/2010 7:38:10 AM, tkubok wrote:
Okay.

This pretty much explains it http://www.x-evolutionist.com...

After breifly skimming the article, this person is utterly ignorant of Science or evolution.

Cross-breeding, for example, does not mean "mate between species". That is utterly stupid. A breed is a specific variation WITHIN an animal, which is why we have DIFFERENT BREEDS of DOGS.

This fails.

Orders and Species are different. It goes from Order to family to Genus to Species. Breeds are within a species. Even if the Order is the same, the Species may differ. This article fails in understanding, first off, that there is no such "Order" as carnivore.

This fails too.

Lioins and Domestic cats, for example, are recognizably cats. Yet they cannot mate. How are they the same "Kind" of animal, if they cannot mate? Both the definition of "Kind" and this argument, fails.

Please go back to grade 10, mister X. At first, i didnt understand why you used a cover name. now i do. You utterly do not have any understanding about Evolution and Science in general, and instead, rely on creationist websites for your information. Congratulations. If i were you, i would be utterly embarrased and humiliated at the utter lack of knowledge that i have about evolution, because, sorry to say, i can definately find a grade 10 student who knows more about this than you do. All your arguments utterly fail. My eyes would vomit at the sight of your arguments, if i could only stop laughing at how pathetic your knowledge about what you are trying to argue against, is.
heyarnold
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 7:59:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No it doesn't.
Hitler was a gay prostitute, he was a basterd from a jewish boy who had a relationship with the cleaning lady ..! The boy was from the rothchild family ...!
As a homeless prostitute hitler was not able to grow up anything other then a retard..!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 8:05:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 7:59:41 AM, heyarnold wrote:
No it doesn't.

If that is your only reply, then great. Heres my reply to you.

Yes it does.
heyarnold
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 8:25:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 8:05:50 AM, tkubok wrote:
I Just got trolled real bad

yes you did
Hitler was a gay prostitute, he was a basterd from a jewish boy who had a relationship with the cleaning lady ..! The boy was from the rothchild family ...!
As a homeless prostitute hitler was not able to grow up anything other then a retard..!
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:35:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The critiera is if they can bring forth. For example a horse and donkey can bring fourth a mule. a mule can not bring fourth at all so its left to the same species.

To convince a creationist that a creature is a new speciease it would have to be unable to bring forth with the it parents or creatures its parents could bring fourth with. But obviously this new creature would need to be able to bring fourth with something though, presumable its options would be limited to its own breed. highly unlikely that two mutations like that would occure and be of opposite gender within each others life time but given enough billion trillion years.......

I've been told monkeys cant bring fourth with humans, so that would make them different species in this veiw. personaly I think this may just be because not enough people in the study are trying hard enough. I would love see a child in the papers born of humans woumb yet sired by a chimpanzee. Or a Chimpanzee give birth to something that was sired by a man. For some reason people are reluctant to do such an experement. But in the name of science this must be done! But not not by me, that just sounds to disgusting for me and the field of science is not for the squimish. But you know what they say about Dirty Jobs; somebodies got to do them.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 9:45:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/29/2010 8:25:14 AM, heyarnold wrote:
At 1/29/2010 8:05:50 AM, tkubok wrote:
I Just got trolled real bad

yes you did

I dont care if youre a troll, the website is still wrong.

I win. :D
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2010 12:09:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do hope to gain from this? to disprove God, and so morality and so judgement?

Even if you impress yourself and a few others it will not make the return of Jesus Christ or His Judgment disappear..

Nice red herring. I am not concerned with Gods/God, Christian or otherwise. I hope to gain some common ground in terms of showing creationists how common descent works. I think I can do this by using kinds and figuring out how creationists determine the classification.
Now, we have a potential kind in reference to domestic dogs, wolves, coyotes, and foxes. I will post the most common ancestor of these creatures and I will show how the conclusion was reached. If I can show a common ancestor between these creatures then we can move forward. Once I can show the potential original "kind" then I will focus on another kind and bring both together with a common ancestor.
Using this method I hope to avoid such nonsense as "foxes do not produce wolves. A wolf will always be a wolf and a fox a fox. Faith is required to believe otherwise as it has never been observed." A fox does not turn into a wolf anymore than a dog will turn into a cat. I have no hidden motives here as this is what I am trying to accomplish. Now, I will get the common ancestor for these creatures and move forward. Can you tell me HOW you reached your guess? Guesses are fine, but I would like to know how you arrived at the guess.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.