Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 106 of 425 (539839)
12-20-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
12-20-2009 12:53 AM


dishonest of me?
Yes, dishonest of you.
You claim that mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam support your story; yet, in fact, the dates for them completely demolishes any notion of recent creation. So you cherry pick the (inevitable, btw) fact there was a most recent common female ancestor and a most recent common male ancestor and because that vaguely matches with your myth and ignore the fact that the real science shows data tens of thousand of years before you claim the world was created, and you ignore the fact that according to the science they lived at times separated by tens of thousands of years and that, according to the science, they weren't the only people alive at those times.
So all you've done is cherry pick a convenient fact you're going to endorse as correct whilst denying the methodology works when it goes against your mythology. That's dishonest, Peg, whether you like it or not.
there is science and there is evolutionary science.
No, there is science, of which evolutionary science is one branch.
Is it honest of evolutionary scientists to weave their ToE into the data collected by other scientists and use that data to back up their theory???
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:53 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 425 (539840)
12-20-2009 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Peg
12-20-2009 7:19 AM


Peg writes:
we've already discussed this and i'm not going to chase my tail going over it again.,
that link i provided in an earlier post to 'hybrids' shows that many of the big cats can cross breed. (many more then i had realized prior).
But not all, Peg. that's the point I'm trying to make. Also, not every wild cat is interfertile with all other wild cats. According to your reasoning they should therefore be different kinds. But when cat A is interfertile with cat B, and that cat B is interfertile with cat C, but cat C is not interfertile with cat A, according to your definition, cat A and B are the same kind, Cat B and C are the same kind, yet cat A and C are not.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 7:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 108 of 425 (539842)
12-20-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peg
12-20-2009 7:16 AM


well the physical evidence of human existance shows us that there were no records of any prehistoric man. All writing and language and artworks etc dont go beyond 6,000 odd years.
This is simply false. Writing dates back approximately 8000 years, and depending on how you wish to define writing you could make a case for 6000 years so I'll give you that. As for "language", no physical traces remain of what languages people spoke before the development of writing, but linguistic reconstructions suggest languages diverged in extant families at least 20,000 years ago. Artwork has a much longer history: we have known artworks from at least 40,000 years ago. And less certain examples that almost double that date.
Settlements such as Ohalo II date to over 20,000 years ago, and there's a near continuous spread of settlements from that time towards the present, through sites such as Neve David and Abu Hureyra (where the first evidence of crop domestication comes from) through to the amazing atalhyk before we finally come within your made up 6000 year date with the first cities such as Uruk.
You're simply wrong in your claim that we don't know anything about human settlements before 6000 years BP, and what's more what we do know simply doesn't correspond with your mythology. Instead we see a slow development of technologies and cultures, and not a single shred of evidence of a flood.
The fossil records in the earth provide no link between man and the animals and there is nothing documenting subhumans in mans earliest records.
Ignoring the inaccuracy of the term "subhumans": Neanderthals, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Australopithecus ramidus, etc., etc., etc. We don't have anything like a perfect record of extinct human ancestors; but there's more than enough of them to blow away any claim of "no link". And that's only the fossils; things get even better when you look at the genome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 7:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 109 of 425 (539843)
12-20-2009 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
12-20-2009 2:03 AM


Re: Kind
I often wonder how the artist come up with some of the pictures of something when they only have a fragment of a body to work with.
And in all those often wonderings it never occured to you to go and actually find out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:03 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 425 (539861)
12-20-2009 10:52 AM


Quitting this thread
I'm going to quit this thread. Peg and ICan are too much for me.
I have never seen two individuals who could ignore reality to such a degree.
Discussing these topics with them resembles bashing one's head against a brick wall. No amount of data, logic, or reason makes a single bit of difference, so why bother.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 2:55 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 3:04 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 111 of 425 (539866)
12-20-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
12-20-2009 2:19 AM


Re: Kind
So if I breed a herford cow with a Gernsey bull, what will I get?
Will it be a Cow that is 1/2 herford and 1/2 Gernsey?
OR
Will it be some other kind of creature?
It will be some other kind of creature. It will NOT be a herford. It will NOT be a gernsey.
You asked ME to define "kind" because you were unwilling to do so. Therefore, since I am the sole arbiter of "kind", I determine what IS or IS NOT a member of which "kind".
You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:19 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 6:21 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 112 of 425 (539868)
12-20-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
12-20-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Kind
For thousands of years there was no problem with what a kind was. Now all of a sudden it is a big problem.
If it is a dog it is a dog kind.
If it is a wolf it is a wolf kind.
If it is a tiger it is a tiger kind.
If it is a lion it is a lion kind.
If it is a horse it is a horse kind.
If it is a cow it is a cow kind.
If it is a bear it is a bear kind.
If it is a man/woman it is a mankind.
Then clearly your use of the word "kind" is complete BS. It means literally NOTHING.
Icant is an Icant kind. Waffles are a waffle kind. Asians are an Asian kind.
It's a useless word. You are basically claiming that one "kind" can not become another "kind" because there is no such thing as "kind" in the first place.
That's not science. That's not creationism. That's simply a poor vocabulary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 3:02 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dr Jack, posted 12-22-2009 4:57 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 113 of 425 (539875)
12-20-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Peg
12-20-2009 7:16 AM


So, while i'm happy to see the evidence they have found with regard to our earliest female ancestor, I dont believe the dating is accurate.
Except that Mitochondial Eve was not the earliest, female ancestor, just the most recent, common female ancestor.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 7:16 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by caffeine, posted 12-22-2009 7:45 AM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 142 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 6:23 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 114 of 425 (539907)
12-20-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
12-20-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Kind
Would you care to start a thread and prove Genesis 1:1 false?
You already did ICANT'S position in the creation debate and you were shown exactly how Gen 1:1 disagreed with the evidence presented by science.
That YOU fail to see how it disagrees is not our problem.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 3:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 115 of 425 (539910)
12-20-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
12-20-2009 10:52 AM


Re: Quitting this thread
Coyote writes:
No amount of data, logic, or reason makes a single bit of difference, so why bother.
Frustrating, I agree.
I find it laughable that anyone could, even for one second, entertain the flood/ark myth as even remotely possible. Using any definition of kind given so far (including ICANT's catch-all Dog=dog kind, Lion=Lion kind, etc), and pretty much any other definition you could possibly come up with, there would still simply not be enough physical space on this ark for all these creatures.
These guys (creationists) seem to approach everything from the completely wrong angle. You don't decide your conclusion first and then gather evidence to support it. You gather evidence and let it lead you to a conclusion.
On Wikipedia, under Kinds (and under a further sub-heading The Flood) there is a comment that struck me as very interesting:
Wikipedia on Created Kinds writes:
However, we can not be sure if God created just one species of birds like the "bird of prey", or several different species. Likewise were there many water fowl created or just one? Animals can change so dramatically through time that making such determination is exceedingly difficult. If only Noah had provided modern baraminologists with a complete manifest!
I can only assume this entry was written by a creationist, in that it proceeds on the basis that "God" did in fact create these things. What is noteworthy is that the next to last sentence is more correct than the creationists will ever accept. It is where they draw the line that I can't understand. They seem to accept evolution but only in a very limited form. Why? Why do they ignore the evidence that it goes much much deeper? I can only assume that they ignore such evidence because it reveals their origin stories for what they really are, myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 10:52 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 116 of 425 (539912)
12-20-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
12-20-2009 10:52 AM


Re: Quitting this thread
I totally sympathise Coyote, this is one of the reasons why I barely participate at EVC anymore, it is virtually pointless.
These people are not interested in learning anything, but their ignorance and stubborness is very frustrating. There was a time when I posted here a lot, but it gets very repetitive as one ignoramus is replaced by another and the same old arguments begin again and again. I used to justify my participance by hoping that some lurkers are grateful for the information that I posted, and I did get quite a lot of emails thanking me for the hard work I put in, I even got a proposal to co-write a book on the origins of ancient Israel! But this constant ignorant and blatant ignoring of evidence is very tedious, and the sad thing is you do know that Peg and Icant will chalk up your leaving as a victory!
They wont think you left for the reasons you gave, they will think that you have left because you cannot defeat their arguments!
But you are doing the right thing, sometimes you just have to hold your hands up and save your sanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2009 10:52 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 11:08 AM Brian has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 117 of 425 (539988)
12-21-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Brian
12-20-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Quitting this thread
I totally sympathise Coyote, this is one of the reasons why I barely participate at EVC anymore, it is virtually pointless.
Perhaps you don't get enough kudos then. I consider myself a sort of half-and-half lurker-poster and it is precicely many of your posts that got me off my ass to look into religion with the same skeptical eye that I trained on other things.
I started a thread awhile back about Prophecy in Daniel that I had hoped to attract you to because people like you who have a database of knowledge in their head are absolutly priceless for those of us still figuring things out.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Brian, posted 12-20-2009 3:04 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Brian, posted 12-21-2009 5:04 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 118 of 425 (540023)
12-21-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jazzns
12-21-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Quitting this thread
Hi Jazz,
Thankyou so much for your compliments, I really do appreciate it.
I'm glad you are investigating things for yourself, one reason I deliberately act abrasive (sometimes) is to motivate people to go and look at things for themselves.
I did see your thread on Daniel and did intend to post, but I have been very busy here as well, I will get round to it during the two weeks holidays I have starting from wednesday.
I wont really be around much tomorrow as we have a staff lunch and drinks tomorrow afternoon, which is never a good thing!
Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 12-21-2009 11:08 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 119 of 425 (540060)
12-21-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
12-20-2009 2:03 AM


Re: Kind
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
We do have a 60 million year record of forams with the last 500,000 years like a book with no missing pages. During that 500,000 years there were 330 new species of Forams created. But low and behold they were still forams.
Transmutation does not happen.
That is what it takes for one kind to become another kind.
I'm completely surprised that you're still saying this stuff, ICANT.
This argument is literally nothing but words. Literally, all you are saying is, "Since you scientists call all of these things 'forams,' that proves that no 'transmutation' has happened in their lineage."
We call all these organisms ‘forams’ because they are all descended from things called ‘forams.’ That’s how we name things. And, the way our naming system works, anything that evolves from them will also be united under that same pedigree. So, the fact that we still call them ‘forams’ does literally nothing for your argument.
Furthermore, below is a picture of several forams. What you are saying is that evolutionary changes large enough to the bridge the gap between any two of these organisms are within the bounds of a single kind.
The only reason you think it’s still a foram is a good argument for creationism is because you don’t really understand what a foram is. If changes of the magnitude allowed by your foram argument had happened among organisms with which you are more familiar (for example, mammals), you would have had trouble convincing even your most devout parishioners that it was not transmutation.
So, please don’t fling the word foram around anymore.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2009 2:03 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Nuggin, posted 12-22-2009 2:03 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 120 of 425 (540086)
12-22-2009 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Blue Jay
12-21-2009 9:06 PM


Re: Kind
I'm completely surprised that you're still saying this stuff, ICANT.
ICANT doesn't believe in evolution, even of his own arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Blue Jay, posted 12-21-2009 9:06 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2009 1:49 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024