Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)

well I'm glad you realised that animals can go extinct, I'm just not getting why you don't get my problem with your "man can create a chihuahuah from wolves and dogs" idea if "dogs always make dogs" and "wolves always make wolves" EVEN IF you go for the "hybrids are possible" idea.in your strange world, you can mix a dog and a wolf, get a non-kind viable hybrid wolf-dog/dog-wolf creature that can somehow magically become both a great dane or a chihuahuah over time - yet you think that makes more sense than the scientific theory of evolution.I'm...wow. How tasty were those moccasins?by the way, with all these thousands of "hybrids", what's an actual dog - and why?Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

still so ignorant about the word "theory" I see. This one you'll have to look up yourself. It's not very difficult and the words aren't too long.

I'd point you here for starters, but the big words would scare you.I wouldn't bother reading what pleases you, for example from allaboutcreation.org as it is, bluntly put, a pack of lies, distortions, half-truths and omissions.I'd simply pop down to a good science museum and gawk at all the hominids; if you're lucky they'll have a lucy type skeleton to look at in addition to the dinosaurs, archaeopteryx specimens, teeth and jawbones, hides and, you know, real evidence.And no, the creation museum isn't a "good" museum - they think all the animals from out of the ark could have crossed across the world on floating bridges made from trees in, what, days or something, that all the fossilized half-apes and half-men that chart our ancestry are also devolved from noah the same way that those poor unfortunate blacks and hispanics are devolved from us pure-bred whites.

If you current knowledge of evolution and natural selection is anything to go by, one can only hope.Just because you built cases for them doesn't mean you were at all open to the information on their origins and history nor paid that the slightest bit of attention.Plenty of diehard creationists own bookstores and can't see the irony in putting books about dionysus (the guy who was born on the 25th of december, called the "king of kings" and the "god of gods", who turned water into wine, was placed in a manger, died and rose back to life) in the "fiction" setting but putting the bible (about the guy who was born on the 25th of december, called the "king of kings" and the "god of gods", who turned water into wine, was placed in a manger, died and rose back to life) in the historical section...

THIS.I could quote the whole of the post, and to be honest I should because the whole post is made of awesome and win. It is of RAZD quality in it's simplicity and signal-to-noise ratio.I CAN'T understand why ICANT has such a problem with a system designed by creationists, FOR creationists to explain creation just a little bit better.Surely ICANT has to agree we know more than Adam? Surely ICANT can agree that modern day man can know more about a larger world that Adam can. Surely ICANT can agree that creationists were just trying to do what mankind has always done (for whatever reason) ever since we've stood on two legs to look up into the stars - get better.It doesn't matter if we're made of dirt or whether we evolved, the taxonomic classification system is creationist in origin and designed only to further knowledge in god's creation.What is it about new knowledge which is so damned frightening to creationists like ICANT? Even when theistic creationists come up with it?

or any other two creationists who disagree on so fundamental and yet so simple a thing.Now, unless I'm very much mistaken:* peg believes that wolves and dogs are the same kind* icant believes that wolves and dogs are different kinds* both claim to know The Truth* both claim to be right* both claim that "Kinds" is a perfectly adequate and in fact superior classification system than the creationist's taxonomy* neither agree on the status of two very basic animalspeg and icant - why are you each right and the other wrong, and more importantly can you demonstrate which of you two a non-theist should side with?

you're one step closer to being an atheist, well done! (jk)but seriously, now you've got a bigger problem. If dogs ARE wolves, like you admit is the logical conclusion to wolves and dogs having babies together (you ARE saying you AGREE with this statement? You're not going to claim later you never said this?) - then:* how come you don't like the chihuahuahs and great danes being the same "kind"* how do you explain the "hybrids" you were so sure existed (or rather, now, the extremes between the sizes and shapes)* and finally, why is a falabella not the same as a shire horse, if a chihuahuah is the same kind as a great dane?you know, in all these 350+ messages, we are precisely zero steps closer to even the simplest definition of "kind" that you hold so dear, so exact, so perfect and so complete. In all the messages in all this entire board the only two statements I have heard about what a kind IS says "if they can have babies - however forced - they're the same kind". the only other statement is a sop that says "if they CAN'T have babies - they might STILL be the same kind" which is entirely useless.So, please, honestly, Peg, ICANT, anyone, what IS and what IS NOT a kind and WHY, in a concise, scientific, falsifiable manner?

Hi ICANT.Again. Honestly, you're as obtuse as SO and his batty geocentrism...I know this is a losing battle. the "special olympics" line comes to mind, but still...press on a wee bit. you say this, and yet you still have not uttered a single line explaining what a kind IS and IS NOT. Your name, it seems, is well suited because UCANT do it. You proclaim loudly about the infinite wisdom of god and his ability to create "Kinds" yet you apparently have no idea how you define them, despite assuring us of the fidelity of their existence and the uselessness of the taxonomy system we use today.You even went back on your weaselly words about dogs and wolves when I called you on it. I'm disappointed. Rather than sticking with your "I'm right and you're all wrong" line you mumbled an "if" out of one side of your mouth whilst shouting "never!" from the other. Quite a trick.But press on. then, my dear sir, you are in the wrong thread. This is what annoys me about you IDiots, because you belat about wanting to "teach the controversy" in SCIENCE classrooms - when there is none. They tell us how unworthy and useless science is - when at the same time their own pet theory is a wet fart more than an explosion of shock and awe.When - if - you ever have something useful to teach about kinds (like their actual definition) then by all means write it up like hundreds of thousands of patient, dedicated scientists have done and overturn the world's knowledge. I don't get this. see, you ask for flawless, unbroken lines of information from scientists - when talking about billions of years and multiple theories (once again, abiogenesis and evolution have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other - have you got this simple fact into your brain yet?) - and yet your own pet theory is less than useless. It is, infact, anti-knowledge. It is a poisoned chalice. Not only does it offer no knowledge but it stifles real investigation and discovery because you claim to know EVERYTHING and offer precisely nothing.You IDiots cannot even agree on whether a dog or a wolf is the same kind or not, yet you claim to know everything. the line for humans goes back in an unbroken line for several hundred thousand years, and in a broken line for several million. The line for the horse goes back similarly far into antiquity.And what can you offer? no evidence for a global flood. no evidence for a single race of humans evolving into blacks, whites, reds and yellows. no evidence for anything - even the pre-flood and post-flood worlds in your own book and the people and places in it are essentially identical.you can't even find a boat on a mountain - a boat big enough to hold every single "kind" of animal (whatever that meaningless term is).The "aim" of ToE has nothing to do with finding a single-celled common ancestor for everybody and everything - the ToE would be perfectly adequate an explanation for the change you claim can't happen (even whilst talking about a world full of "hybrids" - nice going, do your sneakers really taste that nice?) even if your theological view of the universe was correct.Once again, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE. Stellar evolution, the big bang, planet formation - none of this is in the ToE. Man interprets the Bible to say all kinds of things. Oh, attention everyone! attention! sorry, sorry, ICANT has declared the 150 years or so we've had is enough. we can't possibly learn anything more in any longer time. all scientists go home.despite the fact that nobody seriously believes that we can create life from non-life, or do anything or the sort in the lab in less time that several million years and several billion chemical experiments, we have to declare that because of this one teeny problem (which is in no way related to the ToE) that the ToE has to be rendered completely null and void, despite it's predictive power.Sorry, it's all or nothing if it's scientific, or vague suggestions of possibly having something correct if it's the bible. The lower standards for ignorance win, sorry guys.Your crack about "from the same life form" is amazing, because it implies that god would stand up and say "all your base pairs are belong to me" - and yet you don't agree with the facts that ERV's and the like tell us about human and ape co-evolution. Apparently you get to pick and choose which orifice you talk from depending on which set of facts you mention that day. I do believe the dog and whale are related as they both evolved from a common ancestor. I also believe that they are different species, even though the dog can swim.and more than that, I can demonstrate why and how. Can you? so, kinds are kinds. dogs are dogs. wolves are wolves. wolves aren't dogs and vice-versa. but different kinds can be related.gee whiz. Now your biblical "kinds" argument is made of even weaker sauce. I can at least tell you why a shark and a dog cannot possibly be the same species. but you can't, other than saying "it's obvious" and babbling something about one breathing underwater.dude, you must - really, you MUST - decide whether you believe in hyper-evolution (few kinds on a realistic ark EXPLODE in diversity over a thousand years, maximum, such that cats must have been giving birth to nematodes and so on), no-evolution (all kinds, everywhere, ever, on a tardis-like ark which could never have been built) or "what" - but you can't even tell me what a kind is, so hey, you'll never explain. you lie. despite the meaninglessness of this statement, it's the closest you've got in your whole post to something true. I could say you are lying, but instead I will say you are just ignorant. science does not tell us this. It is the inference we make, but we cannot be sure at this time whether all life on earth is from one single abiogenetic event. you are lying or ignorant, unless you truly believe that god is cyanobacteria. or midiclorians. You'd like to think so, but it doesn't. It's just a list of "god waved his arms and POOF!". It doesn't explain how, when or where. Or why. we only have the what, and a tiny, teeny part of the "what" at that, unless you believe that the bible mentions all umteembillion species of beetle...Science is still working on theirs.Edited by greyseal, : wonderful. the net.monster ate part of my post!

because, according to you (and others):*) kinds breed true (dogs always make dogs, horses always make horses) - although you nixed that description when you decided that dogs and wolves are different kinds BUT CAN MAKE HYBRIDS, so we still can't tell what animals ARE the same kind (same kinds breed - different kinds breed, where's the beef?)*) two different animals that CANT breed together might STILL be the same kind - so we still don't know what animals are NOT the same kind (different kinds don't breed, SAME kinds might not - where's the beef?)*) two different kinds can be "related" - although I'm not sure what that means given that, related or not, they may or may not be able to breed, so we still can't tell which animals are WHICH kind (different kinds - although different - are "similar", so...where's the beef?)to recap, you:* don't know what is a kind
* don't know what isn't a kind
* have no clear way of dividing two kinds even if you clear up unequivocally the first twogood job! your turkey is a damp squib. that's a kind of failure. You have provided less than nothing to your cause. as has been pointed out to you and others many, many painful times, science doesn't tell us this. the EVIDENCE tells us this - but doesn't prove it. When better evidence comes along that tells us a different and even more complete story that fits all the FACTS, the story you'll hear from scientists may be different (but please, if you think flat earth to round earth to heliocentric earth means that the round earth idea was wrong because it was incomplete, you're a bigger fool than I take you for - the amount of "wrongness" decreases with each jump, it does not invalidate the previous theory completely, for example, the Earth IS flat when you're close enough to it!). no, it does not, it never has and it never will. The bible says god created everything, NOT that all kinds came from a single ancestor. The ONLY theory that says that is a conclusion tentatively reached from the ToE based on all the evidence we've got about life that we have, from cyanobacteria in 3.5 billion year old rocks, up through early fishes, to tetrapods, to the dinosaurs and finally to us through several lineages of proto-humans, only one of which gave rise to us.stop trying to grasp those straws that you are sure prove the bible is a better science than that produced by real scientists using the scientific method - you said it quite clearly yourself earlier - it is NOT science it is theology. That is ALL it is - this thread WAS an attempt to get IDiots to put their money where their mouth is and show us HOW their faith is scientific.almost 400 messages later and the simplest of arguments you IDiots have amongst yourselves still hasn't been solved, and the simplest question is not one tiny step closer to having any sort of useful answer.The only thing that is clear so far is that IDiots should not be allowed in the science classroom until they have something of scientific merit to present.