Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 4:08 PM
136 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (8 members, 128 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,434 Year: 3,471/19,786 Month: 466/1,087 Week: 56/212 Day: 17/39 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Problems of a different "Kind"
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 714 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 16 of 92 (416718)
08-17-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:33 PM


Re: ......
I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy. I think the layer could have more easily happened by a flood through particle placement of water swells.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htm

Fossils prove only that something died. Can't tell if they had any kids. Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#fraud

For the third time. Take. It. To. The. Appropriate. Thread.

It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model. Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.

Are you going to address my questions re: your definition of kind? You know, fish, bird, animal? Or have you conceded the point?

And what of the great apes' common ancestor?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:31 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 17 of 92 (416719)
08-17-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:33 PM


Topic and Respect
You have been asked to stick to the correct topic more than once. I'm not asking now. You will have a posting break if you can't manage that.

You will also be much more careful about being respectful to other posters. You'll get a longer posting break if you even hint at disrespect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 18 of 92 (416720)
08-17-2007 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by molbiogirl
08-17-2007 1:09 PM


Re: ......
For the third time. Take. It. To. The. Appropriate. Thread.

What are you dense? Or is that the red tape I have to jump through? I thought this was a debate forum not a p.c. whine fest. Moreover, are you a mod or admin? If not stfu befo' you get smacked-tfu, bish!

Are you going to address my questions re: your definition of kind? You know, fish, bird, animal? Or have you conceded the point?

yeah, well you quoted me earlier and then commented how funny you thought that it was. I thought that was my definition, but I'll humor you and the rest of the gang.

If it looks like a bird, its a bird. If looks like an cat, its a cat. If it looks like an ape, its not an black guy. Do you see where I'm going with this? To me, because I see design, I don't need to go into depth with this one has yellow hair and that has pink hair so that fucked that and out plopped that...etc.

And what of the great apes' common ancestor?

What about the shit I took this morning? Who cares? They're apes not black people. And also isn't this off topic?

Edited by Vashgun, : i left out a good point


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 1:09 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 08-17-2007 1:46 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 19 of 92 (416724)
08-17-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:31 PM


Re: ......
Vashgun writes:

What are you dense? Or is that the red tape I have to jump through? I thought this was a debate forum not a p.c. whine fest. Moreover, are you a mod or admin? If not stfu befo' you get smacked-tfu, bish!

I've seen enough. Take a 24 hour vacation.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:31 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 20 of 92 (416726)
08-17-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:33 PM


Re: ......
Thanks dad, I appreciate the reply.
I had no idea I was so stupid. This is gonna be fun.

There is a major difference between stupid and ignorant: the ignorant can learn. Learning is fun, I agree.

I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy.

You can disagree with the model of stratigraphy all you want to, but your disagreement won't alter reality or affect it one iota. I suggest you take this up in one of the flood geology threads (it has nothing to do with the definition of "kind" eh?). Maybe Was there a worldwide flood?

Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?

Short answer: No. Nor does your article do so (it doesn't even really address horse evolution at all).

Long answer: start a thread on this topic and we can discuss it.

Note that the whole forum is organized into different categories and within those categories are the individual topics, where each topic starts with the first post as a theme for that thread. Topics are limited to 300 posts, so comments not having to do with the topic theme are discouraged.

New members are encouraged to explore, search out and read existing threads rather than start broadcasting on whatever thread they happen to be on.

It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model.

I take this to mean that you have no definition of "kind" to offer. This is a rather sad state of affairs for creationists as it means they have no way to substantiate their position by testing that definition against the facts.

Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.

And that is why design cannot be concluded from the data. If you want to discuss this further there is the Forum Intelligent Design with some appropriate threads (like Distinguishing "designs")

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:33 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 10:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 21 of 92 (418203)
08-26-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
08-17-2007 2:13 PM


Re: ......
You can disagree with the model of stratigraphy all you want to, but your disagreement won't alter reality or affect it one iota.

Back at you. How about a link to your "evidence"? I disagree, I don't think that you can know this. Period.
I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class.
Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning and also how tall or large the candle was. So the empirical evidence suggests that the candle is x number of inches and the rate of burning has been x number of centimeters per one hour of observation. How many assumptions would you have to make to come up with a hypothesis of how tall the candle was and when it was lit?

Basically, I disagree with this idea of uniformitarianism. There was a flood around 4400 years ago, and before that it was paradise. So, again I disagree until you can show me empirical evidence for billions of years.

Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?

Short answer: No. Nor does your article do so (it doesn't even really address horse evolution at all).

Really? Perhaps you should have put on your glasses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2007 2:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by iceage, posted 08-26-2007 11:48 PM Ihategod has responded
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2007 6:50 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2007 10:57 PM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 56 by JavaMan, posted 09-20-2007 7:37 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3987 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 22 of 92 (418212)
08-26-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 10:54 PM


The earth is old
Vashgun writes:

How about a link to your "evidence"?

Here are 101 reasons right here on evc

Message 1

There are others on the web.

vashgun writes:

I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class.

Hovind is a cheat and fraud (sorry there is no other way of putting it)

For those uninformed (or misinformed) the best evidence of an old earth I like to point out are angular unconformities. A fancy term for a very simple geological formation.

Reference Link writes:

1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

There is a long lost thread on this topic here

Message 1

If you have a good explanation for such a simple formation please post it in the above thread.

Another simple falsification of a young flooded earth are tree rings that exceed the supposed date of the flood. Read this thread for some good information.

Message 1(Simple and RAZD)[/color] in Forum The Great Debate)< !--UE-->


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 10:54 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:34 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 23 of 92 (418231)
08-27-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iceage
08-26-2007 11:48 PM


Re: The earth is old
Vashgun writes:

How about a link to your "evidence"?

Here are 101 reasons right here on evc

Message 1 (Thread 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood in Forum Links and Information)

There are others on the web.

I was talking about uniformitarianism. Just like an evolutionist to raise a straw man.

Hovind is a cheat and fraud (sorry there is no other way of putting it)

I see Hovind as extremely well informed. Also, when he doesn't understand something about his theory he admits it, instead of lying. Cheat and Fraud? I'll wager against that.

Another simple falsification of a young flooded earth are tree rings that exceed the supposed date of the flood. Read this thread for some good information.

I've read on both sides, and I don't think it's an exact enough "science" to be dogmatically preaching it as truth. This also falls into the ice ring dating methods as well. How can you know, empirically?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iceage, posted 08-26-2007 11:48 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by DrJones*, posted 08-27-2007 1:35 AM Ihategod has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1804
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 24 of 92 (418232)
08-27-2007 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 1:34 AM


Re: The earth is old
Cheat and Fraud? I'll wager against that

Well you'd loose. Hovind is doing time right now cause he's a convicted tax cheat.


Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:34 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:50 AM DrJones* has responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 25 of 92 (418235)
08-27-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by DrJones*
08-27-2007 1:35 AM


Re: The earth is old
Well you'd loose. Hovind is doing time right now cause he's a convicted tax cheat.

You obviously don't know squat! Oh how good that feels!
How about you become a real citizen, and study your laws.
http://www.freedomclubusa.com/ucc_strawman
http://www.voluntarytax.info/

Hovind was set up, hook, line and sinker. He didn't do anything wrong or break any laws. I can't speak for him, but I know his position on this topic. He spent along time researching the banking swindle and he is now a product of injustice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by DrJones*, posted 08-27-2007 1:35 AM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2007 2:08 AM Ihategod has responded
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 08-27-2007 2:11 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 26 of 92 (418238)
08-27-2007 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 1:50 AM


Re: The earth is old
Vashgun writes:

How about you become a real citizen, and study your laws.

Since Dr. Jones is from Edmonton, I believe he is a real citizen, of Canada. As to how much Dr. Jones has studied Canadian law, I don't really know, however, Hovind was convicted of tax fraud under the laws of the United States, which is a different nation with somewhat different laws and a different government. Therefore this sentence appears not only meaningless but also geographically incompetent.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:50 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:20 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1804
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 27 of 92 (418239)
08-27-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 1:50 AM


return to the topic
How about you become a real citizen,

Of the US? no thanks I like it just fine up here in the frozen north. Anyways this is all off topic (and I contributed to it so I'm not blaming you), lets get back to the topic:

Can someone provide a definition of kind?

Edited by DrJones*, : cause I left out a vital word

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


Live every week like it's Shark Week!
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 1:50 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4102 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 28 of 92 (418265)
08-27-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by anglagard
08-27-2007 2:08 AM


Re: The earth is old
Since Dr. Jones is from Edmonton, I believe he is a real citizen, of Canada. As to how much Dr. Jones has studied Canadian law, I don't really know, however, Hovind was convicted of tax fraud under the laws of the United States, which is a different nation with somewhat different laws and a different government. Therefore this sentence appears not only meaningless but also geographically incompetent.

I apologize to Jones. However, Canadian law is roughly identical when it comes to the income tax and the straw man accounts. And again Hovind was convicted of tax fraud but it wasn't constitutional nor was it justifiable under any law in the united States but rather in the District of Columbia. It still stands, you both should become "real" citizens. Check the first link above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by anglagard, posted 08-27-2007 2:08 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AdminNosy, posted 08-28-2007 7:05 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 29 of 92 (418520)
08-28-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Ihategod
08-26-2007 10:54 PM


Re: ......
I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class.
Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning ...

Nope. What we want to know is which layers of candle wax are older that have dripped from the candle onto the plate it sits on.

Now if you can invent a way for recent wax to be under old wax drippings, I'm all ears. Otherwise you can put this false analogy on the shelf and proceed to reality.

Basically, I disagree with this idea of uniformitarianism. There was a flood around 4400 years ago, and before that it was paradise. So, again I disagree until you can show me empirical evidence for billions of years.

You can disagree until you are blue in the face and the data will be totally unaffected by your personal opinion. The rock won't care.

Ignoring evidence that contradicts belief is not faith, it is delusion:

de·lu·sion –noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Now if you really want to talk about the age of the earth, then we can proceed to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) ... I suggest you read it before posting anything though ... so far no creationist has been able to touch the data and the correlations -- they generally give up and run away -- but you could be the first.

Except that so far all you are doing is bouncing from topic to topic expressing your denial of evidence rather than confronting it.

As in this topic is about a definition for "kind" as used by creationists, and you have not provided one.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : topic


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Ihategod, posted 08-26-2007 10:54 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 30 of 92 (418522)
08-28-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Ihategod
08-27-2007 9:20 AM


Topic
Vashgun, you seem to be having trouble posting on topic. We all get carried away and do that now and then but you seem to be particularly careless about it. Stay on topic or get short posting suspensions.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Ihategod, posted 08-27-2007 9:20 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019