Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 69 (36973)
04-14-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 4:18 AM


Cats and?
quote:
if two different animal species can "BRING FORTH" new offspring
Odd, I've been told by creationists that there was a "cat" kind on the ark and all cats, my house cat and tigers came from that. Would you check the major creationist sites to see which they agree with?
Are you saying that a tiger and my house cat could produce offspring? Does this have to be like one of the definitions of species that is, that they don't normally breed or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:18 AM booboocruise has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 69 (37043)
04-15-2003 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Budikka
04-14-2003 11:37 PM


gently
Budikka
I think you are knowledgeable enough to shred the assertions posted by the creationists here. But I don't think it strengthens your presentation when you get a bit harsh and insulting. It feels a bit "off" even to me and I'm on your side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Budikka, posted 04-14-2003 11:37 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Budikka, posted 04-16-2003 11:16 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 69 (37184)
04-17-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Budikka
04-16-2003 11:16 PM


It's not one line.
The tone is understandable when your opponent is so evasive and dodges the questions. But it leaves a bad impression of arrogance on your side.
It isn't one one thing but here are asides in your posts on this thread that add up to a bad feeling.
quote:
1) The whole purpose of this thread is to debate, so if you are not up to it, do not waste my time with flatulent bravado. If you cannot answer either of the questions and cannot refute the material you claim to have read, you have no place addressing me.
2)Anything that takes cheap shots and fails to deal with the topic is a sign either of cowardice or of evasion. Be *my* guest. You claim to be a brother in Christ, yet here you are, failing to turn the other cheek and attacking some one who has done nothing to you. Some brother in Christ you are.
3)Talk about unsophisticated. Here you are trying to do a snow job and all you have is a flurry that's easily blown away.
4)The bankruptcy of their position is already glaringly obvious, as the lack of creationist response to this thread has demonstrated).
That might be almost all of them. It seems to me that they may well all be true. And I understand how annoying these people are. But it just feels bad. I think it also drives some of the more sensitive ones of them away and that's no fun.
Lurkers will get a bad impression of you as well. The committed creationists probably don't have the courage (and in many cases the intellect) to really ever grapple with these topics. Others may have some chance of learning something but not if you piss them off.
Remember they have their entire world view, life (eternal even) and everything all tied up in this. It is understandable that they should be more emotional. You don't have to let it be that important.
But in the meantime thanks for the good work and rebuttals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Budikka, posted 04-16-2003 11:16 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Budikka, posted 04-19-2003 11:40 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 69 (37327)
04-19-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Budikka
04-19-2003 11:40 AM


Easy
I'm on your side and agree with all the statments about them you've made. But if you keep your tone at a different level the uncommitted (if there are any) might respond better. That's all.
Boy, it's difficult that I know. They are such annoying jerks at times! (am I allowed that if not directed at a specific individual? )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Budikka, posted 04-19-2003 11:40 AM Budikka has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 69 (37339)
04-19-2003 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by John
04-19-2003 1:31 PM


Clear?
"crystal clear..."
Is is? I read this one. It almost felt like I was going to "get it" but ... nope, didn't again.
Could you translate this one then? Please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John, posted 04-19-2003 1:31 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 5:54 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 69 (37353)
04-19-2003 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
04-19-2003 5:54 PM


Re: Clear?
Thanks for something salty. As best as I can tell this latest post isn't a translation of the previous one but an additional pile of words.
I wasn't asking you to translate, in any case. I was hoping someone else could. If you want to try I'll offer some feedback.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2003 5:54 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 69 (37507)
04-22-2003 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by booboocruise
04-22-2003 12:21 AM


Making it up.
Ok, you've made up your own idea. Which none of the creation "scientists" have published anything in agreement with. You've given some rough examples which is a beginning. However, you have yet to define "kind".
It is, afterall, supposed to be some kind of hard and fast, immutable thing with hard and fast boundaries that can not be crossed. What you've posted sounds pretty fuzzy around the edges so it doesn't appear to meet the criteria that the creationist kind would have to have.
Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 12:21 AM booboocruise has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 69 (37551)
04-22-2003 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-22-2003 1:46 AM


Re: Cats and?
quote:
Are you aware that, given reprductive "help" (artifical insemination techniques) those two dogs are interfertile?
Really?!! Please provide a good reference. I can hardly contain my glee if this is true. It seems to me it would be a case of speciation (based on the creationists favorite definition) in an example they like to use. I would however be surprised if it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:46 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 11:49 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 04-22-2003 1:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024