I will tell you what I have learned as far as that goes (and no I am not interested in the offer just the truth.)A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind.
But you haven't answered my question. How do I tell if two similar individuals are in the same "kind" or not? I mean, a dog is a dog, but a dog isn't a wolf. Yet Kent Hovind would have us believe they're the same "kind". Why?
Black and brown bears are clearly bear "kind", but is a panda bear?
"Kind" can't simply mean "any classification of animals we have a popular name for." After all, I could just as easily say that bears and wolves and dogs are in the same kind - the "mammal" kind.
So at this point the debate was interrupted and he showed his degree from the college he went to.
"Patriot University"? It's not a university. It's a mail-order degree mill. They have no accredation, so any degree you get from them counts no more than if you made it yourself at Kinko's.
I can also start quoting from others.
Here's a radical new idea - why don't you come up with your own arguments? Or at least deliver their arguments in your own words. I don't want to argue with The Collected Sayings of Kent Hovind. I want to argue with you.
Philip E. Johnson
This guy I've heard of, at least. He's a lawyer, not a biologist. Why is his opinion relevant?
eventually I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think.
Well, that's a start, but it's hardly "everything evolutionists think." For starters, a lot of Darwin's conclusions are racist. And genetics wasn't known to scientists at the time, so Darwin's model of heredity has a bunch of holes.
I mean, if you wanted to know everything about a modern theory, why would you pick up a book published in 1859?
If you want to know the theory, pick up Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." That'll set you straight.
Oh and what do ya'll think about Steven J. Gould? If Dr. Hovind is such a fraud why did the leading evolutionist in ths country refuse to debate him?
Precisely because Hovind is a fraud. Gould thought it was pointless to waste time debating with liars that could be used to actually further the knowledge of science. Hovind is such a joke that Answers In Genesis won't even touch him. He's little more than a humerous annoyance. Would you debate with a mosquito?
On the other hand Gould was never too shy to testify when creationists took school districts to court to prevent the teaching of evolution.
Gould didn't refuse to debate Hovind because he was afraid of him. Gould refused to debate Hovind because Hovind was so very, very far beneath him, and not even worth his time.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-23-2003]
Real PhD, mechanical engineering, MIT, no less. Real, really, seriously crackpot ideas and online book at http://www.creationscience.com/ I can spend hours finding and shooting down the absurdities, misrepresentations of real scientific papers, and just plain ol' stupidity on that website. The guy reads like a satire, but, sadly, he is apparently sincere. Delusional, but sincere.
So, two of Cybereagle's three heroes aren't biologists. Can somebody google the third? I have to go to work. (See you guys tomorrow morning.)
My guess is, we're gonna be 4-for-4 non-biologists. When I want to know about taxes, I ask an accountant. When I want to know about life (the origins of and otherwise) I'll ask a biologist, not a guy (Hovind) whose fake degree is nominally in education. (If you were going to get a fake degree to argue with evolutionists, why not at least get one in biology? Honestly!)
Quick google for Charles Liebert.... BS in chemistry from Fairleigh Dickenson University founding directer of PACER, Peidmont Assoc for Creation Education and Research http://www.sixdaycreation.com/ Does some work for Ken Ham and AIG.
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
quote:A kind would be as such as a dog, a dog is not a cat nor is a dog a fish it is a dog a kind. Whether or not it can interbreed is not necessarily the issue a doberman and a chuwawa could never breed, but they are still a dog.
So, are my housecat and a Bengal tiger the same 'kind'?
I plan to read Charles Darwin's book for the express purpose of being able to know everything evolutionists think.
You're going to have to read a lot more than that, my friend. Genetics, population genetics, palaeontology, molecular systematics, cladistics, comparative anatomy etc etc. Evolutionary theory has come a long, long way since Darwin penned Origins. This is why creationists find it so easy to misunderstand the ToE, they haven't exposed themselves to the evidence & placed it within a logical framework.
------------------ "I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
You're going to have to read a lot more than that, my friend.
However, for the record, as another of those ex-YEC's, "On the Origin of Species" is a powerful, powerful book. Admittedly, I was already converted to evolution when I read it, but it gave me a perspective I'd never heard on any internet debate board or in any other book.
Nowadays, with all the info we have, most papers on evolution begin with the past and work toward the present. Darwin begins with the present and works toward the past. In doing so, he makes all the debates about radiometric dating and gaps in the fossil record irrelevant. He fills the world around us with missing links and passes on information so fascinating that it feels terrible not to be able to repeat it.
It's still my favorite book on evolution, and, in my opinion, the most convincing one out.
Not to dismiss anything you or Crash said. Obviously we've come a long way since 1859, and "Origin of Species" won't catch you up on biology. But what a great book! And I don't think Gould or Dawkins are as convincing as Darwin. He did write his book to convince creationists, after all.
creationism would not be considered a threat by the ACLU...
Why not? I assume your position is that "if evolution were unassailably true, then the ACLU would have nothing to fear from creationists."
I don't see how that follows. One one hand, you'd have accepted scientific theory. On the other, a well-organized, well-funded movement to suppress scientific knowledge to schoolchildren and, by extension, adults.
What's not to fear about that? If I were the ACLU I'd have my panties in a big knot about that.