Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Society > Society > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 17th April 2004, 07:12 PM
Regular Member

22 Gender: Male Faith: Other-Religion Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 19th February 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 197
Blessings: 34,821
Reps: 37 (power: 0)
Ben is Dead is on a distinguished road
Yeah
horses and donkeys produce a mule when they interbreed
the mule is usually born sterile but there have been some cases where the mule has been able to reproduce
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #22  
Old 17th April 2004, 07:15 PM
Data's Avatar
Veteran

22 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: New Zealand Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 15th September 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 1,433
Blessings: 34,505
Reps: 887 (power: 0)
Data is just really niceData is just really niceData is just really niceData is just really niceData is just really niceData is just really niceData is just really nice
[edit] Wheres the delete post button when you need it D:

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch
I seem to recall that horses and donkeys can produce fertile offspring on rare occasions. Does anyone know for sure?
Yup, It's very rare though.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17th April 2004, 07:46 PM
MartinM's Avatar
GondolierAce

27 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Country: Scotland Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 9th February 2003
Posts: 4,294
Blessings: 42,600
Reps: 6,626 (power: 17)
MartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to all
MartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to allMartinM is a name known to all
Originally Posted by Aggie
All I want is one intelligent, educated, and reasonable creationist to debate with about the origin of birds. Is that really so much to ask?
Perhaps you and GFA could take turns pretending?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
High Priest, Infallible Interpreter, and Official Smitether of Justineianity
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 17th April 2004, 09:07 PM
kenneth558's Avatar
Believer in the Invisible

50 Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 1st August 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 694
Blessings: 34,142
Reps: 114 (power: 0)
kenneth558 has a spectacular aura aboutkenneth558 has a spectacular aura about
A statement made in my Organic Evolution textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24:
Originally Posted by Freeman & Herron
Viruses, like other organisms, only come from reproduction of their own kind.
These guys are definitely evolutionists. They did not define "kind" either!
__________________
Jesus Christ is Lord of all.
Acts 10:36
...Abraham believed God (not his priest, pope, pastor, favorite radio preacher, or parents), and it was counted unto him as righteousness. - Romans 4:3
We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed. - II Peter 1:19
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17th April 2004, 09:38 PM
Theoretical Physicist

44 Gender: Male Faith: Anglican Country: England Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th January 2004
Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 34,951
Reps: 239 (power: 0)
Captain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the roughCaptain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the roughCaptain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the rough
Originally Posted by kenneth558
A statement made in my Organic Evolution textbook (Evolutionary Analysis by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron, 3rd edition, 2004) on page 24:
These guys are definitely evolutionists. They did not define "kind" either!

Perhaps not on page 24 of that book. But at least biologists do have definitions for the various taxonomic terms.

The problem with Creationists is they NEVER define kind, or if they do they rapidly change it or run away.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 17th April 2004, 11:17 PM
kenneth558's Avatar
Believer in the Invisible

50 Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 1st August 2003
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 694
Blessings: 34,142
Reps: 114 (power: 0)
kenneth558 has a spectacular aura aboutkenneth558 has a spectacular aura about
Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow
Perhaps not on page 24 of that book. But at least biologists do have definitions for the various taxonomic terms.

The problem with Creationists is they NEVER define kind, or if they do they rapidly change it or run away.
Believe that if you want to. You show me where evolutionists define kind. Did I not start a thread about how evolutionists redefine their terms? Take the term "vestigial". Some say "vestigial" means an organ that is no longer being used, blah blah blah. Then they point to the human appendix as being vestigial. To do that they have to redefine the term "vestigial" because the human appendix is most definitely used in the human body. It is part of our lymphoid system.
__________________
Jesus Christ is Lord of all.
Acts 10:36
...Abraham believed God (not his priest, pope, pastor, favorite radio preacher, or parents), and it was counted unto him as righteousness. - Romans 4:3
We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well to take heed. - II Peter 1:19
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 18th April 2004, 12:36 AM
Philosoft's Avatar
Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

36 Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 26th December 2002
Location: Southeast of Disorder
Posts: 5,840
Blessings: 28,824
Reps: 2,470 (power: 14)
Philosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of lightPhilosoft is a glorious beacon of light
Originally Posted by kenneth558
Believe that if you want to. You show me where evolutionists define kind. Did I not start a thread about how evolutionists redefine their terms? Take the term "vestigial". Some say "vestigial" means an organ that is no longer being used, blah blah blah. Then they point to the human appendix as being vestigial. To do that they have to redefine the term "vestigial" because the human appendix is most definitely used in the human body. It is part of our lymphoid system.
Why would evolutionists define "kind"? It's not an accepted taxonomic term. Besides, viral reproduction is wacky. It's not remotely similar to reproduction in more complex organisms.

And whoever claims "vestigial" refers only to structures no longer used is wrong. You're attacking a strawman thereby. "Vestigial" generally describes a rudimentary or degenerate structure. Functionless structures can be called "vestigial" but not all vestigial structures are functionless.

A cool example of vestigial structures I just learned about is vascular tissue in mosses. Apparently, they evolved alongside ancestors to modern land plants when both were beginning to emerge from the water. The land mosses, however, were less efficient at transporting water and minerals and were out-competed by land plants.
__________________

It's party time for the guys in the tower of Babel
Sodom meet Gomorrah, Cain meet Abel
~Elton John


I couldn't if I tried.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 18th April 2004, 01:01 AM
4Jesus4ever's Avatar
Regular Member

Faith: Eastern-Orthodox Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 4th March 2004
Posts: 264
Blessings: 34,872
Reps: 85 (power: 0)
4Jesus4ever will become famous soon enough
Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL

Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18th April 2004, 01:11 AM
gluadys's Avatar
Legend

Gender: Female Faith: Protestant Party: CA-NDP Country: Canada Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd March 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 10,924
Blessings: 31,789
Reps: 2,246,248,868 (power: 2,246,264)
gluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond repute
gluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond reputegluadys has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by 4Jesus4ever
Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL

Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species.
OK, by that definition, which of these is a kind and which is larger or smaller than a kind?

If it is smaller than a kind, what kind is it part of?

If it is larger than a kind, how do we tell where one kind ends and another begins?

rhinoceros, rabbit, beaver, armadillo, spider, platypus human, frog, bat, cabbage
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 18th April 2004, 01:19 AM
Theoretical Physicist

44 Gender: Male Faith: Anglican Country: England Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th January 2004
Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 34,951
Reps: 239 (power: 0)
Captain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the roughCaptain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the roughCaptain_Jack_Sparrow is a jewel in the rough
Originally Posted by 4Jesus4ever
Definition 1: I guess "kind" would be best described as being nice, friendly and generous to your fellow man. LOL

Definition 2: "Kind" would be best desribed as belonging to the same Genus, Species or Sub-Species.

And your definition 2 is why Creationists are not take seriously. Which of those is it?

Oh - I get it - it's whichever is convenient - right?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes



 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 PM.


vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios