Revealing quotes from revered scientists.

[Hieronymus]

Is this the part where you fall back to your dishonest quote mines?

No, i don't base my ideas on those quotes.

 

[Loudmouth]

And it's exactly what we should see if the Bible is true.

We should see evidence of evolution if the Bible is true?

What I am trying to get across is that belief in evolution is faith based.

We have evidence, so faith isn't needed.

It is not based on anything that is provable.

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Loudmouth]

No, i don't base my ideas on those quotes.

Then why use them? Why twist and misrepresent the words of scientists?

 

[Hieronymus]

A baby word for people unwilling to define their terms clearly.

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.
The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.
Birds have the flying app with feathers etcetera, things like that.

 

[Hieronymus]

Then why use them? Why twist and misrepresent the words of scientists?

For the n-th time: Good luck with imagining a context in which they were just jokes.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.
The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.
Birds have the flying app with feathers etcetera, things like that.

Who does the investigation? Names? Organisations? What methodology?

Or is it just hot air?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.

We also have the primate kind, the mammal kind, the amniote kind, the vertebrate kind, and the eukaryote kind, all of which humans belong to.

The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.
Birds have the flying app with feathers etcetera, things like that.

Primates all have the same organs. Are they a kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

For the n-th time: Good luck with imagining a context in which they were just jokes.

Shall we go back to the Darwin quote?

 

[lasthero]

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.
The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.

All lizards can't breed. How can they be a kind?

 

[The Cadet]

I think it is still under investigation to determine it exactly.
but we have the horse kind, the cat kind, the dog / wolf kind, the lizard kind.
The ability to breed is a positive indicator for kinds, but also of what organs an organism is made up.
Birds have the flying app with feathers etcetera, things like that.

So, in other words, you don't have a functional definition for it, but you are perfectly willing to use it in a debate. You can bring up examples if you want, but the dog kind is a single subspecies. The wolf kind is a genus. The lizard kind is a suborder containing literally thousands of distinct species, so your examples are a muddled mess that do absolutely nothing to help us understand. But then again, that's the point of "kind", isn't it? It's to have wiggle room, to be able to point to any evidence of evolution and say, "still the same kind", regardless of whether it's above or below the species level. Either find a coherent definition or don't use the term.

 

[Jimmy D]

Take it up with the scientists who conclude this.
Obviously, it is the evidence that strongly suggests it.
It eliminates accidental (pointless) coming into existence of the universe.
The chances for accidental occurence is practically zero.

What scientists? Stop making things up.

 

[Hieronymus]

All lizards can't breed. How can they be a kind?

I said, ability to breed is a positive indicator.
Maybe it's not an English term, but it means that when they can breed, it is the same kind.
When they can not breed, they still could be the same kind, but you'll have to look at other characteristics to determine it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Shall we go back to the Darwin quote?

Yes, i was thinking of doing that later.
See if there's something interesting to say about it, in its context.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said, ability to breed is a positive indicator.
Maybe it's not an English term, but it means that when they can breed, it is the same kind.
When they can not breed, they still could be the same kind, but you'll have to look at other characteristics to determine it.

Humans and chimps can't interbreed. You are saying that they are still in the same kind?

 

[Hieronymus]

So, in other words, you don't have a functional definition for it, but you are perfectly willing to use it in a debate.

Both sides do this.
We don't know everything, you see.

 

[Hieronymus]

Humans and chimps can't interbreed. You are saying that they are still in the same kind?

No, that's what you believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, i was thinking of doing that later.
See if there's something interesting to say about it, in its context.

Do you understand how you used that quote out of context to make Darwin appear to be saying something he was not?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that's what you believe.

Why aren't they in the same kind? They share all the same organs, just like the lizard kind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Both sides do this.
We don't know everything, you see.

So you don't know what a "kind" is?

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you understand how you used that quote out of context to make Darwin appear to be saying something he was not?

Not really, he said "it seems", not "it is".