Micro to Macro

MarkT

Veteran
Mar 23, 2004
1,709
26
✟2,404.00
Faith
"Kind" isn't a valid term in taxonomy. Please be more specific.

Kind is the only term we can use since taxonomy relates things which are unrelated (in my opinion they are unrelated - unrelated by birth/common descent). Kind is a commonly used word. It's found in the dictionary. It's got nothing to do with evolution (common descent).

Reptiles also glide and birds like kiwis, penguins and ostriches are flightless, so that's "birds fly. Reptiles crawl on their bellies." out the window.

The point is, reptiles are not birds. I don't think lizards and snakes and turtles belong to one kind.

As for amphibians being modified fish and reptiles being modified amphibians, do some research* on it. Don't just say "I don't think so." or "No." without having the foggiest what you're talking about.

You must have me confused with somebody else. I didn't say anything about amphibians being modified fish.

Again, do some research*. Don't just make stuff up. All animals have a measure of intelligence, and all animals have "abilities". "Spirit", lol, evidence?

Well the difference between us and the animal kingdom is huge. We have the intelligence and the ability to believe in God. We have the ability to understand and come to the knowledge of God.

And animals do have abilities and intelligence. Every kind has a range of abilities. Some birds can fly faster than other birds. Some can't fly at all.

Yes, this orangutan is spear fishing.

*REAL research, not creationist propaganda site research.

Real research? All animals have the ability to learn behaviour. You can train dogs. My cat's got me trained. LOL
 
Upvote 0

ke1985

Senior Member
May 27, 2008
702
26
✟8,472.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It certainly does. Notice we keep adding to our knowledge rather than just replacing knowledge? What do we add from creationism again??

Oh and a few more things I am "tiired" of:

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists saying speciation is impossible and then changing their minds.

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists saying the earth is young, the earth has embedded age, and then the earth is old.

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists changing their mind about how many "kinds" were on the ark.

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists telling me two of every "kind" went on the ark, then changing their mind and making it seven.

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists telling me that evolution doesn't happen and then make up "hyper-evolution."

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists misstating the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists misdefining "Macro-evolution."

I am tired of Bible Christians/Creationists quote-mining and cherry-picking from the data.

(to be continued..)

I have an idea..how about stop posting on a Bible Christian forum! ;):idea:
 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm a christian and I get sick and tired of those things.

But what I get sick and tired of MOST is people trying to tell me what I believe.

You know what one of the most insensitive things ever said to me was?
I was talking to a creationist, one of the corner preachers at the college I went to, and I mentioned my bible had some of the pages come out from heat screwing with the binding. I lost about the first half of Genesis and part of Revelations. When I told him that and that I needed a new Bible, he had the gall to tell me me that I didn't need to bother because I didn't believe it anyways.

Kind is the only term we can use since taxonomy relates things which are unrelated (in my opinion they are unrelated - unrelated by birth/common descent). Kind is a commonly used word. It's found in the dictionary. It's got nothing to do with evolution (common descent).

Kind generally is used to a nonspecific sorting word. That kind of thing. However, if you're trying to use it the way most creationists use it, it means something completely different. Generally 'a God-created animal subgrouping whose descendants cannot turn into anything outside that subgrouping no matter how much time goes by and how many changes there are, and it went on the Ark, and usually isn't seen ever again, and gave rise to all manner of species in said type since the Flood.'

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

MarkT

Veteran
Mar 23, 2004
1,709
26
✟2,404.00
Faith
No prancing around the questions. Answer them. You say you disagree with our interpretations of the evidence, so explain how you disagree with our interpretation of the evidence, tell us how the evidence points to creation and not evolution.

I'm not interested in your evidence. I asked you to use your brains.

And I didn't say your evidence points to creation. That wouldn't make any sense. Your evidence can only point to your conclusion. You are caught in the trap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
Kind is the only term we can use since taxonomy relates things which are unrelated (in my opinion they are unrelated - unrelated by birth/common descent). Kind is a commonly used word. It's found in the dictionary. It's got nothing to do with evolution (common descent).

The point is, reptiles are not birds. I don't think lizards and snakes and turtles belong to one kind.

I never said reptiles are birds, birds are reptilian, though. though. Besides, that wasn't your initial, point, your initial point was that "Birds fly and reptiles crawl on their bellies", WHICH IS WRONG, AS I JUST POINTED OUT WITH THE GLIDING REPTILES AND THE FLIGHTLESS BIRDS. Don't try and change what your point was, because I shot your original point out of the air like the Spitfire did to the Messerschmidt.

If the extent of what you "know" about taxonomy is limited to "Birds fly and reptiles crawl on their bellies", (Which is quite clearly not the case (As with FLIGHTLESS BIRDS and GLIDING REPTILES.) then your opinion on what's related/unrelated, and what you think belong to the same species is laughable, at best.


Well the difference between us and the animal kingdom is huge. We have the intelligence and the ability to believe in God. We have the ability to understand and come to the knowledge of God.
We do have the ability to believe in God, do you know what that stems from, that no other animal has? Imagination! It's where art comes from, literature, belief in the supernatural.

And animals do have abilities and intelligence. Every kind has a range of abilities. Some birds can fly faster than other birds. Some can't fly at all.

Precisely my point, and contradictory to your initial point that intelligence and abilities separate us from the animal kingdom. Intelligence doesn't separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom because animals have intelligence. Abilities don't separate us from the animal kingdom because all animals have abilities. An animal with neither would very soon be a dead animal, to another animal that has the ability and intelligence to eat it.


Real research?
Yes, real research. I'm sorry if the term is alien to you, but it basically means read up on things from multiple (Non propaganda) sources.

All animals have the ability to learn behaviour. You can train dogs. My cat's got me trained. LOL
No one trained the orangutan to fish. You train a dog through conditioning. If it does what you want it to do, you reward it, if it does something wrong you punish it. Yes, you can do that with all animals.

What the orangutan was doing is the result of the orangutan observing people doing it, and learning from watching them. No one trained the orangutan, it taught itself simply by observation.
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
I'm not interested in your evidence. I asked you to use your brains.

And I didn't say your evidence points to creation. That wouldn't make any sense. Your evidence can only point to your conclusion. You are caught in the trap.

If creation were true, the evidence would point to creation. If creation were true, you'd be able to tell me how the evidence points towards creation.

You come up with excuses simply because you can't point out how the evidence points towards creation.

"I'm not interested in your evidence. I asked you to use your brains."

lulz at the irony.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know what one of the most insensitive things ever said to me was?
I was talking to a creationist, one of the corner preachers at the college I went to, and I mentioned my bible had some of the pages come out from heat screwing with the binding. I lost about the first half of Genesis and part of Revelations. When I told him that and that I needed a new Bible, he had the gall to tell me me that I didn't need to bother because I didn't believe it anyways.
Big deal --- despite my profile, I'm supposedly:

  • Omphalos
  • Last Thursdayism
  • YEC
  • Troll
  • Supertroll
  • Spammer
  • Liar
  • Deceiver
  • Freak in a freak show
  • In various stages of mental debilitation
And that's when I agree with about 98% of the conclusions of the scientists here, even to the point of disagreeing with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ!
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
QV please: 1.

You couldn't do that, though, so that apple analogy is pretty redundant.

Still, assuming for a moment that you could, I could simply record it on a camera.

If I missed it the first time, I'd ask you to prove you created the apple from nothing, and it wasn't just a sleight of hand trick, by doing it again. In slow motion. For the camera.

The evidence points to evolution in the same way the video camera would show you taking an apple out of your pocket and putting it in my hand.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

atomweaver

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2006
1,706
181
"Flat Raccoon", Connecticut
✟10,391.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
I have an idea..how about stop posting on a Bible Christian forum! ;):idea:

I have an even better idea. If CF doesn't want non-Christians posting on their forums, they should stop inviting them.


Christian Forums - FAQ: What is the vision and mission of Christian Forums?

Christianforums mission statement said:
Mission:

1. To establish and grow a Christian community that is open to everyone (of all faiths, beliefs, and nations) guided by rules driven by Christian principles which keep in mind:
Gal 5:22-23 GNT But the Spirit produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control. There is no law against such things as these.

2. To provide a meeting place for Christians to fellowship with one another and outreach to non-Christians, keeping in mind:
2 Cor 5:17-18 GNT Anyone who is joined to Christ is a new being; the old is gone, the new has come. All this is done by God, who through Christ changed us from enemies into his friends and gave us the task of making others his friends also.


If non-Christians spook you so much, there are nice, safe, Christians-only sections of CF for people like you...
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Still, assuming for a moment that you could, I could simply record it on a camera.
Well, assuming I didn't vanish after creating the apple, and assuming I would comply with your request, that would certainly serve as evidence that I can create an apple into the palm of your hand; BUT would it be enough to convince your friend that I created the first apple ex nihilo?

Remember: the first apple wasn't videotaped.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Well, assuming I didn't vanish after creating the apple, and assuming I would comply with your request, that would certainly serve as evidence that I can create an apple into the palm of your hand; BUT would it be enough to convince your friend that I created the first apple ex nihilo?

Remember: the first apple wasn't videotaped.


Id be just as impressed if you could use a string to measure 30 cubits, accurate to an infinite number of decimal places.

You could call it your string challenge.

If you could do that I'd just go ahead and believe your other claims, no need for demos
 
Upvote 0
A

Alunyel

Guest
Well, assuming I didn't vanish after creating the apple, and assuming I would comply with your request, that would certainly serve as evidence that I can create an apple into the palm of your hand; BUT would it be enough to convince your friend that I created the first apple ex nihilo?

Remember: the first apple wasn't videotaped.

The thing is, you're making assumptions.

You're assuming that apples can be created from nothing.

Asking that is like me asking you to prove that a perfectly normal tree used to be made out of metal. A trees can't be made from metal, then become wood, and apples can't be created from nothing, no matter how hard you try. The impossible can't have evidence to show that it happened, because it's impossible.

Assuming apples can be created from nothing is like assuming a tree can start life being made from metal, then become wood later on.

Both are impossible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The point is, reptiles are not birds. I don't think lizards and snakes and turtles belong to one kind.
Why not? They share all the characteristics we would expect them to share if they were related, and there exists ample fossil evidence documenting their evolution from a common ancestor.

Well the difference between us and the animal kingdom is huge. We have the intelligence and the ability to believe in God. We have the ability to understand and come to the knowledge of God.

And animals do have abilities and intelligence. Every kind has a range of abilities. Some birds can fly faster than other birds. Some can't fly at all.
Does that make birds separate from the animal kingdom? No. It gives them a unique place, but they, like us, are ultimately part of the kingdom.

Real research? All animals have the ability to learn behaviour. You can train dogs. My cat's got me trained. LOL
The point is that no one trained them. There are chimps that know how to fashion spears to catch bugs. Dolphins and other cetaceans have a complex language, compete with unique names for each individual.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Kind is the only term we can use since taxonomy relates things which are unrelated (in my opinion they are unrelated - unrelated by birth/common descent). Kind is a commonly used word. It's found in the dictionary. It's got nothing to do with evolution (common descent).



The point is, reptiles are not birds. I don't think lizards and snakes and turtles belong to one kind.



You must have me confused with somebody else. I didn't say anything about amphibians being modified fish.



Well the difference between us and the animal kingdom is huge. We have the intelligence and the ability to believe in God. We have the ability to understand and come to the knowledge of God.

And animals do have abilities and intelligence. Every kind has a range of abilities. Some birds can fly faster than other birds. Some can't fly at all.



Real research? All animals have the ability to learn behaviour. You can train dogs. My cat's got me trained. LOL




"Kind" is a term that is completely worthless in discussing biology.
You cant define it, nobody can. Its just a catch all sort of word that for casual conversation.


Reptiles are not birds. But, what would you call an animal that had a long jointed tail like a dinosaur, feathers, teeth, and wings? Seriously, if you had it living, right in front of you, what would you call it? Birds dont have teeth, cant be a bird. Reptiles dont have feathers, cant be a reptile.

Reptiles of TODAY dont have feathers, birds of today dont have teeth. At one time they did.


Lizards and snakes are not the same "kind"? See how useless the word is?
There are legless lizards that move like a snake. There are snakes with tiny hind legs. The anatomy is so close that they are usually considered to be a "superorder", indicating they are not different enough to have seperate orders. It doesnt much matter what you "think"... you dont know enough to have a meaningful opinion.

"real" reserach is hard work, and takes a lot of time. quote mining creo sites is about as far f rom reserach as you can get. If you did some real study you would soon be embarassed at some of the things you are saying now.


Anyway, what name would you give to an animal that didnt fly or have wings, has teeth, and feathers?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Kind" is a term that is completely worthless in discussing biology.
You cant define it, nobody can. Its just a catch all sort of word that for casual conversation.
Kind = incipient.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,060
51,500
Guam
✟4,907,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Anyway, what name would you give to an animal that didnt fly or have wings, has teeth, and feathers?
Has it occurred to you that a flying squirrel doesn't fly?

Yet it is still called a 'flying squirrel' --- (unless they've recently changed it).

This was never corrected --- (as far as I know).

Same for 'flying fish' --- they don't 'fly' --- they 'soar' --- or 'glide' --- or something.

Same for Plu... okay ... skip that one.

(That one was corrected practically overnight.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A

Alunyel

Guest
Has it occurred to you that a flying squirrel doesn't fly?

Yet it is still called a 'flying squirrel' --- (unless they've recently changed it).

This was never corrected --- (as far as I know).

Same for 'flying fish' --- they don't 'fly' --- they 'soar' --- or 'glide' --- or something.

Same for Plu... okay ... skip that one.

(That one was corrected practically overnight.)


"Flying squirrel" is its common name. "Pteromyini" is its scientific name.

"Flying snakes" and "flying lizards" are common names, too, "Flying snakes" are actually called "Chrysopelea", whereas "flying lizards" are of the "Draco" genus.

Flying Fish are called "Exocoetidae".

They're all only "still called" flying creatures as their common names. Their scientific names don't even hint at powered flight.
 
Upvote 0