It's a joke. I don't assume most people are as dense as you.
Anyway, what do you define as a kind? Are all cats the same kind? Birds? Fish?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It can be proven and that is more than anything the ToE preaches.
I have no idea. It is irrelevant. If they only produce other microbes, that is not evidence of evolution.
When you learn to quote correctly, you will discover it is not in the Bible. What do they call people who only quote part of a sentence?
The main problem is that most evolutionists recognize there are no transitional fossils.
"The know fossil record fails to documnt a single example of phyletic evolution accompolishing a morphologic transition...---Stephen M. Stanly, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, p39.
If evolution was true, the great majority, at least 80%, would be transitional. Even if you can prove a handful are transional, that still would not support evolution.
kermit
What do they call people who only quote part of a sentence?
It's a joke. I don't assume most people are as dense as you.
Anyway, what do you define as a kind? Are all cats the same kind? Birds? Fish?
Have you noticed when someone can't discuss the topic intelligently, they becvome insulting? You remind me of the playground in the third grade.
A kind is two that can mate and produce offspring.
Also, you've got a lot of nerve. This is an example of the very thing you accused me of.
Proessional apologists for Creationism (& ID).
The practice of taking a part of a sentence out of context is called quote mining (hence the brackets around lasthero's incomplete quote).And is the only form of "research" that comes out of places like Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. Lasthero's quote is not intended to fool anyone, but rather to point out that quote mining is practiced mainly to make someone say the opposite of what the full quote says.It is not. Quote mining is posting a statement that one hopes will reinforce what they beleive. But it is never posting a partial statement. Posting a partial statgement is deceptive and dishonest.
A kind is two that can mate and produce offspring.
Now give your definition of kind.
You shoul know better than that but maybe that was just a little scarcism.
That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding ...
If he adds ... after the statement then that is legitimate. Plus he seems to think only creationists quote mine.
I have a problem with theories like this. If you believe that, why are you here at all? To feel smug?Because their brains were systematically damaged while they were young.
Garbage in garbage out.
That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding ...
You shoul know better than that but maybe that was just a little scarcism.
It is not. Quote mining is posting a statementthat one hopes will reinforce what they believe. But it is never postinga partial statement.Posting a partial statement is deceptive and dishonest.
That simply is not true. When those organizations post comments from evolutionists, they ALWAYS give the reference so it can be checked....
...and they NEVER post a partial statement without adding "..."
If he adds ... after the statement then that is legitimate. Plus he seems to think only creationists quote mine.
So, a "kind" is a species?
Then if I show you observed speciation in nature and in the lab, will that prove that kinds can evolve?
My quote isn't the topic.
So if a population of animals changed to the point that some of them can't interbreed, that's a new kind?
I have a problem with theories like this. If you believe that, why are you here at all? To feel smug?
Yes
If you can prove it, I will have to accept it. You also must prove that speciation is capable of a spcies becoming a different one and the reason they can no longer mate.
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists
By the way, here's a page where you can find may examples of the thing you said never happens. Some even make up quotes whole clothe.
But you won't actually look, will you?
I have just made i a part of the discussion but I can understand why you want to avoid addressing what Isais.
No. There are several reasons why some who could mate no longer can.
We can go with yours. I like it, because it's so easy to poke holes through.Until you give me your definition of "kind" I will not continue this disicussion.
Actually, no. You made a statement - a broad, sweeping statement that you didn't spend a moment researching, but a statement nonetheless.No. You made a statgement back it up.
Maybe a little. But I stand by my claim that quote mining is the only "research"that we ever see come out of professional Creationism apologist organizations.
You are, of course, free to imitate Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass, and redefine a word however you like. But my description of quote mining is the accepted one
Not always, but often enough that I'll give you that. But they know that the faithful will simply trust them not to be lying and never check it out.That shoe fits the evolutionist also. Have you ever checked out the evidence presented for whaal evolution? Have you eve checked out the biological evidence for natural selection?
When the "evil atheist evolutionists" check out the source of the quote, they inevitably discover that in context the author is not doubting evolution in general, but only some minor point of someone else's proposed mechanism, or that the quote is a hypothetical objection to their own proposed mechanism that they immediately demolish. And you are correct that this practice is "deceptive and dishonest."
I have never said or suggested the evolutionists is doubting evolution. All I am saying is that some evolutionisit have questioned some of the conclusions of other evolutionists. What I have ound to be generally true is the the evolutionist say it happened but never produce the biology that makes it possible. IMO, that is also deceptive and dishonest. So look at your own house b efor you start throwing rocks at mine.
One adds the elipsis mark (...) at the point at which the missing material would go, whether it is at the beginning, middle or end. And lasthero does add it at the beginning, since the full verse reads "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' "<<
Yes he does and I just gave him credit for doing it right
He does not claim that only creationists mine quotes. But they do it so blatently and unapologetically.
The he should produce the evidence of accusing them of it. Also, him considering something wrong or deceptgive doe snot make it so. Leet him quit hiding behind his rhetoric and be specific.
There is one poster here who continues to use a mined quote in his signature tag, despite having been advised that, as he quotes it and uses it, he is lying about the original author. The full quote and context have been quoted to him several times, and he refuses to back down from the practice because he sees the apologist websites that he frequents do the same thing. That is the main reason lasthero added the mined verse to his signature.
If he has only done it once, like I did to him, that would be fine, but he coninues to do it.
And that's fine with me. IMO, it makes him look foolish but me thinking something is foolish does not make it foolish, but there is no excuse for being rude and insulting. That is a sign of immaturity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?