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.
This just in - scientists disagree about certain things.. All I am saying is that some evolutionisit have questioned some of the conclusions of other evolutionists.
Now that you have equated "kind" and "species," perhaps you are now finally ready to answer my question. Are panthers all one kind, or are each of the various panthers (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) separate kinds?
Go back to my definition. Can they breed and produce offspring. Now you can answer for your self.
Repost this in English, please. Are you typing with your tongue?
And now you've moved the goalpost.<<
If you are trying to get a postion with the typo police, you will be able to advance rapidly by pointing out my typo.
If what you say is true - that kinds are animals that can interbreed, and we never see one kind of animal turning into another kind - it shouldn't matter the reason that certain animals can't interbreed any longer.<<
Yes it edoe matter.
If they're that way for any reason, they're not the same kind anymore, because they can't interbreed, by the very definition that you've set up.
That is why the reason they can't mate is important. Is it biological or are they troy a different swpecies. Now tell me of a species that can no longer mate and why they can't.
We can go with yours. I like it, because it's so easy to poke holes through.
Wonderful. Get your sharpest stick and start poking.
So Chihuahuas and Great Danes are different kinds?
If you are trying to get a postion with the typo police, you will be able to advance rapidly by pointing out my typo.
Is it biological or are they troy a different swpecies
No. You stated that two animals are a different kind when they can't interbreed. Chihuahuas and Great Dane's cannot interbreed. Ergo, they must not be the same kind. Your criteria has been met. If you have some extra criteria, then add it on yourself.Now tell me of a species that can no longer mate and why they can't.
Yes it edoe matter.
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.
Now that you have equated "kind" and "species," perhaps you are now finally ready to answer my question. Are panthers all one kind, or are each of the various panthers (lion, tiger, jaguar, leopard) separate kinds?
Go back to my definition. Can they breed and produce offspring. Now you can answer for your self.
We can believe whatever we want. The problem is proving what we say. Can youo do that?
Congratulation, you may have one thing right.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very ecent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.
By picking up a Bible and reading It.Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?
Bloxer, you asked this question:You're joking of course, the Bible is full of death, destruction and a lot of bad advice, it's a catalogue of life at a time when people knew very little about the world they lived in and believed whatever others told them, they believed everything they didn't understand was caused either by magic or Gods.
The Bible is for some people to cherry pick the parts that give them a nice warm glow and for con men to make money,
the first should be helped and the second should be locked up.
I answered with this:Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?
Perhaps I should have been more specific.By picking up a Bible and reading It.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And while I'm waiting to die, and someone on a Christian website asks this:... far better to just live with the fact that one day you are going to die and it will all be over,
no life no God, nothing.
Okay if I answer it?Could you please tell me how anyone would even begin to believe in creationism if they had not been systematically indoctrinated into believing it?
I didn't though, did I?Just as long as you don't just make something up,
Let's see if that's true, shall we?You are just trying to confirm one lie with another,
Then it's not a lie, and I'm not "confirming one lie with another," am I?the Bible is just a compilation of old writings from a time when they believed things you would not expect children to believe today.
I have a feeling if they were alive today, and knew science inside and out, they would disagree with you.They didn't know it was lie because they knew no better...
Fine ... I choose not to believe a lie.... but you should, you know it's a lie you just chose not to believe it.
Yes I messed that up a little and you jumped on it because that's how you live your life with diversion and semantics.
This just in - scientists disagree about certain things.
I'm curious, frogman2x. You seem to have some implicit assumption about what it would take, mating-wise, for two species not to be considered different kinds. I don't think a human and a chimp can mate (I don't actually know).
Do you know why they can't mate, if that's the case? I don't, not off the top of my head anyway. But if they can't mate, and they are different kinds, then whatever the reason is that they can't mate must be enough to distinguish one kind from another, isn't that so?
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?