Creation vs. Evolution

[Silent Hunter]

I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it.

"I accept that mules, donkeys, horses... would have had a common ancestor. A common ancestor of the "horse" kind, that is. You know, horsey-like, with a big head, hooves, four legs, long horsehair tail, likes to run, eats all the horseradishes in your garden. The "horse" kind. Mules and donkeys are look pretty horsey. Zebras too, for that matter. I'm sure you get the idea. It may seem a little loose, but it's hard to describe in precise detail all the possible combinations that horse genes can be expressed. Let's go with the common sense impression."

Yeah, because that contradicts what I said.

You said:

Kind isn't used to describe all birds. All birds aren't one kind.

So, yeah, it absolutely does.

I You're a moron.

I know you are but what am I?

Nope. Clear and rock-solid. You've been shown it numerous times.

Nope. Nebulous as a cloud of gas. You've been shown numerous times.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Silent one, although I used the term "loose" it was in the sense that anyone who isn't a complete dummy can figure out a "horse" kind. It runs and whinnies and could make a guest appearance on "My Little Pony."

:liberals: If it flies its a bird?

Oh, by the way, bats are a kind of bird. You see, the Hebrews classified the major types by movement and habitat. Dolphins and lobster are fish. Bats and locusts are birds.

Bats aren't birds. Locusts aren't birds either. So, if it flies, it's a bird. I'm traveling by bird (airplane) to Nashville later today.

It's not hard to figure out even for someone who has only been raised with the modern system where combinations of warm bloodedness, hair, feathers, and eggs are counted. Except when those rules have their exceptions of course.

And why creationwiki admits to the "kind" problem.

 

[Stripe]

You said:So, yeah, it absolutely does.I know you are but what am I? Nope. Nebulous as a cloud of gas. You've been shown numerous times.

:rotfl:

Silent Munter thinks horses are birds.

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Stripe, let us know when you creationists can all agree on the definition of a "kind" and the demarcation between each.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, let us know when you creationists can all agree on the definition of a "kind" and the demarcation between each.

Darwinists hate reading.

They also think that disagreement among people is a good reason to discount everything they do not like.

 

[Silent Hunter]

They also thing that disagreement among people is a good reason to discount everything they do not like.

One would wonder why it is, then, that creationists think using that kind of argument is somehow persuasive. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

One would wonder why it is, then, that creationists think using that kind of argument is somehow persuasive. :idunno:

:darwinsm:

:mock: Darwinists.

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

 

[Rosenritter]

:liberals: If it flies its a bird?Bats aren't birds. Locusts aren't birds either. So, if it flies, it's a bird. I'm traveling by bird (airplane) to Nashville later today.And why creationwiki admits to the "kind" problem.

Sorry to break this to you, but the flying and swimming style of classification definition predates yours by almost 6000 years. Your arrogance is making you stupid.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sorry to break this to you, but the flying and swimming style of classification definition predates yours by almost 6000 years.

So we should "classify" animals the same way as bronze age nomadic sheep herders? I guess "common sense" isn't a worthwhile virtue.

Your arrogance is making you stupid.

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Rosenritter. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress.

 

[Tyrathca]

How deep do creationists models predict fossils to be possible?

 

[Stripe]

How many rabbit trails will the Darwinists create to cover their embarrassment?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Rosenritter]

One would wonder why it is, then, that creationists think using that kind of argument is somehow persuasive. :idunno:

One creationist says "the world is huge" and the next says "it's a small world after all.' Wow, they sure contradict each other, don't they? If you read for content and comprehension you'd see that Stripe and I weren't talking at cross-purposes. What you are doing is called "trolling." Try dealing with content.

 

[Rosenritter]

So we should "classify" animals the same way as bronze age nomadic sheep herders? I guess "common sense" isn't a worthwhile virtue.Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Rosenritter. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fortress.

Classification systems work within the scope for which they are intended. In that system, birds fly in the air, fish swim in the sea, beasts creep on the land. Not terribly difficult. It's not wrong, it's just different than what your mind was first exposed to.

It's like how I saw someone here criticizing "geocentric" without understanding that the point that is chosen for "zero" for mathematical purposes is merely a manner of convenience. When you say "Officer, I was going 55 miles per hour" I am using a geocentric model. When he replies back and says "You were traveling at FIVE miles per hour!" he is also using a geocentric model (and implying that you were really drunk.) The geocentric model also works for astronomy too, but why the criticism I observed on this thread? I'd postulate arrogant ignorance.

Hunter, you may be an troll, but I assume you have intelligence. Don't waste thread space on attacks like "bats are not birds." I expect that from morons, not intelligent trolls.

P.S. You will learn the power of the Force.

 

[Rosenritter]

Stripe, let us know when you creationists can all agree on the definition of a "kind" and the demarcation between each.

Why? What I mean is, what practical application does your demand for "kind" require? Are you taking up biblical studies now?

 

[Rosenritter]

Speaking of a good laugh, how about you explain how "continental drift ... ocean flow friction and energy dissipation" could make the moon recede more slowly. :chuckle:

That's the part that confused me.

 

[gcthomas]

That's the part that confused me.

Yeah, I could tell. But that didn't stop either of you arguing the case for something you didn't understand. And I gave as much theory as I thought you could follow, yet even that turned out to much beyond your capacities.

Why don't you do some research on the matter and get back with some questions? I am on my summer break from physics teaching, and I think you ought to do some work for yourself.

Why you ever think you understand more about physics than a physicist, I'll never know. Dunning and Kruger have an idea, I suspect.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yeah, I could tell. But that didn't stop either of you arguing the case for something you didn't understand. And I gave as much theory as I thought you could follow, yet even that turned out to much beyond your capacities.

Why don't you do some research on the matter and get back with some questions? I am on my summer break from physics teaching, and I think you ought to do some work for yourself.

Why you ever think you understand more about physics than a physicist, I'll never know. Dunning and Kruger have an idea, I suspect.

GcThomas, where was I arguing in that conversation? I was absent during that time and asked for clarification afterwards. But if you would like to explain go ahead.

 

[gcthomas]

Sorry - mixed you up with 6Days.

But if you want to find out about the recession of the Moon, search for "secular acceleration of the Moon"

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry - mixed you up with 6Days.

But if you want to find out about the recession of the Moon, search for "secular acceleration of the Moon"

Yeah. Us creationists all look alike. Peace.

 

[Rosenritter]

How deep do creationists models predict fossils to be possible?

As far down as you find sedimentary rock I expect.