Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[7djengo7]

Well if you think it might be a hoax, why don't you suss it out? Should be good for a laugh at least!

If what might be a hoax?

Does it make you laugh that you are forced to stonewall against the question I asked you:

Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by User Name is what User Name claims it is?

 

[User Name]

Why should anybody believe that the provenance of something in a picture handed out by User Name is what User Name claims it is?

What picture?

 

[7djengo7]

What picture?

This picture, for instance:

 

[7djengo7]

Stuu: So kittens don't necessarily come from cats?

Are you asking whether cats necessarily give birth to kittens? If you're asking that, the answer is NO. In fact, spayed cats necessarily do not give birth to kittens.

Are you asking whether every kitten was born to a cat? If you're asking that, the answer is YES.

If Similarities do NOT ipso facto indicate a descendant relationship,

They do not. For instance, two Ford Broncos have many similarities between one another, but they are automobiles, and automobiles do not have ancestor/descendant, nor parent/offspring relationships.

then there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all.

Well, as Right Divider pointed out already, you have handed us a non sequitur. The fact that similarities do NOT ipso facto entail a descendant relationship does NOT entail that "there is no need for offspring to look like their parents at all".

So, you lose again.

 

[Stuu]

Are you asking whether every kitten was born to a cat? If you're asking that, the answer is YES.

I appreciate you confirming that this is indeed, in your opinion, a belief of those who are adherents to creationism.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I appreciate you confirming that this is indeed, in your opinion, a belief of those who are adherents to creationism.

Stuart

I appreciate your incompetence to answer the questions I ask you, and your persistent willingness to make a fool of yourself by irrationally reacting to those questions, despite your incompetence to answer them.

Only a fool is willing to deny that every kitten was born to a cat, but you are pleased to (at least) pretend to deny that every kitten was born to a cat.

Do you have any evidence that at least one kitten was not born to a cat? Please share it. Thanks.

 

[Stuu]

Do you have any evidence that at least one kitten was not born to a cat?

I would say all the evidence would be pretty consistently clear that no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, and no cat produced a non-kitten. Is this in some doubt, would you say?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

I would say all the evidence would be pretty consistently clear that no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, and no cat produced a non-kitten. Is this in some doubt, would you say?

It's consistent with the created kind view... evolution says that something else can happen. Evolution claims that ALL "kinds" descended from a single "kind"... and that is scientifically nonsense.

 

[Stuu]

It's consistent with the created kind view... evolution says that something else can happen.

The Judeo-christian scriptures are consistent with the kind of allegorical writing produced by ignorant Bronze Age inhabitants of the ancient Middle East. But you would claim 'something else' happened, right?

Evolution claims that ALL "kinds" descended from a single "kind"... and that is scientifically nonsense.

Common descent is, in the parlance of ToL, proved beyond any doubt. The endogenous retroviruses have no other explanation, unless you want to invoke a deceptive creator. The fossils are patchy but distinctly patterned across the whole gamut, and there are enough examples of high-quality sequences to demonstrate the principle, and when you count accumulated changes in DNA in the same coding gene in different species you get a hierarchical tree of life from the differences. Just one of those three lines of evidence would be enough to make the conclusion. With the three lines agreeing on the same tree of life independently, it would be scientific nonsense to deny it.

Do you have an evidence-based reason, going backwards in time, for stopping the evolution you believe in at about 4000 years ago? What stops that same pattern carrying on into the past before then?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

The Judeo-christian scriptures are consistent with the kind of allegorical writing produced by ignorant Bronze Age inhabitants of the ancient Middle East. But you would claim 'something else' happened, right?

Your arrogance and stupidity are just about equal and both pretty much off the charts.

Common descent is, in the parlance of ToL, proved beyond any doubt.

Common descent from a single common ancestor.... NOPE.

The endogenous retroviruses have no other explanation, unless you want to invoke a deceptive creator.

We already know how much you hate God. No need to make a fool out of yourself.

The fossils are patchy but distinctly patterned across the whole gamut, and there are enough examples of high-quality sequences to demonstrate the principle, and when you count accumulated changes in DNA in the same coding gene in different species you get a hierarchical tree of life from the differences.

The best explanation for the fossil record is a global catastrophic flood that rabidly buried lots of dead plants and animals. Fossils are not the normal end of dead things. They typically just disintegrate.

Just one of those three lines of evidence would be enough to make the conclusion. With the three lines agreeing on the same tree of life independently, it would be scientific nonsense to deny it.

Pure fantasy.

Do you have an evidence-based reason, going backwards in time, for stopping the evolution you believe in at about 4000 years ago? What stops that same pattern carrying on into the past before then?

Strawman...

 

[7djengo7]

I would say all the evidence would be pretty consistently clear

Wait a second, there. Do you mean to suggest that something could be BOTH evidence AND not clear? And, do you mean to suggest that evidence could be inconsistent with evidence?

that no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, and no cat produced a non-kitten. Is this in some doubt, would you say?

I, for one, do not doubt that no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, for it is true. Nor do I doubt that no cat ever gave birth to a non-kitten, for it is true. Do you doubt those truths?

Remember, it was you who called these truths my "opinion" and "a belief of those who are adherents to creationism":

I appreciate you confirming that this is indeed, in your opinion, a belief of those who are adherents to creationism.

Do you not agree with "those who are adherents to creationism" that no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, and that no cat ever gave birth to a non-kitten? If you do, then the truth that no cat ever gave birth to a non-kitten, and no kitten was ever born to a non-cat, is believed by more than just exclusively "those who are adherents to creationism".

 

[ok doser]

i had a cat 35 years ago that was demon spawned, not born a kitten from a cat, but sprung full-grown from the depths of hell.

I still carry some scars from that damned cat

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: The Judeo-christian scriptures are consistent with the kind of allegorical writing produced by ignorant Bronze Age inhabitants of the ancient Middle East. But you would claim 'something else' happened, right?

Your arrogance and stupidity are just about equal and both pretty much off the charts.

No response then.

Stuu: The endogenous retroviruses have no other explanation, unless you want to invoke a deceptive creator.

We already know how much you hate God. No need to make a fool out of yourself.

Only an ad hominem response on ERVs then.

The best explanation for the fossil record is a global catastrophic flood that rabidly buried lots of dead plants and animals.

And that flood had the magical property of sorting fossils into layers not according to principles of hydrology but according to apparent sequences of changes in the anatomy of similar animals. A miracle!

Fossils are not the normal end of dead things. They typically just disintegrate.

Very true. It's amazing that we have as many well-resolved lineages as we do.

Stuu: Just one of those three lines of evidence would be enough to make the conclusion. With the three lines agreeing on the same tree of life independently, it would be scientific nonsense to deny it.

Pure fantasy.

No answer then on the agreement on common ancestry from three independent lines of evidence.

Stuu: Do you have an evidence-based reason, going backwards in time, for stopping the evolution you believe in at about 4000 years ago? What stops that same pattern carrying on into the past before then?

Strawman...

From the point of view of mindless arguing, I would encourage you to keep posting like this. Descending to personal attack in lieu of evidence and logic is a concession that creationism has no counter-arguments. On the other hand, for my sake, could you please put up a better effort on behalf of creationism because I want to know when I am wrong.

Except on the topic of the rarity of fossils, where you are quite right.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Do you doubt those truths?

I have no doubts myself at all that, notwithstanding the evidence of ok doser's scars, cats give birth to kittens exclusively, as much as kittens are born of only cats.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I have no doubts myself at all that...cats give birth to kittens exclusively, as much as kittens are born of only cats.

OK. And what you're saying you have no doubts about, yourself, is the same thing you said is my "opinion", and "a belief of those who are adherents to creationism":

I appreciate you confirming that this is indeed, in your opinion, a belief of those who are adherents to creationism.

So, now that you've said that you opine and believe the same thing as I, and others of "those who are adherents to creationism", I ask you: what (if anything) were you driving at by pointing out that I, and others of "those who are adherents to creationism", opine and believe it?

 

[Right Divider]

Stuu: The Judeo-christian scriptures are consistent with the kind of allegorical writing produced by ignorant Bronze Age inhabitants of the ancient Middle East. But you would claim 'something else' happened, right?

No response then.

I did respond.... did you not read it again?

Man has been highly intelligent from his creation. That you think that they were not simply shows your own massive stupidity. The idea of stone age men that could only grunt is a silly evolutionary myth.

Stuu: The endogenous retroviruses have no other explanation, unless you want to invoke a deceptive creator.

Only an ad hominem response on ERVs then.

Just more distractions and rabbit trails on your part.... sorry... not biting.

And that flood had the magical property of sorting fossils into layers not according to principles of hydrology but according to apparent sequences of changes in the anatomy of similar animals. A miracle!

I see that you know nothing about liquefaction or water lenses. The "apparent sequences of changes in the anatomy of similar animals" is in your head.

Very true. It's amazing that we have as many well-resolved lineages as we do.

It's not amazing... it's evidence that they got there during a recent catastrophe called the global flood. Long ages of dead things rarely create ANY fossils.

The "well-resolved lineages" is all in your head.

Stuu: Just one of those three lines of evidence would be enough to make the conclusion. With the three lines agreeing on the same tree of life independently, it would be scientific nonsense to deny it.

No answer then on the agreement on common ancestry from three independent lines of evidence.

Myth.

Stuu: Do you have an evidence-based reason, going backwards in time, for stopping the evolution you believe in at about 4000 years ago? What stops that same pattern carrying on into the past before then?

From the point of view of mindless arguing, I would encourage you to keep posting like this. Descending to personal attack in lieu of evidence and logic is a concession that creationism has no counter-arguments. On the other hand, for my sake, could you please put up a better effort on behalf of creationism because I want to know when I am wrong.

Nice try... NOT.

Except on the topic of the rarity of fossils, where you are quite right.

Who said fossils are rare? Like I said, there are tons of fossils which confirms the flood account of their creation. Fossils are formed ONLY under certain types of conditions. Conditions that do NOT occur very often at all, except during events like a catastrophic global flood.

 

[Stuu]

Man has been highly intelligent from his creation. That you think that they were not simply shows your own massive stupidity. The idea of stone age men that could only grunt is a silly evolutionary myth.

The Judeo-christian scriptures were started in the Second Millenium BCE. That's in the Bronze Age, which is what I wrote. The stone age, which I didn't mention at all, ended a thousand years before the advent of that writing, and began 3.4 million years earlier.

You might also spot, if you care to look back, that I wrote 'ignorant', which according to Google means lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. It does not mean lacking intelligence.

I see that you know nothing about liquefaction or water lenses. The "apparent sequences of changes in the anatomy of similar animals" is in your head.

Living in an earthquake-prone country as I do, I am aware of what liquefaction is. What is a water lens?

Stuu: Very true. It's amazing that we have as many well-resolved lineages as we do.

It's not amazing... it's evidence that they got there during a recent catastrophe called the global flood. Long ages of dead things rarely create ANY fossils.

I didn't follow any of that. Lineages of fossils are evidence that there was a recent flood? How does that work? What are long ages of dead things?

The "well-resolved lineages" is all in your head.

These images are just a small selection of the sequence of fossil remains of horse ancestors. The sequence is much more than just these four.

Here you can find a nice ASCII diagram of horse evolution. It's not a linear sequence, but has many branches.

I would suggest to you that your flood model does not explain why animals went extinct before others appeared in dated strata. Even if you wish to deny the timescale of radioisotope dating, you haven't yet denied that it acts like a clock which can put layers into a sequence like the one on the cited page, which it does.

Like I said, there are tons of fossils which confirms the flood account of their creation. Fossils are formed ONLY under certain types of conditions.

Yes indeed. Flooding with silt is a good way of attempting to make fossils. The hominid fossils mentioned above are rare because forests are not good at making fossils. They are quite acidic environments.

Conditions that do NOT occur very often at all, except during events like a catastrophic global flood.

But floods that preserve fossils would not need to be global, would they?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

The Judeo-christian scriptures were started in the Second Millenium BCE. That's in the Bronze Age, which is what I wrote. The stone age, which I didn't mention at all, ended a thousand years before the advent of that writing, and began 3.4 million years earlier.

Always pushing the millions of years....

You might also spot, if you care to look back, that I wrote 'ignorant', which according to Google means lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. It does not mean lacking intelligence.

In what way were they "ignorant"?

Living in an earthquake-prone country as I do, I am aware of what liquefaction is. What is a water lens?

If you took some time to look into the hydro-plate theory, you'd know.

Stuu: Very true. It's amazing that we have as many well-resolved lineages as we do.

I didn't follow any of that. Lineages of fossils are evidence that there was a recent flood? How does that work? What are long ages of dead things?

It's trying impossible to discuss things with someone as dumb at you. That's not a "personal insult", it's fact.

The reason that there are many fossils is the global flood. Fossils rarely form today by natural processes that we can see (you know, real science, observation, etc.).

These images are just a small selection of the sequence of fossil remains of horse ancestors. The sequence is much more than just these four.

Subjective interpretation is no match for scientific evidence.

I would suggest to you that your flood model does not explain why animals went extinct before others appeared in dated strata.

Continue to push your fake "dating" methods will get you nowhere.

Even if you wish to deny the timescale of radioisotope dating, you haven't yet denied that it acts like a clock which can put layers into a sequence like the one on the cited page, which it does.

The laying to strata does NOT support long ages. It supports catastrophic burial by water etc... Please study the hydro-plate theory for more information.

Yes indeed. Flooding with silt is a good way of attempting to make fossils. The hominid fossils mentioned above are rare because forests are not good at making fossils. They are quite acidic environments.

Forest are not the only places that are "not good at making fossils".

But floods that preserve fossils would not need to be global, would they?

They don't need to be, but the global flood is why we see certain features globally.

 

[Stuu]

Always pushing the millions of years....

The earth has been around for 4550 millions of years according to radioisotope dating of the solar system. There are many millions to be pushed.

In what way were [Bronze Age people] "ignorant"?

Really? You are asking me what ancient people didn't know? Well, creation science for one example. Lucky them. But, also anything of modern science. How about ignorant of germ theory and dentistry? You would die of infected teeth. Or ignorant of cosmology, and hence the non-science of Genesis. Some Bronze Age cultures were more ignorant than others.

Stuu: Living in an earthquake-prone country as I do, I am aware of what liquefaction is. What is a water lens?

If you took some time to look into the hydro-plate theory, you'd know.

Can you describe to me what a water lens is, and how it explains the apparent ordering of fossils?

It's trying impossible to discuss things with someone as dumb at you. That's not a "personal insult", it's fact.

It's an alt-fact.

The reason that there are many fossils is the global flood. Fossils rarely form today by natural processes that we can see (you know, real science, observation, etc.).

How long do you imagine it takes or fossils to form? Are you saying that there are no remains of living organisms being buried and preserved in sediments today?

Subjective interpretation is no match for scientific evidence.

I agree. Guests here will have noticed that, on the topic of horse evolution, you have not matched scientific evidence in your subjective interpretation.

Continue to push your fake "dating" methods will get you nowhere.

Guests here will have noticed that, on the topic of radioisotope dating, you have not matched scientific evidence in your subjective interpretation.

Forest are not the only places that are "not good at making fossils".

I agree. What would be your second example on that list?

Stuu: But floods that preserve fossils would not need to be global, would they?

They don't need to be, but the global flood is why we see certain features globally.

And what 'certain features' do you find most convincing in regards to a global flood?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

The earth has been around for 4550 millions of years according to radioisotope dating of the solar system. There are many millions to be pushed.

Radiometric dating is fake news.

Really? You are asking me what ancient people didn't know? Well, creation science for one example. Lucky them. But, also anything of modern science. How about ignorant of germ theory and dentistry? You would die of infected teeth. Or ignorant of cosmology, and hence the non-science of Genesis. Some Bronze Age cultures were more ignorant than others.

We are still ignorant of cosmology if we simply go by what atheists tell us. It's amazing the arrogance of the atheist scientist.

Stuu: Living in an earthquake-prone country as I do, I am aware of what liquefaction is. What is a water lens?

Can you describe to me what a water lens is, and how it explains the apparent ordering of fossils?

No, I will not. Go read about it for yourself: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook
It's all in that book that you appear to have no knowledge of.

How long do you imagine it takes or fossils to form? Are you saying that there are no remains of living organisms being buried and preserved in sediments today?

I'm saying that it's exceedingly rare under the normal circumstances that we see today.

I agree. Guests here will have noticed that, on the topic of horse evolution, you have not matched scientific evidence in your subjective interpretation.

:rotfl:

Guests here will have noticed that, on the topic of radioisotope dating, you have not matched scientific evidence in your subjective interpretation.

That's nonsense. Apparently you have no grasp of science whatsoever. The ORIGIN of things determines that they can tell us. Your origin story for the radioactive elements is HIGHLY subjective and unprovable. The hydro-plate theories origin of the radioactive elements conforms to actual science. The kind that agrees with the laws of physics and is testable.

I agree. What would be your second example on that list?

Stuu: But floods that preserve fossils would not need to be global, would they?

Fossils only form under extreme conditions like a global flood.

And what 'certain features' do you find most convincing in regards to a global flood?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook