Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you ask these questions? If an animal has the capability to reproduce after their own kind, then they are obviously of the same kind. If you know the answer, don't bother asking me the question. I say you are wrong. You can take it or leave it. I'm sure you are going to leave it, so enjoy yourself.
Sorry but you are going to have to be more specific. Is a cat and a lion the same 'kind'?
What about a dog and a wolf?
[b]A loss of genetic information when dogs breed can not change the dog into a cat or some other kind of animal.
It couldn't change the dog into some other currently existing kind of animal, because all animals have unique inform ...[text shortened]... ou know anything about genetics or are you just making this all up as per your usual?[/b]
The Instructor
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn the past, after long debate, RJ has decided that tigers and lions are "of the same kind". (As they can reproduce)
[b]Sorry but you are going to have to be more specific. Is a cat and a lion the same 'kind'?
What about a dog and a wolf?
He is of course an expert in his field.
An expert being an old (ex) big drip (spurt)
And his field is an exceptionally small muddy one. (More of a backyard really)
Originally posted by RJHindsNew genetic 'information' has been shown to have been added by mutations. Look up 'Lenski ecoli experiment'.
By kind, I mean a dog, cat, human, etc. A dog never changes to a cat or a human. They reproduce after their own kind. That is a law of God.
A loss of genetic information when dogs breed can not change the dog into a cat or some other kind of animal. That could only result in a variation of the dog, if it lives.
New genetic information has never been ...[text shortened]... and my mothers chromosomes, which are naturally selected during reproduction.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsBecause you made a claim about 'kinds' and I need to know what you mean by 'kind' or I cannot know what your claim is.
Why do you ask these questions?
If an animal has the capability to reproduce after their own kind, then they are obviously of the same kind.
And if they do not have the capability to do so? Or if they only have partial capability?
If you know the answer, don't bother asking me the question.
If I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked.
I say you are wrong. You can take it or leave it. I'm sure you are going to leave it, so enjoy yourself.
So why do you say I am wrong with no explanation? Because you don't have an explanation?
4 edits
Can you give us a synopsis of the video, what are Dr J's main points of contention?
It seemed to be a up-to-date state of proposed evidences for TOE. The science teacher explains how pack-peddling, revisionism, face saving, and euphemism are being offered about the ongoing collapse of past icons of evidence.
I plan to watch the entire video a second time.
I can't stomach watching a 55min presentation from a man who thinks the world's age is a few thousand years.
Then take it in little chunks of maybe 10 minutes each. I think the first six minutes you could skip if you wish.
Sometimes you cannot dismiss people as total crackpots just because of some things. I think people with contrary views sometimes have SOME things which deserve my ear.
There are debates with Christian apologists in which counter points are made by opponents to my faith, which I think are worth consideration if not their entire argument.
While you're at it you didn't answer these questions yesterday - So even though evolution is 'collapsing' you still think it should be taught in school's?
I am not into policy about public education. But I think that the current major consensus theories should be presented along with honest disclosures about their problems.
That is teaching critical thinking and education, I think. The hope is that young minds will grow up and go further in learning and solve some of the problems for us.
Why not teach TOE and also teach serious challenges to it in the realm of evidence ?
I mean, either life evolved or it didn't right? What's your take on how life began and how it diversified? Or do you think life was created as it is?
So we say "We don't know for sure, but here are the current consensus theories. And here are some objections to them. We're hoping some of you young minds will grow up and solve some of these problems for us in the future."
I think that is education.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhat has the ecoli transmutated into, nada, its still ecoli after zillions of mutations, give it up! Discontinuity of species disproves the whole Darwinian theory, nay, hypothesis.
New genetic 'information' has been shown to have been added by mutations. Look up 'Lenski ecoli experiment'.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knoboh dear, you cannot tell us what it has transmutated into, how vewy vewy intwesting! we are the ones who have made room for the supernatural, it is the materialist who is closed minded and ignorant! Ironic really, all things considered.
Three words. 'Closed-minded.......ignorant'. End of.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have simply no interest in discussing something with someone who has no genuine interest in the topic. What relevance do you have to a discussion in which you have admitted to being closed-minded and ignorant and have no desire to learn anything about it? I might as well talk to the wall.
oh dear, you cannot tell us what it has transmutated into, how vewy vewy intwesting! we are the ones who have made room for the supernatural, it is the materialist who is closed minded and ignorant! Ironic really, all things considered.
Case in point, the idea that species 'transmutate' went out of fashion about 150yrs ago, I have told you this more than once before, yet here you are wittering away with your 19th Century scientific jargon. Most of us on this forum are in the 21st century, you should try joining us sometime.