Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are full of it! If a biologist can not give you the definition of "kind",
'Kind' is not a biological term, it is a creationist term. A biologist would not be able to give me a definition.
[b]Hybrid animals like mules, ligers, and zebronkeys are generally sterile and do not naturally reproduce, seems to be strong evidence against evolution to me.
Why do you think it is evidence against evolution? It is fully compatible with the theory of evolution as far as I know.[/b]
then the definition given by Dr. Gish, a biochemist is the closes you are
going to get to a scientific defintion, I suppose. The idea I was getting
at with the hybrid animals sterility is that the boundaries set up by God
on reproduction seems to be demonstrated here; and that, in turn, would
be evidence that evolution would be virtually impossible.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou know you'll not get anywhere with these guys. They thrive on this and will argue with you until the day they day and then still argue after their dead because they'll prove you wrong as they'll evolve into something else. Lol.
You are full of it! If a biologist can not give you the definition of "kind",
then the definition given by Dr. Gish, a biochemist is the closes you are
going to get to a scientific defintion, I suppose. The idea I was getting
at with the hybrid animals sterility is that the boundaries set up by God
on reproduction seems to be demonstrated here; and that, in turn, would
be evidence that evolution would be virtually impossible.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is not a scientific word, so I do not expect a scientific definition. All I want is a definition that is consistent and that we can agree upon. I have no problem with Dr. Gish's definition except that it contradicts claims you have made in the past regarding 'kinds'.
You are full of it! If a biologist can not give you the definition of "kind",
then the definition given by Dr. Gish, a biochemist is the closes you are
going to get to a scientific defintion, I suppose.
The idea I was getting at with the hybrid animals sterility is that the boundaries set up by God on reproduction seems to be demonstrated here; and that, in turn, would
be evidence that evolution would be virtually impossible.
Except that it doesn't demonstrate any such boundaries, nor is it evidence that evolution is virtually impossible. Evolution in no way depends on the interbreeding of 'kinds'.
Originally posted by RJHindsDoes my link which provides evidence of multicellular life satisfy you that Dr Gish's quote from 1976 is out of date?
You are full of it! If a biologist can not give you the definition of "kind",
then the definition given by Dr. Gish, a biochemist is the closes you are
going to get to a scientific defintion, I suppose. The idea I was getting
at with the hybrid animals sterility is that the boundaries set up by God
on reproduction seems to be demonstrated here; and that, in turn, would
be evidence that evolution would be virtually impossible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe, I should just say evolution of life is highly improbable due to the
It is not a scientific word, so I do not expect a scientific definition. All I want is a definition that is consistent and that we can agree upon. I have no problem with Dr. Gish's definition except that it contradicts claims you have made in the past regarding 'kinds'.
[b]The idea I was getting at with the hybrid animals sterility is that the boundari ...[text shortened]... tion is virtually impossible. Evolution in no way depends on the interbreeding of 'kinds'.
apparently demonstrated boundaries that appear to be established in
the natural breeding process that seem to limit reprodution in hybrid
animals like mules, ligers, and zebronkeys. Spontaneous generation of
life has been proven a false theory and life is only produced from life
created by God. God created plants and animals that are distinct in
kind and each produce after there own kind as designed by God,
meaning the idea of an evolutionary common ancestor that produced
both plants and animals is false. Since there is no demonstrated
evidence that this has happened, it cannot be considered scientific fact.
Also there is no demonstrated evidence that there is even a common
ancestor that all plants evolved from. This common ancestor is some
imaginary plant in the mind of some evolutionary wacko and does not
exist. The same holds true for the animals. This common ancestor,
if it were to exist, would be very complex and would have to contain all
the chromosomes, genes, DNA, RNA that make up every plant and animal
that ever existed. This evolutionary view seems more like science fiction
and borders on insanity.
Originally posted by RJHindsBut reproduction of hybrids is not required in the Theory of Evolution. You just keep on repeating that it is evidence against evolution but you are not explaining why.
Maybe, I should just say evolution of life is highly improbable due to the
apparently demonstrated boundaries that appear to be established in
the natural breeding process that seem to limit reprodution in hybrid
animals like mules, ligers, and zebronkeys.
Spontaneous generation of life has been proven a false theory..
Proven by whom? When? Why doesn't the person who proved it have a Nobel prize for such a landmark discovery?
God created plants and animals that are distinct in
kind and each produce after there own kind as designed by God
Yet apparently we have no way of knowing what those kinds are. Even you are not sure if he created horses and donkeys separately or if they have a common ancestor.
Since there is no demonstrated
evidence that this has happened, it cannot be considered scientific fact.
Except that there is demonstrated evidence that it happened and it is considered scientific fact.
This common ancestor,
if it were to exist, would be very complex and would have to contain all
the chromosomes, genes, DNA, RNA that make up every plant and animal
that ever existed.
No it wouldn't.
This evolutionary view seems more like science fiction
and borders on insanity.
Thats because you don't understand it. Science always looks like magic to the uneducated.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe theory of evolution requires many, many, many, years or reproduction
But reproduction of hybrids is not required in the Theory of Evolution. You just keep on repeating that it is evidence against evolution but you are not explaining why.
[b]Spontaneous generation of life has been proven a false theory..
Proven by whom? When? Why doesn't the person who proved it have a Nobel prize for such a landmark discovery?
[ ...[text shortened]... b]
Thats because you don't understand it. Science always looks like magic to the uneducated.[/b]
for animals to evolve into another kind of animal according to evolutionists.
Therefore if hybrid animals are usually sterile they will be unlikely to
reproduce thereby breaking the chain in the evolution process.
Spontaneous generation was proven false by Louis Pastuer, a French
chemist and microbiologist that pasteurized milk is named after.
Regardless if you understand "kind" or not, the point is that there is no
common ancestor to all plants and animals. So you can just forget about
the definition. Since there is no common ancestor, then evolution is
false.
You seem to be the one that is uneducated since you believe in the magic
of evolution. Only the ignorant believe that evolution is a scientific fact.