Originally posted by twhiteheadI admit nothing. When man creates a new and seperate life that can live on it's own on this planet and of course reproduce, then you'll have an argument.
Well that depends on how you define life. The term has grey edges and that leaves any claims about it rather shaky.
For example, is a cell with its nucleus removed 'alive' or 'dead' or somewhere in between?
So you admit scientists have successfully made a new nucleus. So what you dispute is the cell wall and other structures in the cell? If we add tho ...[text shortened]... d works and how evolution is 'backwards'. Merely stating it makes no sense here.
BUT it will never happen.......
Originally posted by galveston75I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out that man has created life from non-living matter contrary to what you claimed. Your only wriggle room is to dispute what 'living' or 'non-living' matter is defined as. Changing the conditions is and admission that your original statement was in error.
I admit nothing. When man creates a new and seperate life that can live on it's own on this planet and of course reproduce, then you'll have an argument.
BUT it will never happen.......
Originally posted by twhiteheadI haven't made an error in anything, and I'm not the one presenting some silly link that proves nothing. Man has not created anything that is a new life but only played with what is already here. Just like they try to do with evolution. You may convience yourselves that you've done these things and discovered these things, but they've been here all along and guess who made them? God!!!
I wasn't making an argument. I was pointing out that man has created life from non-living matter contrary to what you claimed. Your only wriggle room is to dispute what 'living' or 'non-living' matter is defined as. Changing the conditions is and admission that your original statement was in error.
Originally posted by galveston75How does that even begin to answer my questions?
My dear knobster. YOU need to reread this info again and read the fine print. Until you can show absolute evidence on this stuff we have nothing to talk about. When words like " we suggest, supposed, maybe, we think", etc, are not there and the proof is then we can discuss this more.
You guys read these things and get all excited but don't pay attention to those little killer words that makes it all crash and burn...........
I gave you a scenario of how a new 'kind' could be produced, why would that not work? Explain to me what would stop it from happenning?
Originally posted by Proper KnobMankind....We do not have the ability in any way shape or form to create life....But keep trying as it's intertaining when you guys think you have it. 🙂
How does that even begin to answer my questions?
I gave you a scenario of how a new 'kind' could be produced, why would that not work? Explain to me what would stop it from happenning?
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75How does that even resemble an answer to my question?
Mankind....We do not have the ability in any way shape or form to create life....But keep trying as it's intertaining when you guys think you have it. 🙂
I'm beginning to think you don't have an answer to my questions so are going into 'avoid mode'.
Explain to me how the scenario i described to you wouldn't create a new 'kind'. We don't have to do anything apart from wait a few hundred thousand years.
Originally posted by galveston75I presented a link? A link between what and what?
I haven't made an error in anything, and I'm not the one presenting some silly link that proves nothing.
Man has not created anything that is a new life but only played with what is already here.
And I didn't claim otherwise. But that is not equivalent to what you said earlier. You said:
I don't think life can come from non-life so to speak.
And I pointed out that that can happen and has been done by man, depending on what your definition of what 'non-life' and 'life' are.
Just like they try to do with evolution.
What have 'they' tried to do with evolution?
You may convience yourselves that you've done these things and discovered these things, but they've been here all along and guess who made them? God!!!
So we haven't 'discovered' something because its been here all along? You mean like Dr David Livingstone didn't discover the Victoria falls because it was already there?
Originally posted by Proper KnobYour scenario might produce a new "species" but not a new "kind".
How does that even begin to answer my questions?
I gave you a scenario of how a new 'kind' could be produced, why would that not work? Explain to me what would stop it from happenning?
The new variant would still be of the same "biblical kind" even
though biologist might declare it a new "species". God is the only
one that can create a new "biblical kind".
Originally posted by menace71Apparently not all of the canids can interbreed but does this take away from them being of the same general kind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
Interesting no doubt. I've been 3ft from a wolve in a cage. It was very large no doubt but it looked a lot like a German Shepard or Husky dog just very big.
Manny
Manny
Originally posted by menace71God has put limits on reproduction of His created "kinds".
Apparently not all of the canids can interbreed but does this take away from them being of the same general kind?
Manny
Exactly how that works I don't know. Pehaps biologist
will be able to find out someday. All we can be sure of
is they reproduce after their "kind" and will not reproduce
another "kind".
Originally posted by RJHindsYou described what you think a 'biblical kind' was in a previous post -
Your scenario might produce a new "species" but not a new "kind".
The new variant would still be of the same "biblical kind" even
though biologist might declare it a new "species". God is the only
one that can create a new "biblical kind".
I will take another try at defining a biblical "kind". It is the division of a plant or animal than natural reproduction is prevented from crossing over.
You seem to be confused in your usage of 'species' and 'kinds'. I'm not convinced you know what each one means. For example, i'm sure you would say that 'jackals' are all one 'kind', but then not all jackals can inter-breed. To confuse matters even further, the golden-jackal can inter-breed with dogs, coyotes, dingoes and wolves, but not with other jackals. How would you apply your definitions of 'kinds' and 'species' to the above scenario?!
Secondly, my scenario would create a new species, but it would also create a new 'kind' according to the definition you gave above. If not explain to me why not.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt seems to be a chromosomes issue more than anything. It seems to point to more of an evolutionarily reason(even is not in the classic sense). I always believed that all dogs came from the wolf but maybe the common ancestor to all of the canines no longer lives ? They all appear to be of a kind namely dogs however. My definition would be broad as to a kind should include all of the dogs.
God has put limits on reproduction of His created "kinds".
Exactly how that works I don't know. Pehaps biologist
will be able to find out someday. All we can be sure of
is they reproduce after their "kind" and will not reproduce
another "kind".
Manny
Originally posted by Proper KnobMan has several meanings for "kind". But the meaning in Genesis,
You described what you think a 'biblical kind' was in a previous post -I will take another try at defining a biblical "kind". It is the division of a plant or animal than natural reproduction is prevented from crossing over.
You seem to be confused in your usage of 'species' and 'kinds'. I'm not convinced you know what each one mean ...[text shortened]... d' according to the definition you gave above. If not explain to me why not.
which I referred to as the "biblical kind" prevents animals and plants
from reproducing outside of that "biblical kind". Within the "biblical
kind" there ar variants that man sometimes calls "species". But even
if two different species within a "biblical kind" are able to mate,
the species produced will be within the same "biblical kind". It will
not produce a completely different "biblical kind" because God has made
that impossible, without His intervention. Does that help you to
understand?
Originally posted by RJHindsPehaps biologist will be able to find out someday.
God has put limits on reproduction of His created "kinds".
Exactly how that works I don't know. All we can be sure of
is they reproduce after their "kind" and will not reproduce
another "kind".
They have 'found out', you just choose to ignore what they found out because it doesn't fit with your religious beliefs.