How did it all begin?

Originally posted by schakuhr
Because god dunnit! god wanted to put em all on the boat, so it just happens. The same way some people here are stupid because he wanted them to be very unconvincing for us so we wouldn't become christians so he can roast us in hell.

Fatso, this is the type of shallow thinking that gets you everywhere in life. Although that doesn't seem your goal, you'd rather remain comfortably on you "phat ass" eating donuts and developing cellulite on your cheeks to impress your nephews...

Originally posted by RatX
When it comes to kinds, I suppose one could trace the ancestors of all cats to one creature - a feline. The same could apply to all dogs, horse-kinds (zebra/donkey/horse/jackass), various antelope-types, primate-types, etc and so forth.

Taking this into consideration, and they would all be young (versatile and resilient) and animals with lungs (mammals, b ...[text shortened]... ould be taken in, they'd fit in rather comfortably - the dimensions are more than sufficient...

Surely someone must have come up with some sort of list.

Originally posted by RatX
When it comes to kinds, I suppose one could trace the ancestors of all cats to one creature - a feline. The same could apply to all dogs, horse-kinds (zebra/donkey/horse/jackass), various antelope-types, primate-types, etc and so forth.

Taking this into consideration, and they would all be young (versatile and resilient) and animals with lungs (mammals, b ...[text shortened]... ould be taken in, they'd fit in rather comfortably - the dimensions are more than sufficient...

So, you're saying here that you're down with the Darwin gang? You like that 'common-ancestor' thing?

Originally posted by David C
So, you're saying here that you're down with the Darwin gang? You like that 'common-ancestor' thing?

He is saying that there are variations within a kind. You can take your poodle and your sausage dog as evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
He is saying that there are variations within a kind. You can take your poodle and your sausage dog as evidence.

He's also saying that there was only room for one-of-a-kind on the boat, so the current variations must spring from a common ancestral kind: some sort of ur-dog. Otherwise how to fit all the pooches on at once?

Question is how many ur-beasts would be required to supply ancestors for all the kinds we know now.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
He's also saying that there was only room for one-of-a-kind on the boat, so the current variations must spring from a common ancestral kind: some sort of ur-dog. Otherwise how to fit all the pooches on at once?

Question is how many ur-beasts would be required to supply ancestors for all the kinds we know now.

I hope this answers your question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

Originally posted by dj2becker
I hope this answers your question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

According to that source, today's animals must indeed have had common ancestors. For example,

"The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes".

What science could account for the proliferation of these ur-beasts into modern bio-diversity?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
According to that source, today's animals must indeed have had common ancestors. For example,

"The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes".

What science could account for the proliferation of these ur-beasts into modern bio-diversity?

Ever heard of micro-evolution or inter-breeding?

Take note: There are no Creationists that dispute variations within a kind.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ever heard of micro-evolution or inter-breeding?

OK, thanks, now it all makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by dj2becker
He is saying that there are variations within a kind. You can take your noodle and your sausage as evidence.

But still no-one will step up to the mark and explain what a 'kind' is. Until some one does that the debate on the scientific merit of ID is hamstrung. Ultimately IDers are allowing 'micro-evolution' within a set of undefined groups which seem to change at a whim. Even within this thread Noah (it is suggested) took lions and tigers or he took one of feline kind. If ID relies on such inconsistancies then it truly is sceince from the gutter.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Ever heard of micro-evolution or inter-breeding?

Take note: There are no Creationists that dispute variations within a kind.

Thats kind of you to use the word kind. Kindly kind-of tell us precisely what jind means if yuou would be so kind.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I hope this answers your question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

from your website http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_sarfati.asp

"We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind."

This stuff is a laugh.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Ultimately IDers are allowing 'micro-evolution' within a set of undefined groups which seem to change at a whim. Even within this thread Noah (it is suggested) took lions and tigers or he took one of feline kind. If ID relies on such inconsistancies then it truly is sceince from the gutter.

Let's not be so quick to judge...Noah (it seems) took a pair of proto-felines, ur-kittens, onto the Ark with him. Once the waters had subsided, and the kittens grown up a bit (nourished on that compressed food no doubt) they would have started mating with wild abandon, and their litters in turn would have mated with wild abandon, until soon enough--within a few generations I suppose--every feline species would have been represented. How life must have rioted under the post-deluvian sun!

I wonder if the experiment could be repeated.

Originally posted by RatX
[b]many times ???

😞 I'm sure when you start trying to substantiate your schoolyard claim, your logic will be disproved many times by common sense...

So please, bring it on. How has the Bible been disproved many times?[/b]

Here is a link that has many examples:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Google more and you will find plenty.

Tell me how many times has the bible been proved scientifically.

Originally posted by lausey
Here is a link that has many examples:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Google more and you will find plenty.

Tell me how many times has the bible been [b]proved scientifically.[/b]

I'm sorry. How would one prove any literature scientifically? Only if it makes scientific claims. You're getting a little ahead of yourself here. You made the claim that it has been disproven numerous times, so you need to substantiate your claim.

What use is it if you make unsubstantiated claims ad nauseam and then the Bible folk have to keep proving you wrong. This could get very tedious indeed.