Mr Hinds Penguins

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand what you are saying, buy I just don't believe animals
have existed on earth for a million years. My guess would be, maybe,
10,000 years. I know the Holy Bible is not a biology book, but I
believe it is inspired writings from men that knew God. And they
wrote that God said that he created the plants and animals to
reproduce after their o at animals can adapt to
their environments, but I do not consider that evolution, as you do.

Your guess!? It looks like i hold humanities achievements in the scientific world in much higher esteem than you do. I mean, i'm sat here with a laptop in Cornwall at the south western tip of England having instantaneous chess games and conversations with people scattered around the world. Your doing the same, maybe not with a laptop; i don't know, and you're doubting mans workings in the scientific world and replacing it with your 'guesses'. I just find it mind boggling, to me it's just nothing more than arrogance.

As for the other points of your post, again you display a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works.

I don't consider a creature evolving unless it becomes more complex
and advanced than it was before.

Evolution isn't just about greater complexity, if lesser complexity gives an organism a survival advantage then that will do also.

For a bird that had the ability to fly and then losses that ability does not appear to have become more complex and advanced, but just the opposite

It's just change, which is what evolution is.

But you seem to define any small change as evolution.

Not just me, but any evolutionary biologist. That is what evolution is.

I believe that animals can adapt to their environments, but I do not consider that evolution, as you do.

That is evolution at work, i can't do anything but repeat that to you over and over again. If it isn't evolution at work, what exactly is it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have defined "kind" but you just don't like my definition.

No, actually, you haven't.
You have told me one way to definitely test whether two animals are of the same kind (ie they can produce offspring). You have not told me much else about how to determine a 'kind'. Further, you talked as if you agreed with other peoples methods, even when they disagreed with yours.

We don't care if the penguin is a bird or a fish. We just
believe it is the same "kind" of animal it was when God
created it.
But since all animals and plants are potentially one 'kind', (until you define it otherwise) thats a somewhat meaningless statement.

When I was referring to "fingerprints", I was
indicating a unique feature that distinguishes on individual
from another. I did not say anything about genes causing
it.
I know. I just thought it was worth pointing out the distinction between an organism that is different from its parent at the genetic level (evolution) and one that is merely a unique individual (as happens with cloning or vegetative reproduction in plants.

The birth of a child is not "evolution" but "reproduction". You seem to be the one posting nonsense in my opinion.
The birth of a child means the total set of genes in the gene pool of a species has changed. This means the species has evolved. I know you don't like it, but that, is the definition of evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually, you haven't.
You have told me one way to definitely test whether two animals are of the same kind (ie they can produce offspring). You have not told me much else about how to determine a 'kind'. Further, you talked as if you agreed with other peoples methods, even when they disagreed with yours.

[b]We don't care if the penguin is a bird ...[text shortened]... has evolved. I know you don't like it, but that, is the definition of evolution.

Sorry, that is the best definition I can give you for "kind".
Your right, I don't like that definiton of evolution. It doesn't
make sense to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sorry, that is the best definition I can give you for "kind".

Well, as I said, it is of no use to anyone if the definition is so loose that it holds no real meaning. It also means that many of your claims regarding 'kinds' are meaningless.
For example you say that one 'kind' can never evolve into another 'kind' but since there is no way to know whether a descendant is the same kind as its ancestor, one cannot test that claim.

Your right, I don't like that definiton of evolution.
Well, like it or not, it is the definition. As hard as you try to pretend that it isn't and make statements about evolution using your own made up definition, the truth is, it won't go away, and it will continue to be defined that way for the rest of us.

It doesn't make sense to me.
Why doesn't it make sense? 'evolution' when used in other contexts means 'change'. A river system 'evolves' over time ie it changes. Every stone carried by the rivers water is a part of that change. To say that you accept that a stone can be moved by the current but that you don't accept that rivers evolve just shows that you don't know what 'evolve' means. The same applies when you say the same about life forms.

Most likely, you are getting mixed up between evolution and the Theory of Evolution which explains how evolving results in significant changes over time depending on the environment and how natural selection is involved and how speciation takes place and how life all has a common ancestor etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well, as I said, it is of no use to anyone if the definition is so loose that it holds no real meaning. It also means that many of your claims regarding 'kinds' are meaningless.
For example you say that one 'kind' can never evolve into another 'kind' but since there is no way to know whether a descendant is the same kind as its ancestor, one cannot test ...[text shortened]... and how speciation takes place and how life all has a common ancestor etc.

If what you say is true, then we don't need the word "evolution".
Since it causes conflict, we should not use it and refer to it only as
the "e" word.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If what you say is true, then we don't need the word "evolution".
Since it causes conflict, we should not use it and refer to it only as
the "e" word.

It only causes conflict because you have been indoctrinated by your religious leaders to hate the word and believe it is of the devil. But this is due to ignorance of what the word means and confusion with the Theory of Evolution. Its almost as bad as hating the word 'species' just because Darwin wrote a book called 'the origin of the species'. In fact, a significant number of creationists do not know how 'species' is defined either and make obviously false claims regarding it too.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It only causes conflict because you have been indoctrinated by your religious leaders to hate the word and believe it is of the devil. But this is due to ignorance of what the word means and confusion with the Theory of Evolution. Its almost as bad as hating the word 'species' just because Darwin wrote a book called 'the origin of the species'. In fact, a ...[text shortened]... not know how 'species' is defined either and make obviously false claims regarding it too.

I did not say I hated the word "evolution". You have a bad habit of
reading into writings things that are not there. It's the "ideas" that
your schooling has indoctrinated you with, which you mean by using
the word "evolution" that is objectonable to creationists. If you just
used "adaptation, mutation, and change" it would be easier to
understand if you actually mean an "ape can change into a man"
or just that a "bird can change its feathers". And the only problem
with the word "species" is confusing its meaning with the meaning
of the word "kinds", as used in the Holy Bible for creation. Evolutionists
are just as guilty of this as creationist , in my opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say I hated the word "evolution". You have a bad habit of
reading into writings things that are not there.

Actually its been pretty obvious since you came on this site. You have been told over and over again what the word 'evolution' means, and over and over again you have used it incorrectly. You have even gone to the extent of trying to dictate what its meaning is.

It's the "ideas" that your schooling has indoctrinated you with, which you mean by using
the word "evolution" that is objectonable to creationists. If you just
used "adaptation, mutation, and change" it would be easier to
understand if you actually mean an "ape can change into a man"
or just that a "bird can change its feathers".
I don't understand that. Why does it matter so much what words are used?
If I said that an ape adapted to its environment and changed into man via a series of mutations how would that be less objectionable to you than if I said an ape evolved into man?

And the only problem with the word "species" is confusing its meaning with the meaning
of the word "kinds", as used in the Holy Bible for creation.
So why do so many creationists confuse the two?

Evolutionists are just as guilty of this as creationist , in my opinion.
What are we guilty of? What words have I used incorrectly or out of context?
The only non-scientific word I use in these discussions is 'kind' and I have taken considerable effort to try and get you to define it for me, but it appears that you either don't know how it is defined, or it is so loosely defined as to have no useful meaning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually its been pretty obvious since you came on this site. You have been told over and over again what the word 'evolution' means, and over and over again you have used it incorrectly. You have even gone to the extent of trying to dictate what its meaning is.

[b]It's the "ideas" that your schooling has indoctrinated you with, which you mean by using ...[text shortened]... ow it is defined, or it is so loosely defined as to have no useful meaning.

I was not trying to dictate what the word "evolution" means. I was
only trying to clarify what meaning is being used since it appears to
have broader meanings to some people.
If you said that an ape adapted to its environment and changed into man
or that the ape evolved into a man, I would object to both as untrue. But
some people that say they believe in evolution, say they do not believe
that an ape can change into a man or that some reptile, like a lizard can
change into a bird or some other "kind" of creature as you do. So it is
the different ideas about the meaning of the word "evolution" that causes
conflict and misunderstanding. Therefore, I would rather a person not use
the word "evolution" when they could be clear as to what they mean by
using more well defined words. This is like your objection to our use of
the word "kind" which you think is a useless term because it is not clearly
defined in your mind.
Both evolutionists and creationist have confused the word "species" and
"kinds" because they do mean the same thing in one definition of "kinds".
The biblical definition of created "kinds" is not use in biology. For example,
a canine is a biblical "kind". But we might also say that reptiles, mammals,
and amphibians are three differnt kinds. Of, course none of these words
were invented when the Holy Bible was written by the inspired writers.

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.
For example, a horse will not mate with a lion and produce a different "kind"
because the horse and the lion are two separate "kinds". Is that better?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So God made all the races of man, all the breed of dogs, all the breeds of cats, every gene in every living thing was present at creation?
You do realize that when you have children, your child has some genes from you, and some from your spouse and is thus different from both of you? Your child is not 'just as it was today as on the day [life] was create ...[text shortened]... e. To claim that life does not change over time shows only ignorance of the basics of biology.

"So God made all the races of man, all the breed of dogs, all the breeds of cats, every gene in every living thing was present at creation?"

Within the first man, and every other living thing that God had created, was the template for all subsequent generations. Any nitwit can figure that out without knowing a thing about biology. It seems that common sense isn't taught in science class.

"You do realize that when you have children, your child has some genes from you, and some from your spouse and is thus different from both of you?"

DUH!

"Your child is not 'just as it was today as on the day [life] was created'?"

That makes no sense.

"In all life forms that reproduce via sexual reproduction (that includes most animals and plants), every single individual is unique with a unique set of genes that no other living thing has had before or since."

Double DUH!

"To claim that life does not change over time shows only ignorance of the basics of biology."

What on earth does "life does not change over time" supposed to mean? Life is life. If you are suggesting that there is some proof that biological life is evolving, then you have bought into the biggest lie on earth. It's all pure speculation, and a large dose of imagination, built on the merest fragments of evidence. Evolution is a mountain of manure.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your guess!? It looks like i hold humanities achievements in the scientific world in much higher esteem than you do. I mean, i'm sat here with a laptop in Cornwall at the south western tip of England having instantaneous chess games and conversations with people scattered around the world. Your doing the same, maybe not with a laptop; i don't know, and y ...[text shortened]... t that to you over and over again. If it isn't evolution at work, what exactly is it?

I can't see how making a guess about how long animals have
been on the earth is arrogance. That is what everyone else is
doing, so they must be arrogant too.
Like josephw said, they don't teach common sense in science
class if these biologists agree with you on evolution. It seems
that evolution is a strong delusion to you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was not trying to dictate what the word "evolution" means. I was
only trying to clarify what meaning is being used since it appears to
have broader meanings to some people.

I think the real problem is you treat it like a religion, when in reality 'evolution' is just a descriptive word, not a religion.

If you said that an ape adapted to its environment and changed into man
or that the ape evolved into a man, I would object to both as untrue.
And you are welcome to object. But when you then say 'nothing has ever evolved' then you are misusing the word 'evolved'.

But some people that say they believe in evolution,
Nobody 'believes in evolution' or doesn't believe in it. It is not a religion. Evolution is a descriptive word for the change that takes place in life over time. You may claim that no such change takes place, or that the change is minimal, but it would still be incorrect to say you don't believe in evolution.
Even if you are talking about the Theory of Evolution, you may dispute parts of it or all of it, but it is not a question of belief in it or not believing in it. It is not a religion.

So it is the different ideas about the meaning of the word "evolution" that causes
conflict and misunderstanding.
There is really only one thing that causes conflict and misunderstanding. That is the fact that the Theory of Evolution suggests that all life has a common ancestor and many people dispute that on religious grounds or because they are uncomfortable with the idea that they are descended from apes similar to chimpanzees. And for those reasons they are not interested in honest discussion or looking at the evidence, they are only interested in proving it impossible. That is what causes conflict and misunderstanding.

Therefore, I would rather a person not use the word "evolution" when they could be clear as to what they mean by
using more well defined words.
But evolution is well defined.

This is like your objection to our use of the word "kind" which you think is a useless term because it is not clearly
defined in your mind.
And I am perfectly willing to use it if it can be defined. I don't object to the word itself. I am even happy with it having multiple meanings depending on context. What I object to is when you change its meaning to suit your argument. For example, you suggest that 'lizard' or 'bird' are examples of 'kinds' yet you have in the past claimed that 'penguin' is a kind quite separate from 'pigeon'. You are inconsistent. That is my objection.

Both evolutionists and creationist have confused the word "species" and
"kinds" because they do mean the same thing in one definition of "kinds".
How do they mean the same thing? Which definition of "kinds" is that? Scientists have a fairly rigorous definition for the word "species" and they do not generally get confused about it.

For example, a canine is a biblical "kind". But we might also say that reptiles, mammals,
and amphibians are three differnt kinds. Of, course none of these words
were invented when the Holy Bible was written by the inspired writers.
So you are just making it all up aren't you?
So when you make a claim regarding "kinds" which categories are you referring to? Canines? Mammals? Animals?

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.
For example, a horse will not mate with a lion and produce a different "kind"
because the horse and the lion are two separate "kinds". Is that better?
So, it is actually impossible to know whether two species are of different kinds? You actually do not know where the invisible boundary it, you just know it is there?
By the way, you do not actually know that a horse and a lion are different kinds. You are just guessing. If I could prove that a lion can mate with a tiger, the tiger can mate with another animal etc until we get to the donkey which can mate with the horse, then have I proved they are the same kind?

More importantly, when you make claims such as "no kind can ever change over time and become another kind", you are making a logical error because you are merely stating your definition as if it was a claim.

Originally posted by josephw
Within the first man, and every other living thing that God had created, was the template for all subsequent generations. Any nitwit can figure that out without knowing a thing about biology. It seems that common sense isn't taught in science class.

OK, call me a nitwit if you like, but you remain wrong. Insulting others wont make you right. Also, appeals to 'common sense' don't work when you are apparently the only one possessing it.

What on earth does "life does not change over time" supposed to mean? Life is life. If you are suggesting that there is some proof that biological life is evolving, then you have bought into the biggest lie on earth. It's all pure speculation, and a large dose of imagination, built on the merest fragments of evidence. Evolution is a mountain of manure.
You leave me without words!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I can't see how making a guess about how long animals have
been on the earth is arrogance. That is what everyone else is
doing, so they must be arrogant too.
Like josephw said, they don't teach common sense in science
class if these biologists agree with you on evolution. It seems
that evolution is a strong delusion to you.

The difference between you and me is that i have read books on evolutionary biology and have a rudimentary understanding of how evolution by natural selection works. You on the other hand have read nothing on the subject and continue to display a shocking understanding of the basic concepts of how evolution works. Added to that you make up your own definitions of what evolution is and what it is supposed to do, you seem to think you know better than the cumulative efforts of 150 years of scientific research. That is why i called you arrogant. Here's a dictionary definition of arrogance -

: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

Explain to me how that doesn't fit.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the real problem is you treat it like a religion, when in reality 'evolution' is just a descriptive word, not a religion.

[b]If you said that an ape adapted to its environment and changed into man
or that the ape evolved into a man, I would object to both as untrue.
And you are welcome to object. But when you then say 'nothing has ever ev ...[text shortened]... stating your definition as if it was a claim.[/b]

Evolution has become part of your religion as an atheist.
The Theory of Evolution not only suggests, but demands that all life
has a common ancestor, which is wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
If evolution is such a well defined term, then why does it have
different meanings to so many different people. Also what is this
definition that all agree with and what is your source. Maybe, you
are making it up as you go along. Do Penguins mate with Pigeons?
If not they are different "kinds" of birds. Do you say a "canine" is
a "species" or a "kind"? What is it? Do you know that a horse is
the same "kind" as a lion, or is that a guess?