Originally posted by RJHindsThey have never said so. They respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs.
If all your family are Christian, they must feel very sorry for you.
Evolution is science?
Most definitely. Why else would it be taught in science class, be considered a part of the subject of Biology, be featured in science books etc etc?
I am sure it is at least part of a religion.
Why? Because its threatening to you?
A false religion, like atheism and evolution is no threat to the
truth.
Then why do you feel compelled to make up stuff about them? For example, atheism isn't a religion, and I am sure you know this.
Perhaps your knowledge of biology is a bit lacking since you think penguins
mate with pigeons.
I said that? Or did you make that up? Sounds like you are mixing lies with your truth. That's the sign of Satan at work!
I have always been sure of what a "kind"
is, but you keep wanting to have it explained to you because
you can not understand what a "kind" is.
I cant understand what a 'kind' is because you won't explain it clearly.
I have said many time that "canine" is a "kind".
But you probably don't know what "canine" is, do you? Why are you so sure that a dog and a coyote are the same 'kind' but that a dog and a seal are not?
It should be obvious to you that a horse is a differnt kind than a lion if you really understood biology.
I do understand Biology, what I don't understand is how you differentiate different 'kinds' and you have not been at all clear on this matter. You seem to create arbitrary groups at will then change them when someone points out something about them.
You apparently don't know the difference between knowledge and guessing.
That, coming from you, is hilarious.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow you no longer believe penguins can mate with pigeons?
They have never said so. They respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs.
[b]Evolution is science?
Most definitely. Why else would it be taught in science class, be considered a part of the subject of Biology, be featured in science books etc etc?
I am sure it is at least part of a religion.
Why? Because its threatening to you? ...[text shortened]... between knowledge and guessing.[/b]
That, coming from you, is hilarious.[/b]
Is that correct? You sound religious with your statement,
"That's the sign of Satan at work!"
I don't think anyone could explain what a "kind" is to you so
that you could understand it. Maybe, your brain needs to evolve
more, if such a thing is possible. But at least I seem to be able
to make you laugh.
Originally posted by RJHindsDid I ever say that they could?
Now you no longer believe penguins can mate with pigeons?
You sound religious with your statement,
"That's the sign of Satan at work!"
Yes, I probably do. After all, I was just copying your favorite attack.
I don't think anyone could explain what a "kind" is to you so
that you could understand it.
Well that then suggests that no reasonable explanation exists. ie you do not have a rational explanation for "kind".
Maybe, your brain needs to evolve more, if such a thing is possible.
Well if it is my failing then you should have no problem finding someone else who can understand your explanation. If you can find one other poster here who understands your definition, then I will accept that my brain is at fault and is not up to the task. If you fail to find one, then it is either your inability to express yourself clearly, or the fact that you don't actually know yourself what a 'kind' is and are just making it up as you go along.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, you have never said penguins mate with pigeons. But you refuse to
Did I ever say that they could?
[b]You sound religious with your statement,
"That's the sign of Satan at work!"
Yes, I probably do. After all, I was just copying your favorite attack.
I don't think anyone could explain what a "kind" is to you so
that you could understand it.
Well that then suggests that no reasonable explanation exist 't actually know yourself what a 'kind' is and are just making it up as you go along.[/b]
answer the question, "Do penguins mate with pigeons?" And when I gave
you examples of "kinds" and defined it to indicate that different "kinds" do
not mate naturally for continued reprodution or to produce a different "kind"
that can continually reproduce offsprings you responded with the following:
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.
I then asked you the question, "Do penguins mate with pigeons?"
I was expecting you to say, "No", but you failed to answer the question.
My objective was to point out that I was not being inconsistent with my
definition of "kind" because lizards do not mate with birds nor do penguins
mate with pigeons. So in my last post to you I asked the question,
"Now you no longer believe penguins can mate with pigeons? Is that
correct?" You still would not answer the question directly but replied,
"Did I ever say that they could?" So, I must now conclude that your
continual refusal to give a "no" answer is because you do not want to
admit that my definiton for "kind" is not inconsistent as you had previously
stated.
Since you do not like my definition of "kind" then here are a few from
dictionaries:
Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary
kind 1. sort: Dave likes many kinds of candy.
2. natural group: All kinds of animals were in the ark.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
kind 2. A natural group, class, or division; as the bird kind.
Webster's New World Dictionary
kind 2. a natural group or division [the rodent kind]
The number 2 definition is the one I am using. Maybe the
definiton from the Junior dictionary is best for you.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen did I refuse to answer the question? I will answer it now: as far as I know, penguins do not mate with pigeons. Now whats your point?
No, you have never said penguins mate with pigeons. But you refuse to
answer the question, "Do penguins mate with pigeons?"
And when I gave you examples of "kinds" and defined it to indicate that different "kinds" do
not mate naturally for continued reprodution or to produce a different "kind"
that can continually reproduce offsprings you responded with the following:
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.
I then asked you the question, "Do penguins mate with pigeons?"
I was expecting you to say, "No", but you failed to answer the question.
My objective was to point out that I was not being inconsistent with my
definition of "kind" because lizards do not mate with birds nor do penguins
mate with pigeons.
Which is inconsistent isn't it? Are 'birds' a kind, or are 'pigeons' a kind? Which is it?
So in my last post to you I asked the question,
"Now you no longer believe penguins can mate with pigeons? Is that
correct?" You still would not answer the question directly but replied,
"Did I ever say that they could?" So, I must now conclude that your
continual refusal to give a "no" answer is because you do not want to
admit that my definiton for "kind" is not inconsistent as you had previously
stated.
A yes or no to that question would be a lie, because for me to say I 'no longer' do something implies I used to believe it - when it is quite clear that I didn't.
Since you do not like my definition of "kind" then here are a few from
dictionaries:
But you do not follow those definitions. I want your definition.
By the dictionary definition, a bloodhound is a 'kind' of dog. It can however mate with other dogs violating the Bibles claim and your definition.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo, you have finally answered the question. So now you should
When did I refuse to answer the question? I will answer it now: as far as I know, penguins do not mate with pigeons. Now whats your point?
[b]And when I gave you examples of "kinds" and defined it to indicate that different "kinds" do
not mate naturally for continued reprodution or to produce a different "kind"
that can continually reproduce offsprin ...[text shortened]... r dogs violating the Bibles claim and your definition.
know that a penguin is a different kind than a pigeon, right?
That is the point of the question.
There is nothing inconsistent about a bird being a kind or a
pigeon being a kind. A pigeon is a kind of bird. Remember from
the Junior dictionary the definition 2. natural group: All kinds of
animals were in the ark.
How does a bloodhound dog mating with another dog violate the
Bibles claim that dogs reproduce after their own kind? The offspring
will also be a dog and not a bird or a lizard or any different kind.
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Originally posted by Proper Knob***********BUMPED for Mr Hinds**************
Hang on a minute. How can a canine be a kind when they can't all interbreed? Your definition of a 'kind' were animals that could reproduce together, those that couldn't were not in that 'kind'. It's been explained to you now more than once that not all canines can interbreed. Yet still you keep repeating this flaw in your 'kind' scenario.
Again, ath ...[text shortened]... God and accept evolution as the reason for the diversification of life on this planet?
Hang on a minute. How can a canine be a 'kind' when they can't all interbreed? Your definition of a 'kind' were animals that could reproduce together, those that couldn't were not in that 'kind'. It's been explained to you now more than once that not all canines can interbreed. Yet still you keep repeating this flaw in your 'kind' scenario.
Again, atheism does not equate with evolution. There are millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, worldwide who believe in God and accept evolution. I have told you this at least four times now, why do you keep repeating this when you know it is incorrect?
Do you accept people can believe in God and accept evolution as the reason for the diversification of life on this planet?
Originally posted by Proper KnobA flaw has occurred in their genes that prevents interbreeding.
***********BUMPED for Mr Hinds**************
Hang on a minute. How can a canine be a 'kind' when they can't all interbreed? Your definition of a 'kind' were animals that could reproduce together, those that couldn't were not in that 'kind'. It's been explained to you now more than once that not all canines can interbreed. Yet still you keep repeatin ...[text shortened]... od and accept evolution as the reason for the diversification of life on this planet?
There is no flaw in the "kind scenario" however.
Even though there are people who believe in God that think evolution is
possible, they are mistaken. So you don't need repeating this over
and over.
Originally posted by Proper KnobA flaw has occurred in their genes that prevents interbreeding.
***********BUMPED for Mr Hinds**************
Hang on a minute. How can a canine be a 'kind' when they can't all interbreed? Your definition of a 'kind' were animals that could reproduce together, those that couldn't were not in that 'kind'. It's been explained to you now more than once that not all canines can interbreed. Yet still you keep repeatin ...[text shortened]... od and accept evolution as the reason for the diversification of life on this planet?
There is no flaw in the "kind scenario" however.
Even though there are people, who believe in God, that think evolution is
possible, they are mistaken about evolution. So you don't need to repeat
this over and over.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo actually, I still don't know whether a penguin is a different kind than a pigeon.
So, you have finally answered the question. So now you should
know that a penguin is a different kind than a pigeon, right?
That is the point of the question.
You have said in your definition that if two species can interbreed then they are definitely the same kind, but you have never said that if they cant interbreed then they are different kinds. I have been trying to establish whether this is the case, but you have been extremely evasive on the matter. Can I now take it that you are now asserting that this is the case?
There is nothing inconsistent about a bird being a kind or a
pigeon being a kind. A pigeon is a kind of bird. Remember from
the Junior dictionary the definition 2. natural group: All kinds of
animals were in the ark.
So when you use the word 'kind' and make assertions about it are you talking about 'birds' or 'pigeons', or both? If both, then some of your assertions do not make sense.
How does a bloodhound dog mating with another dog violate the
Bibles claim that dogs reproduce after their own kind?
Because they are different kinds. (by the dictionary definition).
The offspring will also be a dog and not a bird or a lizard or any different kind.
I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Because you are not making any sense. Now 'dog' is a kind, as is 'bloodhound', 'canine', and presumably 'mammal', 'animal' and 'living thing'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is possible that the same "kind" may not be capable of interbreeding.
No actually, I still don't know whether a penguin is a different kind than a pigeon.
You have said in your definition that if two species can interbreed then they are definitely the same kind, but you have never said that if they cant interbreed then they are different kinds. I have been trying to establish whether this is the case, but you have been ext ...[text shortened]... bloodhound', 'canine', and presumably 'mammal', 'animal' and 'living thing'.
It is also possible that the same specific kind can not breed due to an
abnormality. However, different kinds will never be able to interbreed.
But you are right that the inablity of being able to interbreed does not
necessarily make them different "kinds". The majority of the cases for
not being able to interbreed, I believe, is due to being of a different "kind".
The Holy Bible is not a biology book so it does not give the details so we
must use the brains God gave us to read between the lines.
I think you are beginning to get it. Just remember the example sentence
from the Junior dictionary: "All kinds of animals were in the ark."
Like I said the Holy Bible does not break it down as much as we do.
So for us to get down to the specific kind "Bloodhound dog", we would
start at the top with "living thing" then down to "animal", but not plant.
Then down, as you say, to mammal, then canine, etc. So you see a
lizard is a reptile and not a mammal. So you can never get a "lizard
from a "bloodhound" or vice versa. You got it now?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not a biologist and do not know for sure. I believe a penguin
So is it possible that a flaw in the genes of the penguin has resulted in it being unable to reproduce with the pigeon?
is a bird and not a fish as josephw seems to think. I believe we all
agree that the pigeon is a bird. A fish is not the same kind as bird
so there could be no reprodution in that case. However you and I
believe both the penguin and the pigeon are birds, which makes
it possible that the penguin and the pigeon are the same kind of
bird. They do not naturally interbreed nor have I heard of a case
in which man has attempted to force some type of interbreeding.
I believe it is most likely that the penguin and the pigeon are
different "kinds" of birds since they don't mate.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I have not 'got it now'. You still seem very uncertain about what level of biological category to equate with 'kind'. For example you now use the word 'bloodhound' as if it was a kind, when we both know that by your definition it cannot possibly be a kind.
However, different kinds will never be able to interbreed.
So you can never get a "lizard
from a "bloodhound" or vice versa. You got it now?
Originally posted by RJHindsBut what is a 'bird'? You don't know. So how can you decide whether a penguin is a bird or not?
I am not a biologist and do not know for sure. I believe a penguin
is a bird and not a fish as josephw seems to think. I believe we all
agree that the pigeon is a bird. A fish is not the same kind as bird
so there could be no reprodution in that case.
You also talk of 'fish' and 'bird' as if they are examples of 'kinds' yet you have made it clear that 'bird' is not a kind as it contains both pigeons and penguins (which you claim are separate kinds.)
These are the inconsistencies I was complaining about.