Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98695 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If kinds are species there sure are new ones.
Kinds is not the same as species.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98696 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Well played and a very good example.
Only because you are also ignorant.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98697 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
See this is a good example of ignorance

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around.
Uh oh, I'm ignorant of some made up stuff! Though, I bet I know more about Silver Age Marvel comics than you do, so I'd say we're even.

Anyway, don't creationists today believe that prehistoric reptiles like dinosaurs and pterosaurs existed alongside man?

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98698 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
There are crazies on both sides of the fence but that doesn't make all on either side crazy.
Your postings always seem to suggest that both sides are equally valid. When watching the History Channel talk about the Holocaust, do you secretly wish they gave equal time to the Holocaust deniers?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#98699 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinds is not the same as species.
It isn't? How do you know? It is used that way sometimes. I have seen it. In fact, kinds seems to be a very flexible term when used by fundamentalists. I can't say about science, I don't see it used there.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#98700 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you are also ignorant.
Awwwwm look at you getting all mad. You gonna start taking one of HUGE Topix dumps now?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#98701 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
See this is a good example of ignorance
"Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers)."
Owph. Did you stub your toe while you were writing this?

So birds, bats, some insects are all one kind. Wow. That is very specific isn't it. And don't forget pterosaurs in there. What about flying squirels, snakes, lizards, frogs, the Colugo, gliding marsupials and other gliders? Are they owph (stubbed my toe) or are they of another kind? How about we group frogs, kangaroos, and grasshoppers into one kind based on their ability to jump.

Ecological or functional grouping is not the same thing as kinds as used in the Bible, but it is close and does illustrate some of the same problems for classification that kind does. According to the Bible, kinds reproduce after their own. A functional grouping will contain numerous organisms that can't reproduce with any member of their functional group. Of course kinds really has that problem too. You all just ignore that. But you're ignorant so not unexpected.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#98702 Aug 25, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your postings always seem to suggest that both sides are equally valid. When watching the History Channel talk about the Holocaust, do you secretly wish they gave equal time to the Holocaust deniers?
I believe in God and change. Evolution is merely change over time. I don't think when God created life he meant for it to stay the same forever, which is where evolution/change comes in. Everything changes overtime. Earth, the universe, the magnetic poles, life, the rotation of earth, the stars, i.e. everything. Just off the top of my head I can't think of one thing man has made or created that hasn't changed in someway over time.

I will leave the TV watching up to you.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#98703 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Owph. Did you stub your toe while you were writing this?
So birds, bats, some insects are all one kind. Wow. That is very specific isn't it. And don't forget pterosaurs in there. What about flying squirels, snakes, lizards, frogs, the Colugo, gliding marsupials and other gliders? Are they owph (stubbed my toe) or are they of another kind? How about we group frogs, kangaroos, and grasshoppers into one kind based on their ability to jump.
Ecological or functional grouping is not the same thing as kinds as used in the Bible, but it is close and does illustrate some of the same problems for classification that kind does. According to the Bible, kinds reproduce after their own. A functional grouping will contain numerous organisms that can't reproduce with any member of their functional group. Of course kinds really has that problem too. You all just ignore that. But you're ignorant so not unexpected.
Yeah, sure.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#98704 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
See this is a good example of ignorance
"Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers)."
In other words, the Bible is not a reliable science book. We know that.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#98705 Aug 25, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I was just reading my Bible and is says that a bat is a bird. So are bats part of the bird "kind"?
Just curious. When you go out to eat at a restaurant do you ask them what different kinds of meat do they have or do you ask them what different species do they have?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#98706 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, the Bible is not a reliable science book. We know that.
It is Historical. You wear a helmet and ride a short yellow bus, right?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98707 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious. When you go out to eat at a restaurant do you ask them what different kinds of meat do they have or do you ask them what different species do they have?
Context is everything.

When in a scientific discussion definable terms must be used. The problem with "kind" is that no creationist can define it properly.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98708 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious. When you go out to eat at a restaurant do you ask them what different kinds of meat do they have or do you ask them what different species do they have?

We stick to whats on the menu, maybe you want to ask for the mystery meat?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98709 Aug 25, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>Uh oh, I'm ignorant of some made up stuff! Though, I bet I know more about Silver Age Marvel comics than you do, so I'd say we're even.

Anyway, don't creationists today believe that prehistoric reptiles like dinosaurs and pterosaurs existed alongside man?
Well if you're going to be shooting off your mouth you should have an idea of what you're so confessed about.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98710 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It isn't? How do you know? It is used that way sometimes. I have seen it. In fact, kinds seems to be a very flexible term when used by fundamentalists. I can't say about science, I don't see it used there.
"In fact, kinds seems to be a very flexible term when used by fundamentalists. I can't say about science, I don't see it used there"

There are over 14 definitions of species

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#98711 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
See this is a good example of ignorance
"Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers)."
You are wasting your breath. Of course Linnean classification was not available in that time. They can't comprehend that or the language of back when the bible was written. The way they see it is that if we know all this now, then they should have known it back then as well. So when they read things that were 1000's of years ago they get confused because they can't comprehend it because they can only think in the way of what they have learned or know in the present.

They probably get confused about Shakespeare too because he said "where for out thou Romeo" instead of saying "where are you Romeo".
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98712 Aug 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Awwwwm look at you getting all mad. You gonna start taking one of HUGE Topix dumps now?
Made no, do you know what ignorance is? Not the same as calling stupid.

ig·no·rant\ˈig-n(ə-)rənt\
adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : unaware, uninformed
ig·no·rant·ly adverb

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#98713 Aug 25, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"In fact, kinds seems to be a very flexible term when used by fundamentalists. I can't say about science, I don't see it used there"
There are over 14 definitions of species
Now while science is a good tool we have to remember it is above everything else in this world.
1. They have there own definition for words.
2. They don't need proof.
3. They validate their own evidence.
4. and above all they can call some thing a hypothesis or theory based on the 3 points above.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#98714 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe in God and change. Evolution is merely change over time. I don't think when God created life he meant for it to stay the same forever, which is where evolution/change comes in. Everything changes overtime. Earth, the universe, the magnetic poles, life, the rotation of earth, the stars, i.e. everything. Just off the top of my head I can't think of one thing man has made or created that hasn't changed in someway over time.
I will leave the TV watching up to you.
including all the gods and goddesses they created...they keep changing. wonder what the dieu du jour will be tomorrow?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr Hidingfromyou 698
How would creationists explain... 10 hr Dogen 435
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
Genetic entropy Dec 18 Discord 159
More from around the web