Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
111,021 - 111,040 of 115,340 Comments Last updated 10 min ago
wondering

Sunset, TX

#116980 Jul 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask creationists. It's them who don't have a working definition. Evolution doesn't use "kind", it uses Linnaean classification.
Welcome to the 18th century.
sure evolution uses kind. just ask the idiot subduction zone. he says plainly "evolution says that kind gives rise to the same kind. they have a working definition of kind" and his working definition of kind is saying "clade" is a synonym for "kind". isn't that a hoot?
wondering

Sunset, TX

#116981 Jul 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think your issues of pedantry is enough to falsify biological evolution?
Srsly?
Or are you just trying to get one up on a particular evo poster you don't like for the sake of it?
where do you see i tried or am trying to falsify evolution?, just show one place where i have tried to or even wanted to falsify evolution.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#116982 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what we think is irrelevant. "your" synonym clade for kind is irrelevant, just your made up blah blah. it is about what science shows.
you can't show where science backs "your" claim of "evolution says that kind gives rise to the same kind. they have a working definition of kind"
you can't show where science backs "your" claim of clade/kind being synonyms.
end of discussion!
Taxonomy is by far more precise than saying "kinds".

Article 1. Definition and scope.

1.1. Definition. Zoological nomenclature is the system of scientific names applied to taxonomic units (taxa; singular: taxon) of extant or extinct animals.

1.1.1. For the purposes of this Code the term "animals" refers to the Metazoa and also to protistan taxa when workers treat them as animals for the purposes of nomenclature (see also Article 2).

1.2. Scope.

1.2.1. The scientific names of extant or extinct animals include names based on domesticated animals, names based on fossils that are substitutions (replacements, impressions, moulds and casts) for the actual remains of animals, names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa), and names established for collective groups (see, in particular, Articles 10.3, 13.3.2, 23.7, 42.2.1, 66.1, 67.14), as well as names proposed before 1931 based on the work of extant animals.

1.2.2. The Code regulates the names of taxa in the family group, genus group, and species group. Articles 1-4, 7-10, 11.1-11.3, 14, 27, 28 and 32.5.2.5 also regulate names of taxa at ranks above the family group.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116983 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
we are talking about science.. science does not use the word "kind" for that fact there is no definition of "kind" in science. so of course i am not going to try to define a word that science does not use. you on the other hand made an idiot out of yourself by trying to say "clade" is a synonym for "kind".
again it is about what science shows.
you can't show where science backs "your" claim of "evolution says that kind gives rise to the same kind. they have a working definition of kind"
you can't show where science backs "your" claim of clade/kind being synonyms.
end of discussion!
That is correct. You were the first to use the word "kind" and I pointed out that your usage was incorrect since you could not even define the word.
You challenged me to come up with a working definition of "kind" and I did. I succeeded where you did not even fail since you were too afraid to try to use your misused term.
And for probably the fourth time I never claimed that science uses the term. But in the theory of evolution, whether scientists use the term or not kind always produces the same kind. A dog will never have a cat. A cat will never have a dog, yet they share ancestors. They are both carnivora.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
So far you have been stuck on stupid. I don't see any change coming about on your side.
And you poor besotted moron, I never said that science said that clade was a synonym of "kind". When you challenged me to make a working definition of "kind" I did so by making it a synonym of clade. That is my definition, not science's. You challenged me to design a d definition and I did.
Hemet123

Hemet, CA

#116984 Jul 5, 2014
7:30 PM pst
wondering

Sunset, TX

#116985 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. You were the first to use the word "kind" and I pointed out that your usage was incorrect since you could not even define the word.
You challenged me to come up with a working definition of "kind" and I did. I succeeded where you did not even fail since you were too afraid to try to use your misused term.
And for probably the fourth time I never claimed that science uses the term. But in the theory of evolution, whether scientists use the term or not kind always produces the same kind. A dog will never have a cat. A cat will never have a dog, yet they share ancestors. They are both carnivora.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora
So far you have been stuck on stupid. I don't see any change coming about on your side.
And you poor besotted moron, I never said that science said that clade was a synonym of "kind". When you challenged me to make a working definition of "kind" I did so by making it a synonym of clade. That is my definition, not science's. You challenged me to design a d definition and I did.
again you are a lying jack wagon. i did not use that word and still haven't.

I replied to your post of ""Evolution says that kind gives rise to the the same kind. They have a working definition of kind. Creationists don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q ...

You were responding to free servant with that post.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#116986 Jul 5, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, it is a weird concept to be sure. But it's all hypothetical anyway. As people rightly point out, the speed of light is the (apparent) speed limit of the universe. But if you were to (hypothetically) travel at infinite speed, you'd be occupying all points in space at once. Because at infinite speed it would literally take you no time at all to get to anywhere you wanna be.
That could be rather handy if it didn't require too much energy to sustain.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116987 Jul 5, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
again you are a lying jack wagon. i did not use that word and still haven't.
I replied to your post of ""Evolution says that kind gives rise to the the same kind. They have a working definition of kind. Creationists don't."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q ...
You were responding to free servant with that post.
And I already admitted that that was a mistake, not a lie. You tards all look the same to me. And please, can you honestly say you have never used that fools argument? Creatards seem to follow a script. You stuck your ugly mug into the conversation that implies that you were on the other side.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#116988 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And I already admitted that that was a mistake, not a lie. You tards all look the same to me. And please, can you honestly say you have never used that fools argument? Creatards seem to follow a script. You stuck your ugly mug into the conversation that implies that you were on the other side.
so you did not lie you made a mistake. mistakes usually happen when a person gets flustered after being shown how big of an idiot they are.
Hemet123

Hemet, CA

#116989 Jul 5, 2014
7:50 PM pst

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#116990 Jul 5, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And I already admitted that that was a mistake, not a lie. You tards all look the same to me. And please, can you honestly say you have never used that fools argument? Creatards seem to follow a script. You stuck your ugly mug into the conversation that implies that you were on the other side.
Yeah, I have the same issue. I forget which one said what. I can't read shit without my Fundie Spectacles on.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#116991 Jul 5, 2014
Hemet123 wrote:
7:50 PM pst
Scrub the mission. They are on to you.

“Don't Like Bumping Your Butt?”

Since: Jul 14

Stop Hopping Down The Trail!

#116992 Jul 5, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a very relevant post.
First of all the independent thinking came from science.
It became independent merely from RELIGION.
This began with the Greek, who stopped sticking their head in the religious writings of those days but started to LOOK AROUND to what REALLY IS HAPPENING. The let the things speak FOR THEMSELVES.
UNFORTUNATELY when the Roman empire collapsed, the Greek tradition perished and the bronze age caboodle from the goat herding tribe made it to Europe. Centuries of stagnation followed until in the Renaissance, meaning justly "Rebirth".
Since then progression in EVERY FIELD followed.
Because some people started to think INDEPENDENTLY indeed.
Independently from religion that is.
95% of our current knowledge and inventions are from those last 4 centuries.
As I said you are mistaken about just scientist giving us all of our great inventions. Inventors come from all walks of life and independent thinking in a free country has given us most of the great new ideas and things we enjoy.
Hemet123

Hemet, CA

#116993 Jul 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Scrub the mission. They are on to you.
i'm on a secret mission
8:52 PM pst

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#116994 Jul 5, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said you are mistaken about just scientist giving us all of our great inventions. Inventors come from all walks of life and independent thinking in a free country has given us most of the great new ideas and things we enjoy.
Then name the inventions that didn't come from or involve a knowledge of science by the inventors. Compare that to those that did.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#116995 Jul 5, 2014
Hemet123 wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm on a secret mission
8:52 PM pst
I know.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#116996 Jul 6, 2014
Rabbit On Crack wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said you are mistaken about just scientist giving us all of our great inventions.
No I didn't say that JUST just scientist giving us all of our great inventions.
Precisely give me the post where should have said that.

It is embarrassing to see how you try to keep up your bronze age caboodle.
You are no match. Sorry.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#116997 Jul 6, 2014
Hemet123 wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm on a secret mission
8:52 PM pst
If you don't post, it will stay that way.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#116998 Jul 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
sure evolution uses kind. just ask the idiot subduction zone. he says plainly "evolution says that kind gives rise to the same kind. they have a working definition of kind" and his working definition of kind is saying "clade" is a synonym for "kind". isn't that a hoot?
No he DOESN'T SAY that evolution is using the word.
You are a liar and deceiver.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#116999 Jul 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
sure evolution uses kind. just ask the idiot subduction zone.
Post #116958, Subduction zone wrote:
“No, you challenged me to define "kind". Science does not use clade as a synonym for "kind". The don't use the word "kind" at all. Don't try to change the argument after the fact.”

Post #116959, Subduction zone wrote:
“It seems you purposefully misunderstood. Again, science does not use the word "kind" at all, but if you wanted to we could. Sadly you can't.”

Post #116969, Subduction zone wrote:
“And you are doubly a moron, I explained how science does not use the word "kind", but my using it as a synonym for "clade" makes a working definition of the word. I never said that term is used by scientists.”

You are a liar and deceiver.
Do you think Dude is not reading the posts?
DISGUSTING.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 21 min polymath257 172,630
Science News (Sep '13) 38 min Ricky F 2,849
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 49 min Chimney1 346
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 50 min MikeF 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 136,419
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 9 hr DanFromSmithville 224
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••