CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#21 Jul 9, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arguments put you firmly in the creaotard camp. Meh...
If you read carefully, you will understand I have not made any arguments in favor of creationism. In fact, I am not a creationist. I can only imagine the wiring in your brain that makes you think that way.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#22 Jul 9, 2013
The problem with the word "kind" is that it is a nonsense creationist term.

You cannot devise a scientific definition of the term since scientists don't recognize the idea of kinds.

Perhaps you should look into the scientific term clade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

Once again, creationists cannot even agree on a definition of kind. Why would scientists even try?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#23 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
If you are going to insult me I would prefere you did not participate in this topic. It is sad that you feel the need to attack someone you perceive to have a different opinion. If you are uncapable of having an educated conversasion please do not bother talking to me.
<quoted text>
It is not possible to have an educated conversation with a Creationist for the same reason I can not discuss trig with my dog.

I can dictate facts to my dog, but he can't participate in any meaningful way.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#24 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Most evolutionist do not think purpose has anything to do with why there is variety,sort,form and class in nature...
Nor do I.
FREE SERVANT wrote:
...but things have always been of their own kind from the beginning.
I do not share this opinion either.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#25 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read carefully, you will understand I have not made any arguments in favor of creationism. In fact, I am not a creationist. I can only imagine the wiring in your brain that makes you think that way.
75% of the Creationists who come on the board have the following characteristics:
- Unregistered account (Check)
- Want to discuss some obscure Bible point without addressing MASSIVE scientific opposition (Check)
- Are obsessed with redefining a term to be inclusive to Creationism (Check)
- Claim that they are not Creationists (Check)
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#26 Jul 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
The problem with the word "kind" is that it is a nonsense creationist term.
Perhaps that is the case.
Subduction Zone wrote:
You cannot devise a scientific definition of the term since scientists don't recognize the idea of kinds.
Maybe we can establish a correlation between kind and the scientific terms which do exist. Or maybe not, no harm in trying.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Perhaps you should look into the scientific term clade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
Thank you for the suggestion.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Once again, creationists cannot even agree on a definition of kind. Why would scientists even try?
Why not?
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#27 Jul 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
75% of the Creationists who come on the board have the following characteristics:
- Unregistered account (Check)
- Want to discuss some obscure Bible point without addressing MASSIVE scientific opposition (Check)
- Are obsessed with redefining a term to be inclusive to Creationism (Check)
- Claim that they are not Creationists (Check)
You are free to assume whatever you want, even if you are wrong.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

#28 Jul 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not possible to have an educated conversation with a Creationist for the same reason I can not discuss trig with my dog.
I can dictate facts to my dog, but he can't participate in any meaningful way.
It is your choice to be rude and uneducated, but don't blame others for your choice. But if you must know, I would prefere you did it elsewhere.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#29 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do I.
<quoted text>
I do not share this opinion either.
Can you prove variety did not always exist?
CH2O2

UK

#30 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Can you prove variety did not always exist?
By variety I assume you are talking about intra specific variation. It is my understanding that variety existed since before the origin of life. Even prebiotic chemical evolution had variety. But that is outside the purpose of this topic. All I want in this topic is to establish a definition of kind, if such is podsible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#31 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
So God created
Sorry, must stop you there. You've come to the wrong forum. This is the evolution forum. You want the religion forum. Plenty of fundies there who should be able to answer this one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#32 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
It is my understanding that variety existed since before the origin of life.
Biological variety existed before there was biological life? What a silly thing to say...
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#33 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do I.
<quoted text>
I do not share this opinion either.
Define kinds as differing variety and then we can agree that there have always been seperate sorts from the beginning.
CH2O2

UK

#34 Jul 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, must stop you there.
You are quoting nme out of context.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You've come to the wrong forum.
No, I have not.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the evolution forum.
I know that.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You want the religion forum. Plenty of fundies there who should be able to answer this one.
No, I do not want the religion forum. You are mistaken.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#35 Jul 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, must stop you there. You've come to the wrong forum. This is the evolution forum. You want the religion forum. Plenty of fundies there who should be able to answer this one.
Let him talk Dudey.
CH2O2

UK

#36 Jul 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological variety existed before there was biological life? What a silly thing to say...
Yes, it is a silly thing to say. But it was you who said it, not me. Biological variety is within the realm of life, please note i did not use the term biological variety, you did. If you understand abiogenesis you will agree that variety (or variability) was necessary. Abiogenesis was before life. Thus, i am correct and you just made a silly comment.
CH2O2

UK

#38 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Define kinds as differing variety and then we can agree that there have always been seperate sorts from the beginning.
OK. I now understand what you meant by variety. But that is just replacing a word for another word. What i need is a clear definition, not a random word that can be used with different meanings.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#39 Jul 9, 2013
LGK = CH202?

..the suspiciously variable server location....
CH2O2

Portugal

#40 Jul 9, 2013
Gillette wrote:
LGK = CH202?
..the suspiciously variable server location....
I have no idea who LGK is. It would be so much more productive if you focused on the topic insted of searching for inexistent hidden agendas. I came here with a legitimate question but insted i seem to be getting a lot of hostility. Why?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#41 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea who LGK is. It would be so much more productive if you focused on the topic insted of searching for inexistent hidden agendas. I came here with a legitimate question but insted i seem to be getting a lot of hostility. Why?
1.) Your location keeps flipping around and you have it disguised to begin with.

2.) Those of us who have been on this board for YEARS know that there are a half dozen or so specific religious types who keep showing up again and again, and one of those types is the serious poster who pretends not to be a creationist at first, until it comes out eventually that he does, indeed have an agenda. So people's antennae are up.

3.) We're bored, as there are few Christian Punching Bags du Jour around at the moment.:)

I think it's an interesting question -- how exactly do they want to define "kinds," and then making them try to stick to that definition in the light of actual facts and knowledge science has accumulated. I think people are suspicious because you seem to be asking the science folks to define kinds or even take the term seriously.

I have invited the poster named "LGK" -- who you are not -- to come over here and define/defend kinds. We'll see if the delicate little lamb comes to the slaughter (if he isn't already here).:)

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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min Denisova 160,921
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,691
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 1,358
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Chimney1 141,287
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Bumper Sticker Boy 13,670
No Place For ID? 11 hr GTID62 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri hpcaban 178,585
More from around the web