Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Members from the same family cannot cross-breed unless they belong to the same species.

Really, you're just restating the obvious fact that breeding pairs that belong to the same species (exhibiting some degree of variation) also belong to the same family--a point that has never been in contention.

Meaningless for the reason that your interchangeable use of the terms "species" and "family" are meaningless.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?

No.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.

In all comparisons They were from different species but belonged to the same family and you know what else you got wrong they all have been cross bred.

Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.

Thanks for showing your ignorance again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

First, there's no problem to overcome. Second, "microevolution" is how over eons of time is how evolutionists explain how "macroevolution" place.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.

12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Moron are you ignorant or a liar ? I say both.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you not read anything drock posted so I am gonna repeat what he posted. And what I have learned over the years ?

Good. Like I said, I'm not interested in having you re-post walls of text that you don't even understand. I want this in your own words.

How bout you explain it ,it's your theory and provide evidence to prove it.

Wrong. It was you, not I, who claimed that it was mathematically impossible for evolution to have produced the results we see. As that is your assertion, not mine, it is your burden of proof, not mine.

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Which is 150,000,000 base pairs of Dna.

Look in the old threads ask drock or someone I am not gonna put it all out again.

It took a little time to work it out.

 

[LOki]

Lets see if you can define kind here ,which so happens the word species did not exist in the Hebrew language at the time of the writing of the scriptures.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.

Sounds like the seed contained the genetics to know what to produce.

12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good

20. And God said, "Let the waters swarm a swarming of living creatures, and let fowl fly over the earth, across the expanse of the heavens."
21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


22. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let the fowl multiply upon the earth."

24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

So can you reason out what the important term means you keep asking about.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Moron are you ignorant or a liar ? I say both.

And your dishonesty continues.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dragon]

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.

As more research is done the chimps DNA will grow further from the human. He is our cousin isn't he ? The chimp is closer related to the ape so I can't do the ape.

We can't map the genome of our so called nearest ancestor now can we how convenient.

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

 

[daws101]

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.

humans and all the great apes evolved from a common ancestor..we are branches on the same tree.
the % of DNA between "US" and chimps is 2%

 

[LOki]

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?

No.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.

I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.

In all comparisons They were from different species but belonged to the same family ...

Not in dispute.

... and you know what else you got wrong they all have been cross bred.

I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.

At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.

Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.

What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?

The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?

Thanks for showing your ignorance again.

Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.

I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.

Not in dispute.

I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.

At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.

Bringing on morphological changes which my theory predicts and comfirms.

What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?

The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?

Thanks for showing your ignorance again.

Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding. And you better do your homework the offspring were not always sterile.

If their DNA was not close enough there would be no offspring.

Now what relative do we have that we can produce offspring with ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I used the percentage difference in the Dna of a chimp and human to show the impossibility.

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, that is a non-argument. Try again. Or, of course, you could retract the claim.

humans and all the great apes evolved from a common ancestor..we are branches on the same tree.
the % of DNA between "US" and chimps is 2%

Wrong.

 

[Dragon]

So who and what do you say we can compare DNA to do what I did with the chimp and human ?

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

 

[Dragon]

No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.

You have still presented nothing to uphold this rather extraordinary claim. You don't even seem to understand that it IS extraordinary.

 

[Dragon]

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God cannot doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.

 

[LOki]

Wrong,before you knock me for using the term kind why don't you find out what a species is.

I am sufficiently aware of what the term "species" means, and asking you for a precise and meaningful definition for the term "kind" is not "knocking" you for using it ... I'm trying to figure out WHAT THE FUCK YOU MEAN when you use the term.

Not in dispute.

I'm not sure that sterile male offspring meets the criteria for the successful breeding indicating they belong to the same species.

At least that's the way I remember it from 10th grade. I could be wrong.

What theory? What the fuck are you talking about?

The one where life can ONLY be the created by life? The one you continually refuse to offer any explanation for?

Thanks for showing your ignorance again.

Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty again.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

No,the diversity we see in each family can be due to cross breeding.

Not in FUCKING DISPUTE! (at least not as long as you have no meaningful constraints on the way you apply your terms)

But do you want to know what is in dispute, Cupcake? This theory of yours you continually refuse to offer any explanation for.

And you better do your homework the offspring were not always sterile.

Another example of a BLATANTLY DISINGENUOUS MISREPRESENTATION of what I said.

If their DNA was not close enough there would be no offspring.

Not necessarily so. Time for you to do your homework.

Now what relative do we have that we can produce offspring with ?

Apparently, none of the male offspring.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own continued refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God cannot doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

 

[daws101]

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?
lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES



Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.

The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name


Father
Mother
Offspring

Donkey (jack)
Horse (mare)
Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)

Horse
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Hinny

Zebra
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)

Zebra
Horse
Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule

Zebra
Pony
Zony

Zebra
Shetland Pony
Zetland

Donkey (jack)
Zebra
Zebret

Horse
Zebra
Hebra

PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)

In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the “Kulu-Kamba” and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla

the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
not because we were created as separate life forms.

 

[LOki]

Once again, it seems to me that the problem creationists have is a lack of faith. God is not something established by objective, external evidence, and the need for such evidence is a sign that one's faith is weak and one's connection to the holy is tenuous. Someone whose soul is been filled with the presence of God cannot doubt his/her/its reality, and a small thing like the evolutionary history of life, or our own non-human ancestry, is completely irrelevant to that impossibility of doubt. Which frees one to appreciate the evidence as it really exists, without any need to drive it into a false mold.

Of all religious believers, creationists are surely the weakest in faith.

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

 

[Dragon]

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.

Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.

 

[LOki]

I can't agree with that, you have fundamentalist types like YWC and some of his teammates on this board, but most creationists I know aren't anti-science because they think it's the work of the devil like some of our board fundies do.

Whether they think it's the work of the devil or not, all creationists are anti-science. It's impossible to believe in the creationist doctrine without being anti-science, because creationism and science are incompatible. Science and intelligent design, as that is usually advocated, are also incompatible, although less blatantly so.

Loki is wrong in his last, of course. It is possible to reason with religious people. But not, it seems, with creationists.

House is wrong.

But I'll let you tell him that.

 

[Dragon]

House is wrong.

Point taken.