(May 12, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

Crocodiles and alligators cannot breed with each other.

What you're saying is that changes in micro-evolution can accumulate to the point where 'speciation' occurs so that the poopulation splits into two because they are unable to breed with one another.

That's evolution.

So, CDF, is a kind just something that looks alike to illiterate Iron Age “patriarchs”, or is it something meeting a particular measurable standard of similarity?

(May 12, 2018 at 2:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It represents the age of the corresponding fossils. And do keep in mind that, for each of those species, there are various specimens and all agree with respects to their age.
Considering how unlikely fossilization is, we can infer that a considerable population existed of each species at each "era".

You’re wasting your time, Poca.  Any data you present that he doesn’t like is going to be called “fake science”, lol.  This is a one way conversation.

Yeah... I know...
But it's still better than wasting it just insulting the guy.
I can't understand how his mind works... I can't understand how people become so brainwashed into a particular miracle-dependent mindset... but I can try to flesh it out of him. At least, make him understand that he doesn't understand his stuff as well as he thinks he does... we've cracked the "kinds are species" thing. At least, now he's following the usual creationist manual.

I used to waste my time with Statler Waldorf, or whatever was his name... that was a proper Young Earth Creationist... Like he didn't, I don't expect this guy to ever change his mind. But I learn stuff along the way, too.

(May 12, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

Crocodiles and alligators cannot breed with each other.

What you're saying is that changes in micro-evolution can accumulate to the point where 'speciation' occurs so that the poopulation splits into two because they are unable to breed with one another.

That's evolution.

Best. Typo. Ever.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 5:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You’re wasting your time, Poca.  Any data you present that he doesn’t like is going to be called “fake science”, lol.  This is a one way conversation.

Yeah... I know...
But it's still better than wasting it just insulting the guy.
I can't understand how his mind works... I can't understand how people become so brainwashed into a particular miracle-dependent mindset... but I can try to flesh it out of him. At least, make him understand that he doesn't understand his stuff as well as he thinks he does... we've cracked the "kinds are species" thing. At least, now he's following the usual creationist manual.

I used to waste my time with Statler Waldorf, or whatever was his name... that was a proper Young Earth Creationist... Like he didn't, I don't expect this guy to ever change his mind. But I learn stuff along the way, too.

Yes, and you might actually reach lurkers who are genuinely interested in learning something new as they read along, which is a great thing. I just get so annoyed with people who come here for no real reason than to poke us with sticks until we get bored or they get banned.

(May 12, 2018 at 2:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

It represents the age of the corresponding fossils. And do keep in mind that, for each of those species, there are various specimens and all agree with respects to their age.
Considering how unlikely fossilization is, we can infer that a considerable population existed of each species at each "era".

That's interesting.  I will look at the chart again.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 2:28 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:07 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Doesn't mean the graph is accurate or correct.

---

Crocodiles and alligators are same genus so same kind.  I believe the same is true for octopus and squid.

Let me give you a clue.  Not even all crocodiles belong in the same genus.

Crocodiles and alligators are not the same genus.

They are not of the same family.

The smallest classification to which they both belong is order.

So there we have it.

Kind is not specie.  It is not genus.  It is not family.   It is for the moment order.  

Well, starting from the very bottom, we are already half way up to the top of Linean classification scheme.  When we get all the way to the very top, domain that encompass all biotic life on earth, you will reach the closest approach to being right your Bible addled brain can ever come.

Maybe we will still drag you kicking and screaming Bible quotes all the way to the right answer.

Interesting.

(May 12, 2018 at 5:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, and you might actually reach lurkers who are genuinely interested in learning something new as they read along, which is a great thing. I just get so annoyed with people who come here for no real reason than to poke us with sticks until we get bored or they get banned.

bold mine. 

QFT

There should be some protocol in place where after 140 pages of nonsense and the person being intentionally obtuse, they should get sprayed with some Troll Be Gone by the staff. Really. How much longer should we have to put up with that sort of shit, when they were never open to hearing the truth to begin with and all they end up doing is peppering the thread with bible passages?

(May 12, 2018 at 4:45 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 4:00 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Crocodiles and alligators cannot breed with each other.

What you're saying is that changes in micro-evolution can accumulate to the point where 'speciation' occurs so that the poopulation splits into two because they are unable to breed with one another.

That's evolution.

So, CDF, is a kind just something that looks alike to illiterate Iron Age “patriarchs”, or is it something meeting a particular measurable standard of similarity?

From my understanding it is the genus or so of taxonomy.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 5:36 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 2:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You’re wasting your time, Poca.  Any data you present that he doesn’t like is going to be called “fake science”, lol.  This is a one way conversation.

Yeah... I know...
But it's still better than wasting it just insulting the guy.
I can't understand how his mind works... I can't understand how people become so brainwashed into a particular miracle-dependent mindset... but I can try to flesh it out of him. At least, make him understand that he doesn't understand his stuff as well as he thinks he does... we've cracked the "kinds are species" thing. At least, now he's following the usual creationist manual.

I used to waste my time with Statler Waldorf, or whatever was his name... that was a proper Young Earth Creationist... Like he didn't, I don't expect this guy to ever change his mind. But I learn stuff along the way, too.

The different charts,.., are interesting to me.  I learn stuff to along the way.  My main point though on DNA stands as proof of design based on DNA information and fine-tuning of the universe.

---

(May 12, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 5:37 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, and you might actually reach lurkers who are genuinely interested in learning something new as they read along, which is a great thing. I just get so annoyed with people who come here for no real reason than to poke us with sticks until we get bored or they get banned.

bold mine. 

QFT

There should be some protocol in place where after 140 pages of nonsense and the person being intentionally obtuse, they should get sprayed with some Troll Be Gone by the staff. Really. How much longer should we have to put up with that sort of shit, when they were never open to hearing the truth to begin with and all they end up doing is peppering the thread with bible passages?

So now you want me banned for just arguing the truth with you all and putting up with all the crap thrown my way.  I obeyed every rule of the site the best I could.

As a believer, I can agree with your take on it, OP. But when I wasn’t a believer, it wouldn’t point to a Creator. (automatically) My belief doesn’t hinge on science, lest it wouldn’t be called faith.

That’s just my opinion.

(May 12, 2018 at 7:10 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: As a believer, I can agree with your take on it, OP. But when I wasn’t a believer, it wouldn’t point to a Creator. (automatically)  My belief doesn’t hinge on science, lest it wouldn’t be called faith.

That’s just my opinion.

Thanks for the feedback.  The Bible does not ask for blind faith.  It asks to look at the creation for signs of the Creator.  This is what I do which helps with my faith.  I still have faith, it is just not a blind faith.

(May 12, 2018 at 7:00 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(May 12, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Joods Wrote: bold mine. 

QFT

There should be some protocol in place where after 140 pages of nonsense and the person being intentionally obtuse, they should get sprayed with some Troll Be Gone by the staff. Really. How much longer should we have to put up with that sort of shit, when they were never open to hearing the truth to begin with and all they end up doing is peppering the thread with bible passages?

So now you want me banned for just arguing the truth with you all and putting up with all the crap thrown my way.  I obeyed every rule of the site the best I could.

Sorry but you've walked a fine line when it comes to the rules. 


There's this from the Prime Directive that constitutes flaming: 

Quote:...overly negative generalizations of entire groups of people (unless strongly supported by evidence),

that you've done numerous times to atheists here. You have insulted us and our intelligence on a generalized scale. 

There's also this: 

Quote: Posts which are comprised of outrageous misrepresentations of events within the public record will be considered as trolling.

You have outrageously misrepresented DNA and its surrounding events, which is public record, through the duration of this entire thread. Even when evidence has been provided to you over and over showing you that you are, and continue to be wrong. 

Also - on more than one occasion, you have posted content from other sites here without proper citations. In other words - you may have written them elsewhere, but you failed miserably to state the forum or site that you copied your own info from, thus trying to make it look like you were genuinely responding to another post here. Whether or not it's your work, failing to cite it is still a form of plagiarism. 

So why don't you just do us all a favor and quit while your ahead.

(May 12, 2018 at 7:13 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 12, 2018 at 7:10 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: As a believer, I can agree with your take on it, OP. But when I wasn’t a believer, it wouldn’t point to a Creator. (automatically)  My belief doesn’t hinge on science, lest it wouldn’t be called faith.

That’s just my opinion.

Thanks for the feedback.  The Bible does not ask for blind faith.  It asks to look at the creation for signs of the Creator.  This is what I do which helps with my faith.  I still have faith, it is just not a blind faith.

So do you believe that DNA is objective proof of a Creator?