(November 18, 2014 at 6:22 am)pocaracas Wrote: But why don't you tell us dumb atheists all about those "presuppositions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean"?
Tell us how unreasonable and unfounded they are.

I did.

(November 18, 2014 at 6:22 am)pocaracas Wrote: Tell us how real faith in the invisible hand of an unknown agent is required.
Go on...

Unknown to who? To you? Not to me.

---

(November 18, 2014 at 3:30 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: When I say "dogs produce dogs", in other words I am saying that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't..which is not the position of evolutionary biology. If you believe that the dogs of today came from non-dogs of yesterday, then...you know... lol

Let's say - for a crazy moment - wolfes?

But a wolf isn't a dog, though..right? A wolf, a malamute, and a siberian husky are obviously the same kind of animal

What is wrong with you people?

"What is wrong with you people?"
We're not brain damaged enough to be creationists.

For the record, that's a positive thing.

(November 18, 2014 at 3:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 7:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's "kind" of backwards. But meh, not too big of a deal, if you choose to associate the entire genus with the member with which you are most familiar, fine. I've already asked somebody this question today, but I guess it's fitting. Is a fox a "kind" of dog, in your estimation? How about an african wild dog?

I don't really know what to make of the fox, but definitely the african wild dog..the african wild dog is definitely a member of the dog "kind".

I can help you understand the fox....

http://youtu.be/jofNR_WkoCE

(November 18, 2014 at 3:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I guess Einstein "was" an uneducated man too, as some point in his life.

The important difference being that Einstein didn't decide to educate himself in order to argue from authority against an established scientific theory that he'd made up his mind on before studying the evidence, as a result of religious dogma. It's a distinction you seem to have missed, but the, missing the point seems to be all you do around here.

Quote:Whats wrong with that?

What's wrong with deciding your position on a topic before studying the evidence, and in fact, in spite of it, because your religion says so? It's very telling that you don't see it yourself.

Quote:What?

"Shermer has done X bad thing, therefore his arguments are invalid" is an example of the genetic fallacy. If that's what you were going for, you've hit upon yet another fallacy. If it's not, what is the point of asking me if I'm a fan of Shermer?

Quote:The same traction it would have if you went into a pet store and asked for a dog and you were brought out a hamster. You wouldn't have any problem deciphering the difference in "kind" then, would you?

But I wouldn't be objecting on the basis of kinds. I would be objecting on the basis of species, like a normal person. Are kinds just the same as species? If not, then if you asked for a dog and the guy brought out a wolf, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, right? I mean, you just said earlier that wolves were a part of the dog kind, so how would you be able to complain at being given a wolf?

Quote:I doubt hyenas are of the dog kind...I don't know about foxes, and raccoons are certainly not.

So how are you making these determinations at all?

(November 18, 2014 at 3:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Whats wrong with that?

In a phrase, "preconceived notions". Or, in another phrase, "confirmation bias".

The best education doesn't teach you facts. It teaches you how to gather facts.

(November 18, 2014 at 3:43 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 12:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: Unofficially, it's "X looks a bit like Y, therefore same kind."

You are brushing it off...but don't things that are produced seem to look like the things that produced them?? hock:

I will let that one sink in for a bit.

... Except when it comes to the fossil record, in which case things that look like other things aren't produced by them, and are separate species. You use morphology only when it suits you, thank you for confirming my observation of your hypocrisy in my earlier post.

(November 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm)Esquilax Wrote: You keep yammering on about how there's no observations, but when it comes to your own positive claim you offer nothing at all.

... and never mind the fact that evolution has been observed, both in real time and in the fossil record.

(November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Right, and the ancestors of dogs only produced what they were. Dogs are still all of the things "above" them in their classifications (the same way that you and I are). Again, you don't seem to be disagreeing with evolutionary biology in the least.

So wolves gave rise to dogs...but a wolf is not a dog??? They are clearly the same kind of animal!!!

(November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, neither of them can breed with dogs (different genus) so they definitely can't "reproduce after their own kind" together, or any other such nonsense (chromosome pairing issues).

I don't know why they can no longer produce...maybe so much genetic information was lost over time...the same thing with the cheetah..but that isn't the same thing as the archae (reptile to bird) changes that you people claim to have happened in the past.

(November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But, going by your conclusions "kind" must be family (since dogs, foxes, and african wild dogs are all Canids). How about humans, chimps, orangutans, and gorillas- all the same "kind"?

What I'd like to know is based on all of the diversity we see in living organisms, how the hell does that suggest we all share a common ancestor??

(November 18, 2014 at 3:49 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: What is wrong with you people?

We actually bothered to educate ourselves. Actually that comes naturally when you dom't live like this.



Consider yourself awarded.

(November 18, 2014 at 4:00 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 3:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: But, going by your conclusions "kind" must be family (since dogs, foxes, and african wild dogs are all Canids). How about humans, chimps, orangutans, and gorillas- all the same "kind"?

What I'd like to know is based on all of the diversity we see in living organisms, how the hell does that suggest we all share a common ancestor??

Nice dodging of the question.

If you can dodge a ball...