Atheism is unreasonable

[The Valkyrie]

Right, and this is also the position of evolutionary biology. Or did you think there was some point of disagreement? I don't expect a dog to give birth to a canary or a crawdad any more than you do. Why would I?

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

Yeah, we know: You're ignorant of the science you argue against, just like the vast majority of creationists.

[FatAndFaithless]

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

Yeah, we know: You're ignorant of the science you argue against, just like the vast majority of creationists.

He's doesn't even have a well-defined explanation for his argument.

[abaris]

I don't really want to 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".

Edited that for you: Well, you could very well know what to make of them if you were to read a fucking book about real science.

[His_Majesty]

You actually got it backwards: Wells was an uneducated man who disbelieved in evolution first, and then got his degree so that he could argue from authority to maintain the presupposition he first formed when he was an uneducated person.

I guess Einstein "was" an uneducated man too, as some point in his life.

There's a level of obsession in the kind of person who'll pick a degree and study for years specifically to "destroy evolution" on behalf of his religious beliefs that leaves me with no trouble believing he came into this with a presupposition.

Whats wrong with that?

I answered it, but then, I know you don't read anything that people write here.

I am talking to 7-10 different people at the same time...so forgive me for human error.

Incidentally, was your intent just to argue from the genetic fallacy, rather than to address Shermer's arguments, whatever they are?

What?

Why should I care what you believe? What traction does "kind" have in the scientific vernacular?

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?

I mean, still no definition even, so it can't be that useful of a word...
Are Hyenas dogs too? Foxes? Raccoons?

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

[robvalue]

I can't quite believe what I'm reading. I'm trying to figure out if certain people are for real.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

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.

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".

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). 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"?

[FatAndFaithless]

Why should I care what you believe? What traction does "kind" have in the scientific vernacular?

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?

I would hope that you hold the discussion of your purported scientific truths to a higher standard than pet-store banter.

[Esquilax]

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

No, what modern evolutionary biology says is that dogs produce dogs, just slightly different dogs rather than identical copies of the parent. I doubt you find this position controversial in the slightest, it's just that in order to retain your stubborn presupposition you refuse to accept the corollary position that, if Dog A gives birth to Dog B who is slightly different from its parent, then Dog B's offspring will be slightly more different still, and that this is true not only across multiple generations, but for every individual dog on the planet, and that none of those dogs is bound to produce subtly different offspring in the same way.

In this way, we get different species; Dog B gives birth to Dog C, C to D, D to E, and so on, and they're all a little different from their parents, with those differences slowly widening the gap between them and Dog B. Once you get to Dog Z, those differences will be very noticeable indeed. Now imagine what would happen if you can repeat the alphabet when you reach the end, with each letter corresponding to another generation; Dog Z on the fiftieth go around would be entirely different to the original Dog B, potentially enough that we can no longer call it the same species, even though it's still an offspring roughly similar to Dog Y on the fiftieth circuit. So yes, dogs produce dogs, but in every generation those dogs continue to drift away from the initial dog. If you look at the process end to end, rather than stubbornly insisting upon seeing only one generation at a time, you see a change in species.

Your position is that this can't happen, and yet you've offered absolutely no mechanism that can prevent it from happening, let alone demonstrated that it actually exists. You keep yammering on about how there's no observations, but when it comes to your own positive claim you offer nothing at all.

Why on earth should anyone care about what amounts to your personal opinion, when there's actual evidence that contradicts that?

[His_Majesty]

Dogs and coyotes are different species.

A coyote is a type of dog. Wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dingos, jackals...all of these animals are of the "dog" kind. They are clearly the same kind of animal.

Infinite means limitless. By definition an infinite god is everywhere; that god has no limits.

Ok, so since God is omnipresent, his presence has no limits, therefore, his presence is infinite. I agree....point?

You claim that no one can hide from a god that is omnipresent; clearly you're envisioning a god that is everywhere.

I fail to see the point...maybe because there isn't one.

---

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

A coyote is a type of dog. Wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, dingos, jackals...all of these animals are of the "dog" kind. They are clearly the same kind of animal.

That would be genus, but you've already stated that "kind" is -not- genus.

If "kind" is just about what something looks like then every animal that uses morphological mimicry must be the same "Kind" as the animal it mimics?

Stickbugs and Leafbugs are "plantkind", for example, yeah? Fly Orchids are "bugkind"?