Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

I see you're unaware of what the "extra stuff" is...
Dilemma.... should I tell you about all the research done on the surrounding area where the fossils are found? Or should I leave you ignorant?
What do you think?

Research? Ohh, I get it...what you meant to say was "should I tell you about all of the presuppostions that were made first in order to interpret what fossils actually mean...in the surrounding areas where they were found".

That revision wasn't pretty, but it was more accurate

Why am I not surprised?...
Are you not curious to go to a natural history museum?

Nope.

Oh.... ohh..... oh, boy....
It's "varieties", now? [/qutoe]

Now? There are many different races (varieties) of humans...as there are many different breeds of dogs...but those variations are limited to within the kind.

[quote='pocaracas' pid='798284' dateline='1416266832']
You want to define "variety", after you define "kind"?

Every heard of dog breeds?

There's this awesome way to classify living organisms that biologists came up with a few years ago and it relies on something called "species".
Even so, the concept of species is a bit fuzzy and you can never ever find an element of a given species giving birth to an element of a different species.
But the offspring of the offspring of the offspring... (a few thousands of generations)... of the offspring of an element will be a different species.
You've been told this several times now. I don't expect you to acknowledge it this time, but... it's one more.

Hey poca..newsflash: Dogs produce dogs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dogs produce dogs.

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?

[Esquilax]

Hey poca..newsflash: Dogs produce dogs.

So do wolves. Are they the same kind now, until you need it to be otherwise?

[The Valkyrie]

Dogs produce dogs.

Right, and this is also the position of evolutionary biology. Or did you think there was some point of disagreement?

[His_Majesty]

Just bringing up his level of education is an argument from authority.

Reading comprehension, people. I was responding to someone that was implying "only the uneducated people reject the theory of evolution", and my response was, "Johnathen Wells is educated, and he don't believe in evolution".

See how that works? See how it all came together??

The content and bearing of his arguments also matter, and it's there that Wells falls down. Just a cursory glance at his motivation for getting his degree, and the reasons behind his doubting evolution demonstrates that the man is just as fallacious when it comes to his denying basic biological fact as any other creationist.

I'd like my Michael Shermer question to be answered

---

So do wolves. Are they the same kind now, until you need it to be otherwise?

I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

[Esquilax]

Reading comprehension, people. I was responding to someone that was implying "only the uneducated people reject the theory of evolution", and my response was, "Johnathen Wells is educated, and he don't believe in evolution".

See how that works? See how it all came together??

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.

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.

I'd like my Michael Shermer question to be answered

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

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

I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog.

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

I mean, still no definition even, so it can't be that useful of a word...

Are Hyenas dogs too? Foxes? Raccoons?

[LostLocke]

Are Hyenas dogs too?

Technically, hyenas are felines.

[Esquilax]

Are Hyenas dogs too?

Technically, hyenas are felines.

I stand corrected.

[LostLocke]

Technically, hyenas are felines.

I stand corrected.

But, that you mentioned helps put the kebosh on things like, "It looks like this thing, so it must be part of that thing."
As in, some dogs and wolves look very similar, but they are not the same animal.