Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

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!!!

They're related animals, but they aren't the same. There are a lot of species in the world, and their relationships can sometimes be deceptive based solely on looks as the Hyena example given earlier demonstrates. Your "kind" crap has no nuance and demonstrably leads you to bad conclusions, but what's worse is you can't even give a clear definition, or a list of criteria for how it works, or a definitive list of what kinds there are, or even a reason to use it over the current classification system.

So, to sum up: you have a system that is demonstrably worse than the scientific one, that you can't tell us anything about, and don't seem to know how to use yourself.

Keeping all that in mind... who cares about kinds?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You earlier said you hadn't claimed that god is infinite ... because so doing would have put your point at that time in jeopardy.

I then pointed out that you had indeed said as much.

And the point of this is to lay clear to folks your dissimulation; how you will say whatever is convenient for your point at the time you say it. You would deign to tell everyone here about the nature of your god ... yet you don't even agree with yourself about that very nature.

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.

See above.

In case it's still escaping your magisterial intellect and fearsome mind: you're a dishonest person.

---

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??

Because the similarities, which escape the untutored eye but are apparent to those with an education, are definitive.

Simply because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a fact. It only means that you don't understand it.

[dyresand]

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

They're related animals, but they aren't the same. There are a lot of species in the world, and their relationships can sometimes be deceptive based solely on looks as the Hyena example given earlier demonstrates. Your "kind" crap has no nuance and demonstrably leads you to bad conclusions, but what's worse is you can't even give a clear definition, or a list of criteria for how it works, or a definitive list of what kinds there are, or even a reason to use it over the current classification system.

So, to sum up: you have a system that is demonstrably worse than the scientific one, that you can't tell us anything about, and don't seem to know how to use yourself.

Keeping all that in mind... who cares about kinds?

well we shouldn't use kinds but species to properly represent the types of species there is and not kinds. because kinds could be anything even a physical item or its like saying what kind of dinner i am having tonight.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's...'kind' of what they've been discussing for the last handful of pages >.>

[The Grand Nudger]

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

A dog is a subspecies of wolf (obviously I'm assuming you're talking about domestic dogs in all of this). That's why dogs don't give birth to wolves, understand? They would only be the same "kind" if kind meant genus or family - which it doesn't, as you've made very clear.

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.

In most cases it's an issue of chromosome pairing (as I mentioned). Amusingly, if "lost information" were the culprit it would be even more difficult to explain, as the wolves are -newer- than those members of their family with -fewer- chromosomes. Seems that wolves didn't lose anything, they gained, relative to members of their family with which they can no longer breed. African wild dogs, which aren't wild dogs at all..have precisely the same number of chromosomes as wolves...so nothing was lost on that count (amusingly, we haven't seen any hybrids between AWD and Wolves or their genus - despite ample opportunity, maybe they're biding their time?)

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??

I very rarely leave my own comments quoted in a reply...but here I had to. I'll answer your question, of course....but I'm a little disappointed that you wouldn't apply the rules I've been assembling based upon your own conclusions....and not just that...that you would refuse to even acknowledge what had been said.....by you. I thought we were doing good. You proved me wrong a little ways back already, I was sure that "kind" was genus as of this morning. I've been corrected since.

I'm just going to stuff my disappointment deep down and continue. The notion that we all share a common ancestor -isn't- based upon the diversity that we see. So that's pretty much a non-question. The notion that we all share a common ancestor was based on the opposite of diversity, the vast homogeneity we see across very "distant" creatures (by any measure). First, morphologically - as this was pretty much as deep as we could investigate the issue, but then, genetically (as we gained access to more powerful instrumentation). It's still possible that life has multiple ancestors, and that they all just happened to fall into the same structural and genetic patterns, and that they all did so in an orderly manner (no one line "jumping ahead" of the other) such as to create a situation in which we simply couldn;t tell the difference. But that;s an extraneous assumption, it's not really required, it offers no additional explanatory power - because even if there were multiple ancestral points...they all homogenized to the point of being indistinguishable, and all by the same means in the same period of time.

[pocaracas]

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.

No, you didn't.
Or was it that long ago that I can't remember?!
Anyway, care to repeat? what presuppositions are going into the interpretations of fossil records?

And then present what presuppositions are going into the interpretation of god records.

I'd like to compare the two, in your point of view, just so we can remove my own presuppositions.
Can you do that? Please!!!!!

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.

Not that faith in that thing. I meant the faith scientists are supposedly having in whatever it is you think they have in order to use those presuppositions above.

[His_Majesty]

We're not brain damaged enough to be creationists.

For the record, that's a positive thing.

About as positive as a Magic Johnson HIV test...in 1991.

[The Valkyrie]

We're not brain damaged enough to be creationists.

For the record, that's a positive thing.

About as positive as a Magic Johnson HIV test...in 1991.

This stupid is strong with this one.

[dyresand]

We're not brain damaged enough to be creationists.

For the record, that's a positive thing.

About as positive as a Magic Johnson HIV test...in 1991.

How is that even a bad thing exactly? were just i don't know not ignorant
of science and knowledge.

[Esquilax]

We're not brain damaged enough to be creationists.

For the record, that's a positive thing.

About as positive as a Magic Johnson HIV test...in 1991.

Oh, are we reduced to attempts at comedy now? I'd say stick with the apologetics, but you're honestly one of the worst of those I've ever seen too.

Incidentally, do you have any of the quite reasonable information I've requested from you yet?

1: What is the definition of a kind?
2: How many kinds are there, and what are they?
3: What are the determinations for kind groupings based on?
4: Who is making these determinations, and why should we care?
5: How do you resolve the double standard of utilizing morphology when discussing living organisms, but dismissing it entirely when it comes to the fossil record?