A simple question for creationists.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You don't really understand what Microevolution and macroevolution is, do you?

Cmon now. This is so typical. Soon as the evolutionistS get to the point where they cant answer a question or offer some type of refutation, that resort to the "ignorance" claim. Basically making it seem as if you don't know what you are talking about. I know exactly what micro and macro evolution is, and that is why i am saying what i am saying.

 

[Krok]

Um, my couins and i are all human and my grandparents were human...

Any evidence for that?

 

[McBell]

Cmon now. This is so typical. Soon as the evolutionistS get to the point where they cant answer a question or offer some type of refutation, that resort to the "ignorance" claim. Basically making it seem as if you don't know what you are talking about. I know exactly what micro and macro evolution is, and that is why i am saying what i am saying.

Yet you use a word that has no meaningful definition (kind) to present strawmen arguments and then expect people to take your word that you have some understand of what evolution actually is?

 

[Krok]

I understand that when talking about biology and such, the word "kind" is unjustly sort of a big deal, which i don't understand. A dog is a different KIND of animal than a snake. Would you agree?? Thats what i mean by the word "kind". Instead of playing semantic games why not focus on the core issues here.

I don't understand. Could you explain exactly why a dog is a different "kind" of animal than snake? Could you list the features differentiating them?

It would actually be easier if you could define the word "kind".

 

[Krok]

Ok, if humans are apes (on your view), and from the apes we have different varieties (chimps, orangatans, gorillas, bonobo's), they are all APES. They are changes from within the kind. But on your view, the very gorilla that we evovled from had to evovle from something else. And that something else was not an ape. This doesn't support macroevolution.

Could you define macroevolution for us?

 

[Krok]

Um, the fact that evolutionists believe in macroevolution is the lie. But i guess you didn't catch that.

Could you define the word macroevolution for us?

 

[painted wolf]

Could you define the word macroevolution for us?

I seriously doubt it.

wa:do

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nice try, but you should actually prove a point before you start trying to be a smart arse.

I have been proving the point ever since I took part in the thread. Maybe you need to go work your way from the front to the back instead of from the back to the front.

Otherwise, much like the above quoted post, it just makes you look even more stupid.

Now now now, name calling wont get you any more intellect than you currently have.:no:

Now since I have as yet to hear an evolutionist use the term "kind" in any explanation of evolution, your sad attempt at putting it in there is nothing more than a bold faced lie.

Whether they use the term is irrelevant. The point is, they use the concept. A tortoise is not the same kind of animal as a lion. If you are going to sit there and make a big deal out this elementary term that distinguishes two or more different entities from one another, then you must not be to keen on the evolutionary religion, because if you were, you would put the childish semantics aside and focus on the real issues. If you get a five year old and show him on a piece of paper a picture of a domestic dog, a wolf, a coyote, a fox, and a whale, and you ask him to circle the different kind of animal, I GAURANTEE he will circle the whale. I also gaurantee he wont ask any silly questions like "um, could you define kind, i understand i am looking at four dogs and one whale, but i still need you to define kind". This is all a petty attempt to throw the non-evolutionist off topic. Pathetic

Sadly, it isn't even a new or original lie. So you are merely trying to pass off old out dated lies and old dishonest tactics on a group of people who have already thoroughly debunked them more times than they can count.

Old? Oh, you made history by breeding dogs and one female dog produced a different kind of animal?? Ohhhh snapssss

Then, to top it off, you act as though you are so much smarter.

I may not have the best scientific mind on here, but when it comes to logic and reason, i think i am head of the class. IMHO

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Could you define macroevolution for us?

In a nut shell, macroevolution is the idea that animals produce animals other than their own kind. In other words, dogs produce non-dogs (for whatever adapting or natural selectioning reason)

Microevolution is the idea that animals of the same kind produce different varieties of their kind, but still the same kind of animal. An eagal, a hawk, a cockatoo, and a raven is an example of microevolution.

 

[McBell]

I have been proving the point ever since I took part in the thread. Maybe you need to go work your way from the front to the back instead of from the back to the front.



Now now now, name calling wont get you any more intellect than you currently have.:no:




Whether they use the term is irrelevant. The point is, they use the concept. A tortoise is not the same kind of animal as a lion. If you are going to sit there and make a big deal out this elementary term that distinguishes two or more different entities from one another, then you must not be to keen on the evolutionary religion, because if you were, you would put the childish semantics aside and focus on the real issues. If you get a five year old and show him on a piece of paper a picture of a domestic dog, a wolf, a coyote, a fox, and a whale, and you ask him to circle the different kind of animal, I GAURANTEE he will circle the whale. I also gaurantee he wont ask any silly questions like "um, could you define kind, i understand i am looking at four dogs and one whale, but i still need you to define kind". This is all a petty attempt to throw the non-evolutionist off topic. Pathetic



Old? Oh, you made history by breeding dogs and one female dog produced a different kind of animal?? Ohhhh snapssss




I may not have the best scientific mind on here, but when it comes to logic and reason, i think i am head of the class. IMHO

If this above quoted post is any example of your "logic and reason" it is no wonder you are so confused.

 

[painted wolf]

A wolf is not the same "kind" of creature as a beagle... an Eagle is not the same "kind" of creature as a penguin....

You can make "kind" mean anything you want it do... which makes it a useless term.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

In a nut shell, macroevolution is the idea that animals produce animals other than their own kind. In other words, dogs produce non-dogs (for whatever adapting or natural selectioning reason)

Microevolution is the idea that animals of the same kind produce different varieties of their kind, but still the same kind of animal. An eagal, a hawk, a cockatoo, and a raven is an example of microevolution.

Until you define the word kind, you are merely talking out your backside.
meaning nothing you say about 'kinds' has any meaningful purpose.

Are you ever actually going to define your favourite word, or are you content with merely talking out your backside?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't understand. Could you explain exactly why a dog is a different "kind" of animal than snake? Could you list the features differentiating them?

It would actually be easier if you could define the word "kind".

HAHAHAHAH i dont know which is more crazy, the fact that you are asking this question, or the fact that i am about to answer this question.

Um, a dog is a warm blooded mammal, a snake is a cold-blooded reptile. Wow, i cant believe i just answered this. So this is what its come to???

 

[painted wolf]

In a nut shell, macroevolution is the idea that animals produce animals other than their own kind. In other words, dogs produce non-dogs (for whatever adapting or natural selectioning reason)

Microevolution is the idea that animals of the same kind produce different varieties of their kind, but still the same kind of animal. An eagal, a hawk, a cockatoo, and a raven is an example of microevolution.

And I was right.... he can't actually define what Macroevolution really is.

wa:do

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Until you define the word kind, you are merely talking out your backside.
meaning nothing you say about 'kinds' has any meaningful purpose.

Are you ever actually going to define your favourite word, or are you content with merely talking out your backside?

This is the last time i respond to any more of this elementary nonsense. Anyone that want to discuss the real issues here, lets dance. Everyone else, leave me alone.

 

[painted wolf]

HAHAHAHAH i dont know which is more crazy, the fact that you are asking this question, or the fact that i am about to answer this question.

Um, a dog is a warm blooded mammal, a snake is a cold-blooded reptile. Wow, i cant believe i just answered this. So this is what its come to???

A cat is a warm blooded mammal... therefore according your definition of "kind" it is the same "kind" as a dog.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

HAHAHAHAH i dont know which is more crazy, the fact that you are asking this question, or the fact that i am about to answer this question.

Um, a dog is a warm blooded mammal, a snake is a cold-blooded reptile. Wow, i cant believe i just answered this. So this is what its come to???

Yet you did not answer the question.
Nor did you define the word 'kind'.

If this above quoted oversimplification is the best you got in way of defining 'kinds' then you are merely talking out your backside.

 

[shawn001]

Cmon now. This is so typical. Soon as the evolutionistS get to the point where they cant answer a question or offer some type of refutation, that resort to the "ignorance" claim. Basically making it seem as if you don't know what you are talking about. I know exactly what micro and macro evolution is, and that is why i am saying what i am saying.

when you stated fossils have nothing to do with evolution and ignore billions of facts, then yes your are "ignorant" about the scientific theory of evolution.

You also didn't have your own religion accurate either.

You also then stated you didn't care about evolution, only that the universe had a begining.

Well after that begining everything has evolved since! Many observations and even laws of the universe show it is becoming less complex, not more complex so you know.

Also so you know at any moment we could be wiped off the planet by an asteroid or deep space issue, like a gamma ray burst or black hole. Or even a natural disaster from something on earth itself.

 

[McBell]

This is the last time i respond to any more of this elementary nonsense. Anyone that want to discuss the real issues here, lets dance. Everyone else, leave me alone.

YOU are the one stuck on some elementary school level definition of the word 'kind'.

You do not hesitate to proudly wave your hypocrisy in front of you like a flag, do you?

 

[McBell]

A cat is a warm blooded mammal... therefore according your definition of "kind" it is the same "kind" as a dog.

wa:do

Not to mention that humans and elephants and whales and bats and rats, etc. are all also (according to his definition) the same kind.

yep.
the word is completely useless when discussing evolution.