A simple question for creationists.

[Dirty Penguin]

So, why are dogs called "dogs". Why cant they be called cats? Please answer this question. Since you people are making such a big deal about this, answer why are dogs called dogs and cats called cats, if they are the same "kind". Why cant both be given the same name?? I cant wait to see the answer for this.

Because they don't belong to the same Family, Genus or Species

Ok, the bible say each "kind will produce after its own "kind". And thats exactly what happens. I dont get your point hear. Lions, tigers, and domestic cats are different types of cats, but they are all CATS.

Define Kind and Types. What's the difference?

BUT THEY ARE ALL CATS.

So they're not the same "kind"....right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because they don't belong to the same Family, Genus or Species

You just admitted that cats and dogs dont belong to the same family, genus, or species. So why the HECK are we spending all this time on this "kind" business when if in fact they come from a DIFFERENT FAMILY/GENUS/SPECIES, THAT WOULD IMPLY THEY ARE A DIFFERENT KIND OF ANIMAL!!!!!

 

[painted wolf]

I just told you why i dispute one and not the other and yet the above statement was made. Wow.

So you dispute that one species can produce another species... that a Lion can't be related to a Tiger.

None of the above. I understand both. Thats why i can decipher which one is credible and which one isn't. So keep believing in your religion and i will stick to mines.

Obviously you don't... and my religious beliefs don't come into this. :beach:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Also, not all dogs are called dogs... some are called wolves, coyotes, foxes, some are called Zorro some are called dholes.

And not all of them obviously look like dogs either:

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

macroevolution is change from one animal to another

No, it's a gradual change from one species to another or what is known as "Speciation".

microevolution is change from one species to another species from within the kind.

What is it going to be..."species" or "kind"...You can't use both as (kind) doesn't really make any sense scientifically. Microevolution is Evolution where there is changed in allele frequencies.

But whatever you say, the fact of the matter is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc.

I think we can agree to this. We know these species are separate yet they, like all life on this planet, are genetically related.

You can play with the definitions all you want, but the point is an animal will never produce a different kind of animal than itself.

Then maybe you can explain what "kind" of an animal a "Mule" is....

 

[camanintx]

Lol, these technical definitions. Look, when you take away all the fluff and feathers from these definitions that you people like to give, macroevolution is change from one animal to another, and microevolution is change from one species to another species from within the kind. But whatever you say, the fact of the matter is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. You can play with the definitions all you want, but the point is an animal will never produce a different kind of animal than itself.

This may seem a little off topic but indulge me if you will and answer the following questions as honestly as you can.

If one dump truck emptied a load of dirt in a field, would you call it a hill?

How many dump trucks would have to add their load to the pile before you would call it a hill?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You just admitted that cats and dogs dont belong to the same family, genus, or species. So why the HECK are we spending all this time on this "kind" business when if in fact they come from a DIFFERENT FAMILY/GENUS/SPECIES, THAT WOULD IMPLY THEY ARE A DIFFERENT KIND OF ANIMAL!!!!!

Because you haven't defined what "Kind" means. The difference as to how we categorize cats and dogs are obvious.....but you've now introduced a new word (type)..So what does that mean.

 

[darkendless]

Following this thread is really painful. If Mr Penguin and Miss PW had $1 for every time they've explained some of the finer points of evolution to an ignorant and stubborn religious fundamentalist they'd never have to work again

 

[McBell]

Because you haven't defined what "Kind" means. The difference as to how we categorize cats and dogs are obvious.....but you've now introduced a new word (type)..So what does that mean.

I seriously doubt that he will give a definitive definition of the word "kind".
I am fairly certain he knows that the second he does, he flat out loses his argument.

His super subjective use of the word is the only thing that keeps him afloat in the discussion.

the second he actually defines the word in a meaningful way is the second he is shown exactly why and how he is flat out wrong.
Then he will either have to change the definition, or merely put his fingers in his ears.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Fossil evidence doesnt have anything to do with evolution. When we find a fossil the only thing we are able to determine is that something died. THATS IT. People read into the evidence based on preconceived notions and once you do that you immediately leave science and go to religion, because at that point it becomes a faith based system.

And you know this because of your expertise in paleontology?
Or is it simply that your faith outweighs the evidence?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Following this thread is really painful. If Mr Penguin and Miss PW had $1 for every time they've explained some of the finer points of evolution to an ignorant and stubborn religious fundamentalist they'd never have to work again

Oh, so you believe that a dog can produce a non-dog too?? Gotcha

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh, so you believe that a dog can produce a non-dog too?? Gotcha

opcorn:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And you know this because of your expertise in paleontology?
Or is it simply that your faith outweighs the evidence?

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. Until you or me see anything otherwise, lets just say it didnt happen.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it's a gradual change from one species to another or what is known as "Speciation".

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc...

Then maybe you can explain what "kind" of an animal a "Mule" is....

Dont know, but i do know it isn't a whale.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This may seem a little off topic but indulge me if you will and answer the following questions as honestly as you can.

If one dump truck emptied a load of dirt in a field, would you call it a hill?

How many dump trucks would have to add their load to the pile before you would call it a hill?

I dunno

 

[darkendless]

Oh, so you believe that a dog can produce a non-dog too?? Gotcha

I don't believe anything. Thats you're problem. You think evolution is a belief, its really not. Its really an evalutaion of the evidence, something you can't seem to grasp.

Perhaps take off your religion goggles?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't believe anything. Thats you're problem. You think evolution is a belief, its really not. Its really an evalutaion of the evidence, something you can't seem to grasp.

Perhaps take off your religion goggles?

What evidence do we have that animals produced animals other than its own kind??? Evolutionists always talk about evidence this and evidence that. That is just a bunch of empiricalist talk that really doesn't have any basis in reality. It just sounds good. But when you get in depth, it is a faith based religion. There is no voodoo fossil record out there that shows fossils changing to a different animal. None.

 

[painted wolf]

Can you define what a "cat" is?

Is this a cat for example?

or this?

or this?

wa:do

ps... how do you expect anyone to give you evidence of something reproducing outside it's "kind" if you keep refusing to define what a "kind" is.

 

[McBell]

What evidence do we have that animals produced animals other than its own kind??? Evolutionists always talk about evidence this and evidence that. That is just a bunch of empiricalist talk that really doesn't have any basis in reality. It just sounds good. But when you get in depth, it is a faith based religion. There is no voodoo fossil record out there that shows fossils changing to a different animal. None.

When are you going to define the word "kind"?

Your blatant dishonesty is getting to be rather predictable.

Your hypocrisy has just surpassed the comical mark into hilarity.

You, talking about reality whilst hiding behind the word kind?

 

[darkendless]

Evolutionists always talk about evidence this and evidence that. That is just a bunch of empiricalist talk that really doesn't have any basis in reality. It just sounds good. But when you get in depth, it is a faith based religion. There is no voodoo fossil record out there that shows fossils changing to a different animal. None.

It really isn't faith based at all. I don't need to present anything to you, i'd just be copying what others in this thread have already given you which you continually dismiss.

There is a fossil record and its not voodoo, its a bunch of fossils.