A simple question for creationists.

[Dirty Penguin]

Can you define what a "cat" is?

Is this a cat for example?

or this?

.......:ko:........

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Hey, you're the one that asked for a definition for (macroevolution)

[FONT=&quot]Neanderthal vs. Homo-Sapien[/FONT] comes to mind as well.

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

I know you don't know and this is why we're trying to tell you that simply classifying animals as ("kinds and types") doesn't work because you'll keep having to move that goal post each and every time a species doesn't fit.

 

[johnhanks]

I know you don't know and this is why we're trying to tell you ...

Creationists tend to be adept at the tactic called invincible ignorance: refuse to acknowledge any of the facts of the case and you're immune to arguments based on those facts.

Likewise, ask meaningless questions founded in ignorance, then declare victory when no meaningful answer is forthcoming.

The mystery is, creationists really seem to think they're achieving something by this.

 

[Krok]

Creationists tend to be adept at the tactic called invincible ignorance: refuse to acknowledge any of the facts of the case and you're immune to arguments based on those facts.

Likewise, ask meaningless questions founded in ignorance, then declare victory when no meaningful answer is forthcoming.

The mystery is, creationists really seem to think they're achieving something by this.

They know they can't achieve anything with educated people. That's why they just refuse to define "kinds" when talking to educated people. They know, perfectly well, that every definition of the word "kind" ever provided, has always been refuted with evidence from the real world.

However, they love throwing the word "kind" around. It really works very well amongst the completely ignorant. They achieve a lot by it: all those fundies think they know a lot about "science".

Wasn't the last "definition" of "kind" we got here something about "warm-blooded mammals" a different "kind" than "cold-blooded reptiles"? That makes humans and whales the same "kind" and snakes and crocodiles the same "kind". Just amazing. At least that definition is working towards humans and whales being more closely related than humans and snakes....

 

[camanintx]

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

What do you think makes a dog a dog?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Creationists tend to be adept at the tactic called invincible ignorance

Well, based on the fact that no one has ever observed evolution take place, but yet they believe it, that is invincible ignorance too. Because you sure as heck never saw it.

 

[camanintx]

Well, based on the fact that no one has ever observed evolution take place, but yet they believe it, that is invincible ignorance too. Because you sure as heck never saw it.

Has anyone ever observed creationism?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What do you think makes a dog a dog?

I dont know, but i know one when i see one. What does modern animal classification say makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat? I will go with whatever is stated. The fact is, when you begin to discuss what makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat, you are already distinguishing one kind from the other. But this elementary school logic is either being purposely overlooked as a way to distract from the main issue, or you people are just not to bright.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, based on the fact that no one has ever observed evolution take place, but yet they believe it, that is invincible ignorance too. Because you sure as heck never saw it.

I saw evolution just this morning. It was a simulation, true, but it was an accurate simulation. Things evolving is a direct consequence of genes mutating.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Has anyone ever observed creationism?

No, creationism has never been observed. But I never said we should only believe what can be observed. I am saying that by definition science is the study of the physical world and natural phenomenon; especially by using systematic observation and experiment. And evolution is a scientific hypothesis that is believed by many people despite the fact that it has never been observed and no experimental test has ever supported it. Creation is not in the scientific realm so therefore it is not a scientific hypothesis. Nice try though.

 

[McBell]

No, creationism has never been observed. But I never said we should only believe what can be observed. I am saying that by definition science is the study of the physical world and natural phenomenon; especially by using systematic observation and experiment. And evolution is a scientific hypothesis that is believed by many people despite the fact that it has never been observed and no experimental test has ever supported it. Creation is not in the scientific realm so therefore it is not a scientific hypothesis. Nice try though.

Are you honestly that ignorant or are you merely hoping everyone else is?

 

[painted wolf]

Are you honestly that ignorant or are you merely hoping everyone else is?

Never let facts get in the way of a good "thought experiment".

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

I dont know, but i know one when i see one. What does modern animal classification say makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat? I will go with whatever is stated.

If you don't know what makes a dog a dog, then how would you know when a dog becomes something else?

 

[shawn001]

No, creationism has never been observed. But I never said we should only believe what can be observed. I am saying that by definition science is the study of the physical world and natural phenomenon; especially by using systematic observation and experiment. And evolution is a scientific hypothesis that is believed by many people despite the fact that it has never been observed and no experimental test has ever supported it. Creation is not in the scientific realm so therefore it is not a scientific hypothesis. Nice try though.

"And evolution is a scientific hypothesis" Very wrong

" despite the fact that it has never been observed and no experimental test has ever supported it. " very wrong again

So 200 years of testing, observation and peer review in all the sciences that explains the physical evidence, is not a scientific theory?

You need to learn again the difference between a scientific theory is and a hypothesis. Or that facts lead to a scientific theory, not the other way around.

Again billions of facts support evolution!!!

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition


Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1

 

[Krok]

I dont know, but i know one when i see one. What does modern animal classification say makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat? I will go with whatever is stated. The fact is, when you begin to discuss what makes a dog a dog and a cat a cat, you are already distinguishing one kind from the other. But this elementary school logic is either being purposely overlooked as a way to distract from the main issue, or you people are just not to bright.

Please, could you define a "kind"?

 

[Krok]

Well, based on the fact that no one has ever observed evolution take place, but yet they believe it, that is invincible ignorance too. Because you sure as heck never saw it.

Actually, we have. We've seen species evolving into other species numerous times by random mutations, genetic drift, etc. and natural selection. Both in the lab and in nature. The word "species" has been defined. Seeing that you keep on insisting on the word "kinds", could you define the word "kinds"?

 

[Krok]

Are you honestly that ignorant or are you merely hoping everyone else is?

I think both.:yes:

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

I see.
Without admitting that you know nothing of paleontology, or even biology and genetics, you answer with the tired, and irrelevant, "Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats...".

Evolutionary biologists and geneticists can effectively trace the evolution of the dog and cat back to the miacoids of about 55 million years ago. But since this flies in the face of your faith, you ignore the physical evidence and revel in intentional ignorance.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, based on the fact that no one has ever observed evolution take place, but yet they believe it, that is invincible ignorance too. Because you sure as heck never saw it.

Here ya go.....

[youtube]91a7ZPZQUfk[/youtube]
Proof of Evolution: Evolution Observed - YouTube

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evolutionary biologists and geneticists can effectively trace the evolution of the dog and cat back to the miacoids of about 55 million years ago. But since this flies in the face of your faith, you ignore the physical evidence and revel in intentional ignorance.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. If you think that dogs came from a non-dog and cats came from a non-cat, then that is your religion. You have your religion just like i have mines.