Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Why? What is the rationale for that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Why? What is the rationale for that?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
If you want any credibility among other members of this forum you will need her acceptance or some other person with similar credibility (David M for example or Michigan atheist (is he still on this forum?)).
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Well, obviously we are made in gods image... so ta da...
But which of us humans?
wa:do
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
What did Michigan Atheist do to be banned?
outhouse
Atheistically
Well, obviously we are made in gods image... so ta da...
But which of us humans?
wa:do
what flavor you got there LOL
neanderthal?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
newhope101
Active Member
You are kidding me right?
None of you appear to have any problems when a creationist suggests a kind is a species. You just love to smack that down, don’t you? However, mine works and you hate it and I am pleased. You cannot get past the definition and this tells me you cannot use your usual tactics to attack me. I’ve taken it up a notch and all of a sudden you say I need your acceptance for credibility here. I do not define myself by what anti creationists think on this forum. Creationists already know what you think of us. Do any of you define yourself by what creationists think of you or think you need our acceptance? .I doubt it. As you are aware creationists think your taxons are full of inconsistencies and species problems and that goes for genus and subfamily and family. If you know your stuff you know what I am talking about…or do I have to remind you.
I have already put up enough info to show the mess that your Homo rank is. Why should anyone need an excuse to have an exception. If there were no exceptions to my or any other definition of kind that may indicate you have your taxonomic mess and genomics sorted…which you do not. Changes will continue in your taxonomic rankings. If we let these researchers loose they will soon put chimps in with homo, as some very well credentialed researchers already want to do. That’s your mess. You lot cannot agree on so much that it is befuddling to understand any of you having a problem with any definition of kind whatsoever.
Look at Auto and the rest..they do not want to discuss they only want to ridicule. I am not here for these sort of peoples acceptance.
Your general definition of species has a plethora of exceptions, many species that can interbreed, yet you have no problem with that. PaintedWolf offered “high genetic similarity” in some reply, yet is unable to articulate the meaning of ‘high’, you do not have a problem with her.
I am sensing bias here. This is a forum not a scientific panel. If you want a definition for discussion purposes I have provided one. If you want to pretend this is more than what it is I see this as your problem, not mine.
None of you anti creationists are ever going to ‘accept’ any definition of ‘kind’, so what makes you think we need your acceptance. Hence your acceptance is not required.
Last edited:
newhope101
Active Member
You need to look up newer info Auto and wolf and outhouse..neanderthals are now sketched to look just like you and me. But with your mess I expect neanderthal will have many more faces. Perhaps he will look more orangutanggy in time. I'm glad to see you blindly believe whatever is thrown at you as flavour of the month.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'm sorry, I missed where I ridiculed you. I merely asked a couple of obvious questions to sound out your definition, and would appreciate it if you would answer them. Thank you.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
outhouse
Atheistically
I see you could not go back and debate me at all, at a loss for real answers to problems in which you do not know??? we could teach you and get you up to speed.
he/she doesnt speak for me
I think we are all pretty well educated with me at the end of the train. I dont think You cant get past me let alone argue with any validity with the others.
theres no mess.
no it will not
is this not the pot calling the kettle black????
thats because its not valid in any sense, we deal with reality.
we dont have or need tactics, we have truth and knowledge
NO you have not, you put up a rare view not accepted as a whole and say were lost. I believe your very very wrong again.
No you have not.
You fail,,,,,,,, to understand there is a clear picture of human evolution going back 8-9 million years. We dont need every piece of the puzzle to see what the picture looks like. With what we know creationion myth scientist can put all there pieces in and the picture does not change.
The sooner you get that point that there is a good reason why we dont teach the creation myth in schools, the faster you would learn what really took place in history
he/she doesnt speak for me
I think we are all pretty well educated with me at the end of the train. I dont think You cant get past me let alone argue with any validity with the others.
theres no mess.
no it will not
is this not the pot calling the kettle black????
thats because its not valid in any sense, we deal with reality.
we dont have or need tactics, we have truth and knowledge
NO you have not, you put up a rare view not accepted as a whole and say were lost. I believe your very very wrong again.
No you have not.
You fail,,,,,,,, to understand there is a clear picture of human evolution going back 8-9 million years. We dont need every piece of the puzzle to see what the picture looks like. With what we know creationion myth scientist can put all there pieces in and the picture does not change.
The sooner you get that point that there is a good reason why we dont teach the creation myth in schools, the faster you would learn what really took place in history
outhouse
Atheistically
FYI the debate on evolution ended a while back, its not up for debate anymore.
No one will waist time or resources looking in to see if a myth holds water or not.
now if you want to debate abiogenesis, feel free its in its infancy and so little is know its easy for creationist to pick on. You would have more luck there for a short period.
No one will waist time or resources looking in to see if a myth holds water or not.
now if you want to debate abiogenesis, feel free its in its infancy and so little is know its easy for creationist to pick on. You would have more luck there for a short period.
newhope101
Active Member
No you fail..even your own researchers acknowlege there is controversy within evolutionary science. Look at any taxon on Wiki for a brief overview with referenced research. If you are thus uneducated or like to get around with blinkers on that is your choice. What I am pointing out is you are hypocritical in requesting a definition of kind that is of a higher standard than your own definition of species.
Then again I leave those with an over developed sense of self importance to enjoy their own company.
outhouse
Atheistically
Creation myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this will help explain the creation myth a little better so you can understand its origins.
this will help explain the creation myth a little better so you can understand its origins.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
You fail! No, you fail! No, you!
Sounds like kindergarten, huh? There ain't no "fail" here; but emotion tends to run high where individuals have invested time and effort in their education. The problem with communication seems to happen when one side has no respect for the other, and that does seem to happen a lot here; a bias of evolution over creation. But I've seen discussions where a shared understanding was reached, even if it was an agreement to disagree. I've went back over your posts, and there's some interesting stuff; but I'm not sure if this is more properly a taxidermy issue. If you got good stuff, and share that stuff with patience and understanding, you'll make a point.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Newhope... that is the modern version of Neanderthals.
And I did answer you twice so far... but I'll do it a third time as you seem to never grasp it.
"High genetic similarity" is >2% difference within a populations mtDNA... generally kept within the same guidelines for specific non-mtDNA genes like cytocrome b .
Perhaps you will provide a definition of human and how one distinguishes a human from apes?
For example is this a human?
wa:do
And I did answer you twice so far... but I'll do it a third time as you seem to never grasp it.
"High genetic similarity" is >2% difference within a populations mtDNA... generally kept within the same guidelines for specific non-mtDNA genes like cytocrome b .
Perhaps you will provide a definition of human and how one distinguishes a human from apes?
For example is this a human?
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Here is another good reconstruction of a Neanderthal... from a specific child's skull. Using the same muscle reconstruction techniques employed by forensic reconstruction artists.
I like the addition of the "ginger allele", but it is getting a little over done IMHO. Not every Neanderthal would have been ginger.
wa:do
I like the addition of the "ginger allele", but it is getting a little over done IMHO. Not every Neanderthal would have been ginger.
wa:do
outhouse
Atheistically
Here is another good reconstruction of a Neanderthal... from a specific child's skull. Using the same muscle reconstruction techniques employed by forensic reconstruction artists.
I like the addition of the "ginger allele", but it is getting a little over done IMHO. Not every Neanderthal would have been ginger.
wa:do
I agree
even going caucasion for me is a stretch
do you know anthing about that?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Combo of genetics and the need for Vitamin D. You need light skin to be able to produce enough vitamin D at those latitudes, especially if you wear clothing (which they did). Plus, the "ginger allele" is expressed by producing less melanin.
wa:do