Jump to content


Photo

A Question For The Creationists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

#21 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 October 2012 - 10:45 PM

...

1.There’s no evidence for God

Yes, it is true that there is no scientific evidence for God, nor can there be. That is not to say that there is no evidence. For most people of faith, their life experence provides that evidence - emotional, philosophical, circumstantial - but not scientifc. On the other hand, for those like me, the complexity and wonder of the universe, and specifically of the nature of life on Earth, is strong evidence of the existence of that higher power. But it is still emotional and philosophical and circumstantial - not scientific. Part of the reason that this argument is so stronly advanced by certain theists, I believe, is that they use it to set up a false dilemma - if Natural Selection can be "disproven" or rejected, then God wins, by default. That isn't the case.

...

Depending on the definition of science that statement isn't true. If you assume a definition where that statement is true, you would have to dismiss quite many propositions that are generally accepted as scientific. One may say that there is no empirical evidence for God with empirical being what can be known from sense perception (seeing, hearing, smelling, touching). But there are limitations to empiricism anyway. Take a simple thing such as causality you can see what we call cause and effect, but to derive from this a law of causality requires reason, imagination and theory building. Skeptics still could claim that there is no evidence and so they have done in the past.

#22 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 15 October 2012 - 02:05 AM

The meaning of life part... you forgot the word "ultimate". Yes we all can make-up an arbitrary "purpose" for our life... However this purpose is literally meaningless since over time it will fade and disappear. Even if I was the richest man in the universe and built statues of myself at each street intersection this would be meaningless since in time the universe will end, (heat death if not some other event), which would render my statues useless. Therefore yes people can make-up a "purpose" for their life, but know that this purpose is entirely arbitrary and without meaning.


Thats true. A million years from now, in the infinity of the cosmos, what difference will it make if I lived my life like Hitler or Mother Teresa.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:17 AM

Thats true. A million years from now, in the infinity of the cosmos, what difference will it make if I lived my life like Hitler or Mother Teresa.


Exactly my point, well that is from the naturalist / atheist perspective since they only believe in the natural world, therefore after this life there is nothing... No ultimate judgement for wrongs done in this life, therefore there really is no reason for atheists to live a morally good life, since they have the potential to live an unmoral life, with no consequences (if they keep their wrongdoings hidden)

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 04:28 AM

Gilbo: My apologies for mistyping your name. I try to be very careful, and never misuse a screen name intentionally. That is a childish tactic.

You still havent defined what an "ultimate" purpose is - you've simply added another word to the term: ultimately meaningful purpose. The word "ultimate" doesn't seem to add anything to the term.

Perhaps looking to the Bible can provide some idea of wbhat purpose ought to mean, at least to a Christian. In Mark 12 (30-31) we read:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

It would seem to me that the purposes I listed above in my post as meaningful purposes more than qualify under the second of the two primary commandments. I see no reason why the first has to be a part of meeting the second. They are two separate commandments, I think. Most Christians would see good works done following the second one as helping to fulfill their obligations under the first. But just in terms of meaningful purpose, the second defines it rather nicely, I think.

So I'm back to this: ultimate purpose, if it is anything at all, is meaningful purpose. The two are synonymous. Certainly you can't mean that those things done as "ultimate purpose" will be unchanging and permanent, since the Bible tells us that:

"The day of the Lord will come like a thief--it will be a day on which the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, the elements be destroyed in the fierce heat, and the earth and all the works of man be utterly burnt up."

So apparently, there is no purpose here on earth which will survive - there is no "ultimate purpose" possible for humans. I simply don't accept that. I think that the sorts of purposes I outlined in my post above are meaningful - the most meaningful which can be achieved by human beings.


No worries, I pointed it out specificially since half a year ago I was accused of being "Bilbo" from another forum.. I am not that person.

I never said that the superficial purposes are not important, I stressed this point before... So please stop refering to it. However you need to realise that ultimately in the grand scheme of life, such purposes ARE superficial and without ultimate meaning. Since in the end they have no relevance to the universe's ultimate conclusion, and therefore have no actual effect.

God doesn't require your acceptance of the fact that if you believe in only natural things and only the natural world, then when this natural world inevitably dies away then there is the realisation that everything that has occured within the natural world has been for naught. You can do as you have done, and stubbornly refuse this conclusion, despite the science that supports "heat death".

If you do not believe in anything outside of this natural plane of existence then nothing really matters. Portillo has grasped what I am getting at here. It is a depressing conclusion but it is an important one to grasp if you want your life to have real meaning. This is why Christians want to share the good word, consider this, if you saved a person and they were allowed into heaven due to your assistance (and God of course), that person will exist in heaven for all time, therefore that act lasts forever and has an actual lasting effect.

#25 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 October 2012 - 07:35 AM

Exactly my point, well that is from the naturalist / atheist perspective since they only believe in the natural world, therefore after this life there is nothing... No ultimate judgement for wrongs done in this life, therefore there really is no reason for atheists to live a morally good life, since they have the potential to live an unmoral life, with no consequences (if they keep their wrongdoings hidden)


That's right. Egoism was suggested before in another thread as to why people might choose not to murder (but not why we should consider it immoral), and I see egoism as the minimum philosophy anyone can hold barring people with a reduced mental capacity. It is a scarey thought though. If the only thing that influences my actions are repercussions from human laws, then what is stopping me from taking power and changing the human laws in place to allow me to murder?

#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 08:25 AM

You have still failed to provide an answer to my question, Calypsis, and it is become patently obvious to all here that you are stalling. Please feel free to re-enter the discussion when you are ready to provide an answer. Not a response, but an answer. That is what all the others have done, and that is what you have not done. You can play word games all you want, but that doesn't change the basic fact - you have not answered the question.

Why might that be, I wonder?

By the way, your intentional misunderstanding of what I last posted, and your puerile attempts to deflect attention from your own cowardice were momentarily entertaining.

Rich


If you lie to us even one more time then I will personally ask the moderators to remove you from this board. Now you deal with the things I laid in front of you and quit fooling around.

I did answer your deliberate attempt to decieve us on Biogenesis and origins as it pertains to evolution:

Perhaps you haven't seen it yet:

Quote: Oh, really? Well maybe you should inform your many equally messed-up comrades in Darwinism about this because they have repeatedly written things that prove your point is dead wrong.

Observe:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

I can give you another dozen examples like these. Is that necessary or are you still going to cling to the lie you just promoted here?

The real truth is that you and your unbelieving companions who hold to such nonsense are running from the truth and that truth is Biogenesis; the very Law that God established to refute any notion that nature can create or is even capable of creating life.

By the way, it's called 'chemical evolution' and it has been known by that terminology since the days of Alexander Oparin in the 1930's.

So you have the freedom to lie to yourself if you wish but you aren't going to lie to us and get away with it here.

P.S. Notice especially Neil de Grasse Tysons subtitle, '14 billion years years of cosmic evolution.' It'S ALL ONE GREAT BIG PACKAGE, fella. So say the 'experts' that those of your ilk look to for leadership.

Why did you not reply?

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 09:56 AM

If you lie to us even one more time then I will personally ask the moderators to remove you from this board. Now you deal with the things I laid in front of you and quit fooling around.

I did answer your deliberate attempt to decieve us on Biogenesis and origins as it pertains to evolution:

Perhaps you haven't seen it yet:

Quote: Oh, really? Well maybe you should inform your many equally messed-up comrades in Darwinism about this because they have repeatedly written things that prove your point is dead wrong.

Observe:

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

I can give you another dozen examples like these. Is that necessary or are you still going to cling to the lie you just promoted here?

The real truth is that you and your unbelieving companions who hold to such nonsense are running from the truth and that truth is Biogenesis; the very Law that God established to refute any notion that nature can create or is even capable of creating life.

By the way, it's called 'chemical evolution' and it has been known by that terminology since the days of Alexander Oparin in the 1930's.

So you have the freedom to lie to yourself if you wish but you aren't going to lie to us and get away with it here.

P.S. Notice especially Neil de Grasse Tysons subtitle, '14 billion years years of cosmic evolution.' It'S ALL ONE GREAT BIG PACKAGE, fella. So say the 'experts' that those of your ilk look to for leadership.

Why did you not reply?


No please don't get him kicked out... I like having someone to prove wrong Posted Image

However considering that you're deviating from the OP I don't think anyone is obligated to respond, perhaps create your own thread and if people wish to respond they can do so there. (Its a tad rude to hijack people's threads too, just saying Posted Image )

The OP had the built-in hypothetical situation of evolution being proven right, this was acknowledged as a hypothetical and therefore debating if evolution is true or not goes against what the OP was about. I do think that the OP is a little sneaky in that its attempting to pacify creationists by asking the question of "is evolution really bad for your beliefs" to which can be asked "if not then why debate it"... However as can be seen in the initial responses most Creationists here are pretty rock-steady.

I strongly advocate creating your own thread

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 10:16 AM

No worries, I pointed it out specificially since half a year ago I was accused of being "Bilbo" from another forum.. I am not that person.

I never said that the superficial purposes are not important, I stressed this point before... So please stop refering to it. However you need to realise that ultimately in the grand scheme of life, such purposes ARE superficial and without ultimate meaning. Since in the end they have no relevance to the universe's ultimate conclusion, and therefore have no actual effect.

God doesn't require your acceptance of the fact that if you believe in only natural things and only the natural world, then when this natural world inevitably dies away then there is the realisation that everything that has occured within the natural world has been for naught. You can do as you have done, and stubbornly refuse this conclusion, despite the science that supports "heat death".

If you do not believe in anything outside of this natural plane of existence then nothing really matters. Portillo has grasped what I am getting at here. It is a depressing conclusion but it is an important one to grasp if you want your life to have real meaning. This is why Christians want to share the good word, consider this, if you saved a person and they were allowed into heaven due to your assistance (and God of course), that person will exist in heaven for all time, therefore that act lasts forever and has an actual lasting effect.


I believe Jesus spoke about saving treasures in heaven (or something to that effect), that is the ultimate purpose of this life since heaven is eternal thus lasts forever.

#29 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 October 2012 - 10:26 AM

If you lie to us even one more time then I will personally ask the moderators to remove you from this board. Now you deal with the things I laid in front of you and quit fooling around.


We remove people based on rule violations only, and we usually give people a chance to improve their behavior before booting them. Lying isn't exactly on the list, although insincere arguments are. Instead of banning people who are making false claims, we respond to them with a rebuttal. If they continue to ignore a rebuttal and repeat their false claims without further justification, that would fall under trolling and might warrant a warning/ban.

It is under the forum guidelines that if a person has a problem with another member, that they should use the report button. Warning should be left to the forum moderators and admins.

#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:41 PM

We remove people based on rule violations only, and we usually give people a chance to improve their behavior before booting them. Lying isn't exactly on the list, although insincere arguments are. Instead of banning people who are making false claims, we respond to them with a rebuttal. If they continue to ignore a rebuttal and repeat their false claims without further justification, that would fall under trolling and might warrant a warning/ban.

It is under the forum guidelines that if a person has a problem with another member, that they should use the report button. Warning should be left to the forum moderators and admins.


O.K.
  • JayShel likes this

#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 12:47 PM

No please don't get him kicked out... I like having someone to prove wrong Posted Image

However considering that you're deviating from the OP I don't think anyone is obligated to respond, perhaps create your own thread and if people wish to respond they can do so there. (Its a tad rude to hijack people's threads too, just saying Posted Image )

The OP had the built-in hypothetical situation of evolution being proven right, this was acknowledged as a hypothetical and therefore debating if evolution is true or not goes against what the OP was about. I do think that the OP is a little sneaky in that its attempting to pacify creationists by asking the question of "is evolution really bad for your beliefs" to which can be asked "if not then why debate it"... However as can be seen in the initial responses most Creationists here are pretty rock-steady.

I strongly advocate creating your own thread


Thanks, Gilbo. I know he won't get kicked off for this but it is nonetheless a lie to blantantly affirm that evolution has nothing to do with origins when the entire movement was started by Darwins "Origin of the Species" and since then countless books by evolutionists have been about 'our evolutionary origins' as I just proved above. The truth is that when they pull this trick they are just hiding from the truth.

As far as starting another thread we already had one since last spring; remember? You and I went blow for blow with a couple of really stubborn Evo's on the matter. Can't remember their names.

Best wishes.

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 October 2012 - 05:07 PM

Thanks, Gilbo. I know he won't get kicked off for this but it is nonetheless a lie to blantantly affirm that evolution has nothing to do with origins when the entire movement was started by Darwins "Origin of the Species" and since then countless books by evolutionists have been about 'our evolutionary origins' as I just proved above. The truth is that when they pull this trick they are just hiding from the truth.

As far as starting another thread we already had one since last spring; remember? You and I went blow for blow with a couple of really stubborn Evo's on the matter. Can't remember their names.

Best wishes.


No probs, thanks Calypsis.

Yeah I remember, good times :D

Though over time those threads get "buried" (so to speak) so a revival may be in order either via a new thread since new people probably don't want to read 7 pages of stuff lol or perhaps "bumping" the thread, or also mentioning the old one in a post as an alternative thread for the discussion :)

Cheers

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:42 PM

No probs, thanks Calypsis.

Yeah I remember, good times Posted Image

Though over time those threads get "buried" (so to speak) so a revival may be in order either via a new thread since new people probably don't want to read 7 pages of stuff lol or perhaps "bumping" the thread, or also mentioning the old one in a post as an alternative thread for the discussion Posted Image

Cheers


O.K. I will think this over.Maybe tomorrow.

Best wishes, good friend.

#34 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

I'll repeat what I suggested elsewhere; show us an example of non-living material that developed from scratch (separate but combining chemicals) into a fully mature organism that continues to generate life successfully. Easier still...show us any living organism that has evolved into a classifiably/identifiably different organism and the debate is over as far as the existence of Darwinian evolution.

But know this: I've been making this challenge for a long time and no evolutionist has done it. That's because evolution is truly a fairytale.

As far as God's existence. That's another story.

A person is a "classifiably different organism" than their parent. Your demand is not in coherent scientific terms. What is it you're asking for specifically?

#35 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

Thanks, Gilbo. I know he won't get kicked off for this but it is nonetheless a lie to blantantly affirm that evolution has nothing to do with origins when the entire movement was started by Darwins "Origin of the Species" and since then countless books by evolutionists have been about 'our evolutionary origins' as I just proved above. The truth is that when they pull this trick they are just hiding from the truth.

As far as starting another thread we already had one since last spring; remember? You and I went blow for blow with a couple of really stubborn Evo's on the matter. Can't remember their names.

Best wishes.

It was actually called "on the origin of species" (plural) and meant species as opposed to other taxonomical groups, ie biodiversity. And the last line was about the creator breathing life into one or several forms.

#36 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:14 PM

A person is a "classifiably different organism" than their parent. Your demand is not in coherent scientific terms. What is it you're asking for specifically?


I think you understand exactly what is being asked for but have decided to play the scientists advocate by throwing out a little smokescreen. What exactly are "coherent scientific terms"? And how do these terms help anyone in determining if the kind of morphological changes required for transitioning one kind of animal into another.

What does being a "classifiably different organism" than your parent prove in respect to evolution? Finches beaks might change in shape and length compared to their parents and throughout their generations, but they all still remain finches. Don't they?

#37 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

A person is a "classifiably different organism" than their parent. Your demand is not in coherent scientific terms. What is it you're asking for specifically?


Show us one.

#38 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:01 PM

"I think you understand exactly what is being asked for but have decided to play the scientists advocate by throwing out a little smokescreen."

Well you can believe what you like, but I still would like a clarification if you want an answer to your question.

"What exactly are "coherent scientific terms"?"

Depends what you're describing. But words like "kind" of animal or "distinct form" have no specific meaning.

"And how do these terms help anyone in determining if the kind of morphological changes required for transitioning one kind of animal into another."

As I said, "kind" has no specific meaning. Your question is not specific enough to be properly answered. I'm not saying this to be difficult, it just isn't.

"What does being a "classifiably different organism" than your parent prove in respect to evolution?"

Nothing, I was saying that any two organisms meet the definition of what you're asking for, not making an argument.

"Finches beaks might change in shape and length compared to their parents and throughout their generations, but they all still remain finches. Don't they?"

So you're asking for an example of speciation? In other words the splitting of one species into two species. This happens all the time and has been observed in nature and made to happen in the laboratory. One example of it is ring species, where populations of an animal will migrate around a mountain range or around the coasts of an ocean and by the time they get around to the other side and meet up with their distant cousins they're genetically incompatible and can't breed with each other (by definition a separate species). But each population can still breed with the population next to it that it's somewhat closely related to, except for the two most distant groups. This is a real phenomenon, you can google it. Does that satisfy your request?

#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:12 PM

I challenged him: "Show us one."

Did he?

No.

#40 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

"I think you understand exactly what is being asked for but have decided to play the scientists advocate by throwing out a little smokescreen."

Well you can believe what you like, but I still would like a clarification if you want an answer to your question.

"What exactly are "coherent scientific terms"?"

Depends what you're describing. But words like "kind" of animal or "distinct form" have no specific meaning.

"And how do these terms help anyone in determining if the kind of morphological changes required for transitioning one kind of animal into another."

As I said, "kind" has no specific meaning. Your question is not specific enough to be properly answered. I'm not saying this to be difficult, it just isn't.

"What does being a "classifiably different organism" than your parent prove in respect to evolution?"

Nothing, I was saying that any two organisms meet the definition of what you're asking for, not making an argument.

"Finches beaks might change in shape and length compared to their parents and throughout their generations, but they all still remain finches. Don't they?"

So you're asking for an example of speciation? In other words the splitting of one species into two species. This happens all the time and has been observed in nature and made to happen in the laboratory. One example of it is ring species, where populations of an animal will migrate around a mountain range or around the coasts of an ocean and by the time they get around to the other side and meet up with their distant cousins they're genetically incompatible and can't breed with each other (by definition a separate species). But each population can still breed with the population next to it that it's somewhat closely related to, except for the two most distant groups. This is a real phenomenon, you can google it. Does that satisfy your request?


This is the "kind" of denialism that evolutionists, for some reason, seem to think is a good argument, rather than something that simpy exposes just how far they are willing to go to avoid the obvious. I like to think of it as the "let's pretend there aren't any kinds" game.

Doesn't common sense dictate that dogs and cats are different kinds of animals?

Doesn't an honest human being recognize that the animal kingdom is divided into higher level groupings than species?

Or do you consider a cat a species of dog?

Do you have any scientific evidence that speciation leads to morphological change? In other words change in itself is not enough.

Sure, the border between one kind of animal and another might be blurry at times, but "blurriness" and difficulty in making a precise definition is not an excuse to ignore what is obvious and what can be observed even by a child.

As I pointed out, this is a smokescreen argument aimed at splitting hairs and pretending that things we see every day don't exist simply because they lack a "specific meaning".
  • Bonedigger likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users