It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The answer to every question is right inside you.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
I have already explained to you why using slang to describe the world is simply not going to work
We have definitions for a reason, and if creationists don't want to use the official definition, they at least should make an effort to come up with their own definition...instead of saying "it can mean whatever the f*** we want as long as it fits our world view"
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Oh ! You two can't be gett'in all but hurt now. Madness I will rephrase the question. K ? If I pointed to a Redtail hawk and asked you what kind of bird is that ?
Would you overlook my misuse of the english language and simply answer the question, because you do understand slang?
Or would you freak?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...that's not a definition of "kind" that an example that demonstrates a single specific example which doesn't actually relate to natural selection but to artificial selection.
Originally posted by Greensage
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I tend to believe that most humans at the time of the Great Flood were living along coastal areas.
The design of the Flood, if there was one, was to remove the Nephilim and what-ever abominations happened to have been created.
The "choice" of the "kind" was of Noah's choosing with probably a bit of "instruction" I am sure; but to literally think that there is a boat big enough to carry all the species one would have to be daft or the ship would be about the size of the planet! LOL
Please, I am not calling you daft, the motion to argue seems to be your premise here as you are not reasoning out a realistic nature of this historical event.
You have to set realistic parameters otherwise it is just an argument for the sake of arguing.
It is utterly impossible for any ship to carry two of every species, but, given the fact that we do know those animals which are associated with Man, partnered with Man throughout antiquity, then the only conclusion can be that we are speaking of Domesticated Stock. If SHTF right now, I will be saving some animals of a kind, but I certainly won't be trying to save a lion or a tiger or a bear! They can hit the hills on their own as they are not in need of Man for their well-being.
All the rest of the Animal Kingdom can survive on its own as it has throughout the history of this Planet; but unless the Domesticated beast can find a niche' then it will perish without us.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...that's not a definition of "kind" that an example that demonstrates a single specific example which doesn't actually relate to natural selection but to artificial selection.
me thinks you are nit-picking a word
solely for a personal agenda.
you know good and well what the word
means. Don't patronize.
Originally posted by boondock-saint
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...that's not a definition of "kind" that an example that demonstrates a single specific example which doesn't actually relate to natural selection but to artificial selection.
me thinks you are nit-picking a word
solely for a personal agenda.
you know good and well what the word
means. Don't patronize.
Depends...I don't know you, but considering the level of argumentation you're presenting I'd probably go "a pretty one"
Maybe you haven't paid attention to the threads in this part of the forum on speciation. Here's a summarization of the typical exchange:
First: "Evolution must be false because we've never witnessed one species turning into another species."
Second: "Here's a few citations where we have observed speciation."
First: "Well, that's not what I meant by species. I mean we've never witnessed one kind turning into another kind."
Second: "What's a kind?"
First: "You know, like in the Bible with Noah taking two of every kind on the Ark."
Second: "So what's a kind?"
First: "You know... a kind!"
And so on. Asking for clarification on a common concept used in creationist arguments is hardly patronizing or to further a personal agenda. It's asking someone to be precise and transparent about the language they're using in a debate.
For the rest of this thread I'm only here to help.