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.

 

After their own "kind"

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
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"




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


I havn't ever heard that explanation before ? For me that is one of the most interesting things about scripture.
And even debates like this with hell bent opponents such as these we find here in. You literally have to take yourself back and try to imagine life in the context of the answer you are looking for. If these two only knew ?
How the more you do it. The answers start flowing and it becomes easier and easier. It's truly bitchen. Some
times I swear it's like being transported. The answer to every question is right inside you. Never more truth to any statement. Especially when you pray over it.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





The answer to every question is right inside you.


Yeah, I'm sure when Fleming invented Penicillin he didn't conduct any research, and didn't look at objective evidence, but rather just sat down and waited till the little voice inside told him the answer...makes total sense


I'm also baffled at how you completely overlook the fact that according to his hypothesis, all non-domesticated animals simply died off



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

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"


Well that's alright I didn't expect an answer. Won't be trolling for one like some crying lossed sheeple either.

X
Ok you're bafled. Nothing to be obtained here but arguement so I choose to defuse.
edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


In other words, you answered a question with another question, and when you don't like the answer to your question, you refuse to answer the original question of the thread you chose to post in?


Ignorance at its best



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Oh well I agree. Anything more? Please anything you like ?
edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


No ? Nothing ?
edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Alrighty then.
edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



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 ?


Depends...I don't know you, but considering the level of argumentation you're presenting I'd probably go "a pretty one".



Would you overlook my misuse of the english language and simply answer the question, because you do understand slang?


Um...this isn't a matter of slang. People are using the term 'kind' as if it were a scientific term.



Or would you freak?


Nope, I definitely wouldn't.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Not just the wild animals! Dammit, man... think about the unicorns, cyclopeans, dragons, and minotaurs that perished! And the mer-people. Wait... screw the mer-people. They're jerks anyway.

PROOF:



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 



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.


Except that it didn't happen and there's Mesopotamia and all along the Nile river as a great rebuttal to that.



The design of the Flood, if there was one, was to remove the Nephilim and what-ever abominations happened to have been created.


And...how does one design a global flood that doesn't wipe out coastal areas? Wouldn't coastal areas be the first places flooded?



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


Not the size of a planet, probably the size of a mid-sized nation.



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.


...except that it's not a historical event. It's a silly story. I have a thread dealing with the flood story itself here.



You have to set realistic parameters otherwise it is just an argument for the sake of arguing.


You mean you have to try and wedge an unrealistic fairy tale into a round hole just because you want to believe in it?



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.


Well...read the book. It says that the tallest mountain was covered by the flood...and considering the volume of water that would have been involved and some very basic physics...well...the wave would have had enough energy to shred Everest.



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.


Pigs. You've never heard of an escaped pig, have you? I grew up in Missouri, so I'm quite familiar with farms...not rural Missouri, but Missouri enough. Pigs, when they escape to the wild, are damn hard to deal with. They get nasty and actually begin to take on the appearance of a boar.

Oh, and stray dogs. Italy is crawling with packs of stray dogs...

Oh, and stray cats. Malta has a huge problem with those.

Oh, and what about horses? How did they get to roam America again...oh, they got loose!

I'm sure a bull can take care of itself. I'm sure, were the need to arise, a domesticated species would survive. Sure, it would go through severe population decline due to the weakest, most docile, and fattest members of the species dying off, but the selective pressures would just thin out the herd and give the survivors a greater advantage through the generations.

It's called evolution.

But again, the real discussion on the flood is contained here at this link. The issue here is for creationists who use the term 'kind' to define it.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 



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.


Me thinks you're wrong. I'm not nit-picking a word. When a group of people use a word as an argument against how phylogeny supports evolution, which is the realm of science, they definitely need to define it. If they say there is a 'dog kind' and a 'cat kind' and a 'horse kind' and so on and so forth, they need to be damn specific because they might also toss in a 'bacteria kind' and a 'tree kind' and all sorts of other insane distinctions. I have often had to point out to people on this site that they are using the term 'kind' to refer to multiple levels of classification, always by pointing out the exact level they are referring to.


Do humans belong to the 'ape' kind?



you know good and well what the word
means. Don't patronize.


It's a general and non-scientific term used relative to context...it's just like a pronoun in that way. Of course, what I'm confused by is how creationists are using it.

The only thing I know is that the word is empty sophistry, but instead you'd rather choose to launch an accusation instead of saying anything constructive.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 

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.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

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.


I don't think he asked the question to learn what it means, I'm sure Madness knows the official definition and its use...he asked it to clarify what creationists think it means. That is completely unclear as they use the word in several ways while pretending to speak in scientific terms.

And what "agenda" does Madness have? Point out to people that objective evidence is important? Sounds like a pretty good agenda to me, hell, it's even based on facts



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Depends...I don't know you, but considering the level of argumentation you're presenting I'd probably go "a pretty one"


Madness we are talking about a four letter word here. There isn't supposed to be any level of arguementation for crips sake. I'm afraid you're becoming fixated. You may take this one all the way it seems. Talk to you later when you're well again.

ITER



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.


Ya exactly ! And excuse me for trying to avoid all that redundant knowledge.

edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I'm hoping this might snap you guys out of it.



For the rest of this thread I'm only here to help.


edit on 31-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Yes, read again, I said unless the Domesticated beast can find a niche then it will not survive. Like Pigs, they are smart enough to find the niche within Nature, albeit invasively.

As for your other arguments I am afraid they do not hold up to real life; because in this world even with scripture in hand we are faced with reality and how real things work within our scope. You are clearly arguing for arguing sake!

It was a nice thread anyways!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





For the rest of this thread I'm only here to help.


Hilarious coming from someone who hasn't even bothered answering the base question of the thread...and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks over and over again. Fact is, you're evading the subject of the thread and just keep on trolling



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   


Wow!


Really Maddness? You want to know what "after their own kind" means?

Just when I started respecting your potential as an opponent you go and pull a troll move like this.
Now you are to smart for that. If you really cannot get the jest of "after their own kind" then I am afraid all of your time spent studying evolution has been a waste for you.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Conclusion1 because: Because.

edit on 1-6-2011 by Conclusion1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


So another ad hominem instead of answering the question? I'm sorry, but this thread is several years old and I've been patiently awaiting an answer, no trolling here.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

It's hardly redundant when the answer is vague and shifts according to whim or to suit an argument.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Already a lot of good answers.

My answer is if they can mate and reproduce they are a kind, if they can't then they aren't.
An example would be a Liger.

But you can't mate a Gorilla with a Snake, it just won't work.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join