Kaina

You Betcha, You claim that a lion and a tiger are the same kind. Does this mean that a lion can give birth to a tiger or a persian cat (each to his kind)? Or was there originally two proto-cats and one year they had a lion baby, the next year they had a tiger baby, and the next year they had my house cat? Did the original proto-cat have characteristics transitional between a lion and a tiger and a house cat? Why do YECs insist on cramming 10 million years of evolution into a couple years without any supporting evidence? Do you have any inkling how ridiculous this sounds? Do you have any evidence at all for anything that you talk about?

ps418

You Betcha

I've noticed that you made several claims about the flood, coal, and other geological subjects. For the illumination and edification of all present, I hereby challenge you to a one-on-one debate --on our own private thread-- on whether or not Noah's Flood is a viable explanation for the geologic record.

Let's examine the evidence together, shall we?

Patrick

You Betcha

Pandas may be their own kind.

Logic Bot

I am an example of something that forms with complexity. From one cell to trillions of cells. As we've stated earlier, we don't need to create continents to verify continental drift.

The fossil record, as well the overwhelming evidence for genetics and other fields confirms that evolution is a workable and permeable model to explain biodiversity.

Perhaps you can think of a better theory that explains the evidence?

Can you demonstrate this claim? What shred of evidence supports it? We've given you quite a bit of evidence that supports evolutionary theory, you haven't yet shown it to be false. Did you even look at the link I gave you?

WHAT!!! Speciation IS what macro evolution is. Species have been observed changing into other species.

Other way around, the evidence creates and molds the explanation.

It's been directly observed through speciation accounts, and indirectly observed through the fossil record and through genetics.

It's a permeable model to explain biodiversity, with the ability to change to accomodate new evidence.

So what's the problem?

Simple one liners won't work here. Back up this assertion.

Excellent tactic! Consise and to the point.

Who says you have a valid frame of reference to make claims such as these about the universe. You do realize the futility of perceiving the universe as a contingent entity, when the big bang its self created time... don't you?

The point I was making is that complexity can arise through natural laws, I never once dragged the source of this laws (and as I've told you before, suggesting there is a "sourc" is probably moot) into the equation.

Instead I was validating the claim that complex structures can form with simple natural laws.

Yet they form, on their own, stars form as well, planets, solar systems, you name it.

Why can't evolution be any different?

hyzer

Dear Mr. You Betcha:

Don’t forget, I want to see that picture of god you use to define humans.

Oh, and you were going to adjust that definition of humans (the one in which you wrote that humans have the qualities of man – that definition won’t get you very far in school nor here) or have you decided to just stick with speech (the larynx) as THE defining human characteristic. But then you have to explain the difference between the larynx of parrots and the larynx of humans, and how you personally know that the larynx of Neanderthals was the same as ours.

Thanks,

hyzer

You Betcha

Let's. Please start with the thread. Perhaps Monday would be a good time to begin.

ps418

Excellent. I will make my first post later today or tomorrow. I will be gone until the 10th, at which point I will read your reply and reply to it. See you on the battlefield.

Dr Rick

Various portions of the central and peripheral nervous systems essential for speech production, the lungs which act as the bellows that is critical for producing the vibrations of speech, and the lips and tongue which articulate phonation all reside outside of the larynx.

Darwin's Finch

OOOH! You Betcha v. Patrick! For those of you with seats close to the stage, bring the plastic sheets. This one will be like a Gallagher show, but with blood instead of melons.
<ices beer and cancels all plans for next week>

RufusAtticus

So according to you humans and the other apes are of the same kind, since the majority of current taxonmies list them in the same family. (See <a href="http://sayer.lab.nig.ac.jp/~silver/taxonomy.html" target="_blank">Taxonomy of Extant apes and human</a>.) Why have you been contadicting yourself by arguing otherwise?

I'm glad you replied, but I still have questions.

What made you decide that taxonomic families represent "kinds"? Was it a gut feeling, or do you have some verifiable, objective evidence that lead you to that conclusion? If so, what is that evidence?

According to you, two families are similar because of divine creation, but two genera are similar do to common descent. What evidence leads you to this conclusion? What evidence would contradict this?

-RvFvS