does ne1 here know where i can find pix of naked women on the internet?

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> had me ROTFL with: news:1148081383.684455.108270
@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

snex wrote:

this is due to the fact that there was no death before the fall of adam
& eve. so any adaptations that organisms have that cause death (even if
they are irreducibly complex and couldnt have possibly evolved) must
have evolved after the fall.

Make your fucking mind up ***** for brains, they couldn't evolve and then =

did...
Typical double speak from a retard who wants the laws of science to
gerrymander on the whim of a lying, theist fuckwit.

--
Ph=FFlt=EAr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Plonked by Fred Stone 17/03/2006
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attach=E9
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

In talk.atheism snex <snex@comcast.net> wrote:

snex wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

The hardest thing to get a creationist to intelligently and competently
answer is "What is the scientific definition of 'kind'?"

The next hardest one to get an answer to is: "What is the scientific
definition of mechanism which prevents one 'kind' from evolving into
another 'kind'?"

This thread is designed to try and get some answers without once again
going through the forlorn request that those two questions be
answered.. Let me ask a simple question and get some creationist
input.

Are a mouse (such as Mus musculus, the "house mouse") and a rat (such
as Rattus rattus, the common rat) the same 'kind"?

It seems to me they have to be by creation "science", which consists of
simply looking at an organism's gross anatomy and declaring something
along the lines of "It looks like the other one, so it must be the same
'kind' as the other one.

Well apart from size, the mouse looks very much like the rat. Could it
be the same kind? Could a mouse "vary" until it became a rat-like
organism? Or could a rat "vary" until it became mouse-like? I'm not
looking for detailed science here, only a ssessment of the possibility
of something like a mouse changing into something like a rat.

It's just a simple question, which requires no running, smoke screens,
straw men or excuses. All it requires is a simple 'yes' or a simple
'no' answer.

If you answer yes, then that's it, the mouse could evolve into the rat,
I'll make one observation and then I can be done with this thread If
it's 'no', then you might try taking a stab at an explanation as to why
a mouse couldn't evolve into a rat - or vice-versa.

Any creationist gutsy enough to step up to the bat on this one?

Budikka

a "kind" is anything that we have observed common ancestry for. the
reason all dogs are "dog-kind" is because we have observed their
evolution. the reason humans and apes are not of the same "kind" is
because we haven't.

"kinds" also tend to be more inclusive the further from humans you get.
within the mammals, "kinds" are usually at the genus or family level.
within fish, almost all fish seem to be of the same "fish-kind" (except
for the ones that look really pretty and have adaptations that couldnt
have evolved - they are a separate "kind"). all worms are "worm-kind,"
even when genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all
vertebrates put together. all bacteria are "bacteria-kind," even when
genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all other life put
together.

if a human and a chimpanzee were ever to yield a successful offspring
together, they would be grouped under the same "kind," and since that
is what anti-evolution is really all about (i mean who really cares
whether or not birds are dinosaurs?), creationists would have no choice
but to kill the newborn ape-man and declare that it never really
existed.

oh, i forgot to mention one extra caveat.

any parasites, carnivores, or anything else that requires the death of
another organism for its own survival is necessarily in a "kind" with
some other organism that does not require the death of another
organism. so the entire order Carnivora must either be grouped with
another "kind" or it must be of the same "kind" but have an herbivorous
ancestor.

Actually, that would make two kinds: plants and animals. ALL animals
(herbivors included) require the killing of another organism (plants being
organisms) for food.

this is due to the fact that there was no death before the fall of adam
& eve. so any adaptations that organisms have that cause death (even if
they are irreducibly complex and couldnt have possibly evolved) must
have evolved after the fall.

And that's another place that the bible fails in that it fails to understand
that "plants are people too"<g>. I.e. if there was no death, then NOTHING
would have died, even the cells in the famous "apple", so no animal would
have eaten at all.

--
Mike

-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004

In talk.atheism snex <snex@comcast.net> wrote:

snex wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

The hardest thing to get a creationist to intelligently and competently
answer is "What is the scientific definition of 'kind'?"

The next hardest one to get an answer to is: "What is the scientific
definition of mechanism which prevents one 'kind' from evolving into
another 'kind'?"

This thread is designed to try and get some answers without once again
going through the forlorn request that those two questions be
answered.. Let me ask a simple question and get some creationist
input.

Are a mouse (such as Mus musculus, the "house mouse") and a rat (such
as Rattus rattus, the common rat) the same 'kind"?

It seems to me they have to be by creation "science", which consists of
simply looking at an organism's gross anatomy and declaring something
along the lines of "It looks like the other one, so it must be the same
'kind' as the other one.

Well apart from size, the mouse looks very much like the rat. Could it
be the same kind? Could a mouse "vary" until it became a rat-like
organism? Or could a rat "vary" until it became mouse-like? I'm not
looking for detailed science here, only a ssessment of the possibility
of something like a mouse changing into something like a rat.

It's just a simple question, which requires no running, smoke screens,
straw men or excuses. All it requires is a simple 'yes' or a simple
'no' answer.

If you answer yes, then that's it, the mouse could evolve into the rat,
I'll make one observation and then I can be done with this thread If
it's 'no', then you might try taking a stab at an explanation as to why
a mouse couldn't evolve into a rat - or vice-versa.

Any creationist gutsy enough to step up to the bat on this one?

Budikka

a "kind" is anything that we have observed common ancestry for. the
reason all dogs are "dog-kind" is because we have observed their
evolution. the reason humans and apes are not of the same "kind" is
because we haven't.

"kinds" also tend to be more inclusive the further from humans you get.
within the mammals, "kinds" are usually at the genus or family level.
within fish, almost all fish seem to be of the same "fish-kind" (except
for the ones that look really pretty and have adaptations that couldnt
have evolved - they are a separate "kind"). all worms are "worm-kind,"
even when genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all
vertebrates put together. all bacteria are "bacteria-kind," even when
genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all other life put
together.

if a human and a chimpanzee were ever to yield a successful offspring
together, they would be grouped under the same "kind," and since that
is what anti-evolution is really all about (i mean who really cares
whether or not birds are dinosaurs?), creationists would have no choice
but to kill the newborn ape-man and declare that it never really
existed.

oh, i forgot to mention one extra caveat.

any parasites, carnivores, or anything else that requires the death of
another organism for its own survival is necessarily in a "kind" with
some other organism that does not require the death of another
organism. so the entire order Carnivora must either be grouped with
another "kind" or it must be of the same "kind" but have an herbivorous
ancestor.

Actually, that would make two kinds: plants and animals. ALL animals
(herbivors included) require the killing of another organism (plants being
organisms) for food.

this is due to the fact that there was no death before the fall of adam
& eve. so any adaptations that organisms have that cause death (even if
they are irreducibly complex and couldnt have possibly evolved) must
have evolved after the fall.

And that's another place that the bible fails in that it fails to understand
that "plants are people too"<g>. I.e. if there was no death, then NOTHING
would have died, even the cells in the famous "apple", so no animal would
have eaten at all.

On 19 May 2006 16:29:43 -0700, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1148081383.684455.108270@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>

snex wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

The hardest thing to get a creationist to intelligently and competently
answer is "What is the scientific definition of 'kind'?"

The next hardest one to get an answer to is: "What is the scientific
definition of mechanism which prevents one 'kind' from evolving into
another 'kind'?"

This thread is designed to try and get some answers without once again
going through the forlorn request that those two questions be
answered.. Let me ask a simple question and get some creationist
input.

Are a mouse (such as Mus musculus, the "house mouse") and a rat (such
as Rattus rattus, the common rat) the same 'kind"?

It seems to me they have to be by creation "science", which consists of
simply looking at an organism's gross anatomy and declaring something
along the lines of "It looks like the other one, so it must be the same
'kind' as the other one.

Well apart from size, the mouse looks very much like the rat. Could it
be the same kind? Could a mouse "vary" until it became a rat-like
organism? Or could a rat "vary" until it became mouse-like? I'm not
looking for detailed science here, only a ssessment of the possibility
of something like a mouse changing into something like a rat.

It's just a simple question, which requires no running, smoke screens,
straw men or excuses. All it requires is a simple 'yes' or a simple
'no' answer.

If you answer yes, then that's it, the mouse could evolve into the rat,
I'll make one observation and then I can be done with this thread If
it's 'no', then you might try taking a stab at an explanation as to why
a mouse couldn't evolve into a rat - or vice-versa.

Any creationist gutsy enough to step up to the bat on this one?

Budikka

a "kind" is anything that we have observed common ancestry for. the
reason all dogs are "dog-kind" is because we have observed their
evolution. the reason humans and apes are not of the same "kind" is
because we haven't.

"kinds" also tend to be more inclusive the further from humans you get.
within the mammals, "kinds" are usually at the genus or family level.
within fish, almost all fish seem to be of the same "fish-kind" (except
for the ones that look really pretty and have adaptations that couldnt
have evolved - they are a separate "kind"). all worms are "worm-kind,"
even when genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all
vertebrates put together. all bacteria are "bacteria-kind," even when
genetic studies show them to be more diverse than all other life put
together.

if a human and a chimpanzee were ever to yield a successful offspring
together, they would be grouped under the same "kind," and since that
is what anti-evolution is really all about (i mean who really cares
whether or not birds are dinosaurs?), creationists would have no choice
but to kill the newborn ape-man and declare that it never really
existed.

oh, i forgot to mention one extra caveat.

any parasites, carnivores, or anything else that requires the death of
another organism for its own survival is necessarily in a "kind" with
some other organism that does not require the death of another
organism. so the entire order Carnivora must either be grouped with
another "kind" or it must be of the same "kind" but have an herbivorous
ancestor.

this is due to the fact that there was no death before the fall of adam
& eve.

This one sentence reveals you as a deliberately delusional ignoramus,
who is not worth the time of day.

so any adaptations that organisms have that cause death (even if
they are irreducibly complex and couldnt have possibly evolved) must
have evolved after the fall.

Go away, JW.
--