Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by 'kind' since you're unable to provide a definition.are you saying they are not all cats???So the Bobcat, the tiger, and the lion are all the same 'kind'. Did all the different cats we see today come from a common, cat ancestor and 'evolve' into the very different species we see today? Why are tiger and lion hybrids usually sterile? Are they now separate 'kinds'?all those species of cats are still cats same goes for dogs and all the others I listedThere are many species of cats. Are they all the same "kind"?
if so then what are they??
I'm guessing you've never even thought about it since it sounded like a good common sense term. There are a limited number of cat species so most resemble each other but there is still much variation.
You fail to see the basic contradiction in your beliefs. How did the different cats come to be? Evolution at the 'micro' level? Separate creations? They are here so they came from somewhere.
I must have missed your definition. I don't think saying "a cat is a cat" is any sort of definition but that is just me.NOOO you just refuse to accept my definition,,,
a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and so on
and a variation withing kinds based on breeding and environment is not evolution,,,if you want to call it micro evolution then go right ahead, but a cat will never turn into a dog or any other kind of animal,,,
they are all still catsI must have missed your definition. I don't think saying "a cat is a cat" is any sort of definition but that is just me.NOOO you just refuse to accept my definition,,,
a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and so on
and a variation withing kinds based on breeding and environment is not evolution,,,if you want to call it micro evolution then go right ahead, but a cat will never turn into a dog or any other kind of animal,,,
If I said the original 'cat' may have given rise to new species of cat based on environmental pressures, you'd have no problem with that statement? You've said it is possible right that one species of cat can 'evolve' into a different species of cat.
But we seem to be an agreement that one species of cat can give rise to a different species of cat. That's progress.they are all still catsI must have missed your definition. I don't think saying "a cat is a cat" is any sort of definition but that is just me.NOOO you just refuse to accept my definition,,,
a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and so on
and a variation withing kinds based on breeding and environment is not evolution,,,if you want to call it micro evolution then go right ahead, but a cat will never turn into a dog or any other kind of animal,,,
If I said the original 'cat' may have given rise to new species of cat based on environmental pressures, you'd have no problem with that statement? You've said it is possible right that one species of cat can 'evolve' into a different species of cat.
But we seem to be an agreement that one species of cat can give rise to a different species of cat. That's progress.they are all still catsI must have missed your definition. I don't think saying "a cat is a cat" is any sort of definition but that is just me.NOOO you just refuse to accept my definition,,,
a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog and so on
and a variation withing kinds based on breeding and environment is not evolution,,,if you want to call it micro evolution then go right ahead, but a cat will never turn into a dog or any other kind of animal,,,
If I said the original 'cat' may have given rise to new species of cat based on environmental pressures, you'd have no problem with that statement? You've said it is possible right that one species of cat can 'evolve' into a different species of cat.
The fossa is a still-living cat-like, mongoose relative. Could it be the original 'cat'?
There is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
Your flaming tirade about Nazi's, Jews and Darwin is just nonsense.Umm, no. No part of supernatural creation 6,000 years ago has any connection to the ToE, natural selection or microevolution. You are re-writing your bibles as you go. That’s silly.
We are further along than the creation event. We have the destruction of all living creatures except for Noah's family and animals aboard the ark now. After that came the Tower of Babel, about 106 years after the flood, which caused more problems. Creationists believe Darwinism came out from the Tower of Babel. That was caused by Noah's generation
Now, we are heading to further doom and gloom, but likely won't happen in our lifetimes. What we have seen are two world wars (your parents or maybe your grandparents generation). Did we not see the genocide of the Jews by Hitler and it was inspired by Darwin? The Jews may be the chosen people, but look how much they suffered. They even lost their country during this period and it was a miracle they got it back. Thus, the current generation is looking at weapons of mass destruction from Islamics. We do not want Israel or the Jews eradicated.
You need to give up your hate of Christians as our discussions lead to more of your ranting and it makes me think you haven't listened to what I've been saying. If you don't believe me, then ask the Judaists here and see what they say.
What about you? Do you agree that we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning as per the creation scientists? Or do you still think this is possible? We already had DNA degradation brought up even though we disagree on how many years it has degraded. I think we are agreeing on this and that you won't just believe dinosaurs can be cloned again unless we find a living dinosaur. That's probably the area where we disagree due to the asteroid extinction theory.
Curious how religious extremists suggest there are pteranodons flying around. Even more curious how such a creature would be studied as there are no sophisticated analytical labs maintained by the creation ministries.There is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
Your flaming tirade about Nazi's, Jews and Darwin is just nonsense.
You're simply parrotting slurs from Henry Morris.
Your flaming tirade about Nazi's, Jews and Darwin is just nonsense.
You're simply parrotting slurs from Henry Morris.
Puhleeze. You're still stuck on blaming Christians.
Did you know the Jews lost their land? Can we discuss the Jews in a rational manner?
"Around 2500 years ago, the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple and forcibly exiled the remainder of Israel's population to Babylonia."
How did the Jews lose Israel? - Answers.com
Your flaming tirade about Nazi's, Jews and Darwin is just nonsense.
You're simply parrotting slurs from Henry Morris.
Puhleeze. You're still stuck on blaming Christians.
Did you know the Jews lost their land? Can we discuss the Jews in a rational manner?
"Around 2500 years ago, the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple and forcibly exiled the remainder of Israel's population to Babylonia."
How did the Jews lose Israel? - Answers.com
I noticed you quickly attempted to evade any responsibility for your nonsense "eugenics" suggestion.
Another of your emotional outbursts because I called out your nonsensical eugenics reference.Your flaming tirade about Nazi's, Jews and Darwin is just nonsense.
You're simply parrotting slurs from Henry Morris.
Puhleeze. You're still stuck on blaming Christians.
Did you know the Jews lost their land? Can we discuss the Jews in a rational manner?
"Around 2500 years ago, the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple and forcibly exiled the remainder of Israel's population to Babylonia."
How did the Jews lose Israel? - Answers.com
I noticed you quickly attempted to evade any responsibility for your nonsense "eugenics" suggestion.
So much for that. We may as well skip the dinos, too. You are too ignorant and narrow minded.
If you knew anything about evolution theory, you'd know the fossa still being alive does not debunk it."could be" and wouldnt it still being alive debunk the evolution theory??But we seem to be an agreement that one species of cat can give rise to a different species of cat. That's progress.
The fossa is a still-living cat-like, mongoose relative. Could it be the original 'cat'?
I see you have to reach really far to try and make a point
If you knew anything about evolution theory, you'd know the fossa still being alive does not debunk it."could be" and wouldnt it still being alive debunk the evolution theory??But we seem to be an agreement that one species of cat can give rise to a different species of cat. That's progress.
The fossa is a still-living cat-like, mongoose relative. Could it be the original 'cat'?
I see you have to reach really far to try and make a point
I to reach out because you don't understand evolution theory and can't define what a 'kind' is. The fossa certainly looks like a cat, is it in the same kind or not? Why?
if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
Bow to your new god, then:if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
Bow to your new god, then:if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
I wish! I bet TRex eggs are yummy.Bow to your new god, then:if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
LOOK ITS A T-REX!!!
if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
You can believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, men lived to be 650 years old and serpents talk.if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur I'll be an agnostic no longerThere is much we don't agree on but I'll say that with the current state of our technology and the we cannot bring back extinct species through cloning from fossils as per the creation scientists. Does that mean it will never be possible? Who can say. Will we be able to recreate dinos based on bird DNA? That seems much more likely.
I think it's possible if creation scientists can find a living dinosaur and we have matching DNA for it. That's what creationists believe. We have reports of pteranodons and possibly plesiosaurs, but have not been able to capture one as evidence.
Your side has the dino-bird DNA, but finding a dino-bird is probably out. The DNA would be considered too old for the secular/atheist scientists. But who am I to say that something does not happen because reverse engineering failed.
That's not how God works. You have to have faith first.
Anyway, we keep looking for evidence and do not believe birds are dinosaurs.
