Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
talk.origins
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion BBC the creationist at the museum
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
TomS  
View profile  
 More options Nov 5 2009, 12:03 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com>
Date: 5 Nov 2009 03:03:09 -0800
Local: Thurs, Nov 5 2009 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:09:29 -0800 (PST), in article
<da5ebd38-40a9-49b4-9734-aa180aaa4...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, TheMac37
stated..."

>On Nov 4, 3:32=A0pm, Jack Dominey <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid>
>wrote:
>> In
>> <0221f36d-4787-4042-8669-1f953f7c9...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

>> TheMac37 <mac3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Common sense and a light observation of the world around you will
>> >clearly define a kind. We are all intelligent enough to get that
>> >simple concept. To parse the word any further is to seek confusion in
>> >simplicity.

>> Since this is so simple, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a
>> comprehensive list of "kinds" that is agreed to by a large number of
>> creationists. =A0And an equally simple method for deciding if two
>> organisms are of the same kind.
>> --
>> Usenet:http://xkcd.com/386/
>> Jack Dominey
>> jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com

>Yes. The dog kind. They are of that kind if they can interbreed.

You think that it is "common sense and a light observation of the
world" that leads to your notion that two organisms are of the
same kind if they can interbreed?

Why, then, is it that nobody ever thought of that for thousands
of years? Nobody in those thousands of years had common sense?
Nobody made "light observations"?

Why didn't the Bible, or any of the commentators on the Bible,
make any mention of that?

I won't get into the problems that that criterion has, such as
with living things that don't reproduce sexually (dandelions,
whiptail lizards, bacteria). Let's just find out why it is
common sense, but nobody thought of it for such a long time.

--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2


    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2010 Google