Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

PolyHedral said:

Because there is no distance. Every event is a finite time from every other event.

Click to expand...

That's true, but we are not talking about the concept of finite relations, we are talking about the concept of INFINITY, and with infinity, for every single event, there was an infinite amount of events prior to it. If that is the case, that single event would never occur because in order to reach that event, there would be an infinite amount of events to be traversed. This is walking on a tread mill, it would never be reached.

PolyHedral said:

Example: Name an integer. If I start counting from zero
, I will get to that number eventually. It doesn't matter how big your number is, or how fast I count - I will get there in some finite amount of time.

Click to expand...

Why are you using an example of "starting" to count from zero, when we are talking about the concept of an eternal past at which there WAS no starting point??? You seem to be confusing an actual infinity with a potential infinity. I invite you to look both concepts up to know the difference. Your example is an example of a potential infinity, as you said "if I start counting from zero, I will get to that number eventually".....well, of course you would....that is why we can trace back our universe to 13.7 billion years. That is when time began, and since it began, it traversed a finite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years until this present moment. That is a potential infinity, as time is traveling "forward" and will "potentially" go on forever with infinity as a never ending limit. But, if time never began, there is no "starting" point as reference.

lunakilo said:

The total change is the sum of all the changes over time, so the only limit I can think of here is time.
If you don't look at changes over enough time, the sum of the changes will not be very large.
The longer the time period the larger the the sum of changes is possible; no limit.

Click to expand...

So, as usual, time will be used as an way out of explaining why we don't see the changes occur. The answer is always "it takes time", it takes time...it takes time...it takes millions and billions of years. Yeah, it takes a long time, so long that it didn't happen. Evolutionists would like to believe that the animals of yesterday were doing things that the animals of today aren't observed doing, and that is changing to a different kind of animal. Voo doo science.

lunakilo said:

Yes, a dog is a creature which is alive today, so the 'dog x' would be a creature that has not evolved yet.
All descendants of dogs which are alive today still remains dogs (though some of them look more like rats )
The point of that thought experiment was to explain some basics of evolution.

Click to expand...

I repeat, there had to be a first dog, right?? The very first dog that ever existed in this world....where did it come from? It couldnt have come from another dog, otherwise it wouldn't be the first dog. So, it had to come from a non-dog, right? So that non-dog produced an animal that is different that what it was, a different kind of animal. This applies even if you claim that the dog "evolved" over a long period of time. It doesn't matter, the end result is that the animal that evolved is different than the animal that it evolved from. This is pure religious science. No such thing has ever been observed. It is not science, it is wishful thinking.

lunakilo said:

Again you are correct; humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, and as far as I remember Australopithecus is part of the line which leads to humans, that is, Australopithecus lived after the split between man and ape occurred. But Australopithecus was not human. The changes which occurred between Australopithecus and Human is an example of the 'dog 1' to 'dog x' described above, or perhaps more correctly the changes between 'Hominini 1' to 'Hominini x'.
Where 'Hominini x' is so different from 'Hominini 1' that most people would agree that they are not the same species.

Click to expand...

So, what did the apes evolve from??

Call_of_the_Wild said:

So, what did the apes evolve from??

Click to expand...

Well I will try to draw your attention to the rest of the post you quoted, but erased from your answer:

lunakilo said:

...
If you insist that Australopithecus is the same species (or perhaps the same kind?) as humans, then the same argument would hold if you go back another few million years from Australopithecus. You would then end up back before the split between man and ape.
You would end up back with the guys who were the ancestors of all the creatures included in the Homininae subfamily.
And again using the same argument all their offspring would be of the same kind, and so would all their current living descendants, that includes all humans, gorillas and chimpanzees.

I kind of like chimpanzees, especially bonobos, so I don't mind adding those guys to the family. After all we share at least 98% of our dna, but I would not claim that we are of the same species.

So here you have an example of 'Homininae 1' evolving over millions of years into humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, all of which are different species.


See, this is where you display your ignorance if evolution.

Australopithecus did not evolve in to a ape, not did it evolve in to a bear.
I don't know how many millions of years you have to go back to find a common ancestor of Humans and bears, but you would have to go a lot further back than Australopithecus.

Click to expand...

Call_of_the_Wild said:

I repeat, there had to be a first dog, right?? The very first dog that ever existed in this world....where did it come from? It couldnt have come from another dog, otherwise it wouldn't be the first dog. So, it had to come from a non-dog, right? So that non-dog produced an animal that is different that what it was, a different kind of animal. This applies even if you claim that the dog "evolved" over a long period of time. It doesn't matter, the end result is that the animal that evolved is different than the animal that it evolved from. This is pure religious science. No such thing has ever been observed. It is not science, it is wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

So what is the difference between something that wouldn't or couldn't strictly be classed as being a dog producing something that could be classed as a dog, and one breed of dog producing a breed that is dissimilar to it's own?

Call_of_the_Wild said:

I repeat, there had to be a first dog, right?? The very first dog that ever existed in this world....where did it come from? It couldnt have come from another dog, otherwise it wouldn't be the first dog. So, it had to come from a non-dog, right? So that non-dog produced an animal that is different that what it was, a different kind of animal. This applies even if you claim that the dog "evolved" over a long period of time. It doesn't matter, the end result is that the animal that evolved is different than the animal that it evolved from. This is pure religious science. No such thing has ever been observed. It is not science, it is wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

Let me try this one:


Think of this spectrun as representing the evolution of what we today know as dog. Time increses from left to right, and the different corors on the spectrun repersents different species.

Let us say green is dog.

Before dog (green), there was non-dog (light blue). At some point around 500 nm light blue turns into green, thai is non-dog turns into dog. I just say 500 nm because that is where it looks like to me that the color changes from blue to green, but if we zoomed in on 500 nm I am sure we could agree that the color at 499 nm is very much like the one at 500 nm. There is no clear line seperating blue and green. And that also means that it is not clear which one was the first dog.

It is clear that at 485 nm the color is blue (non-dog) , and at 510 nm the color is green (dog), but exactly where blue turns green is not possible to say. I can define that point to be 500 nm, but it is just my definition. You may think it is more like 490 or 510.

ImmortalFlame said:

So what is the difference between something that wouldn't or couldn't strictly be classed as being a dog producing something that could be classed as a dog, and one breed of dog producing a breed that is dissimilar to it's own?

Click to expand...

They are two different scenarios, one is producing something that isn't of the same "kind" of animal, and other other is producing the same kind of animal, just a different breed of the animal. The bible says in Genesis 1:21

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Now I am not saying that just because the bible says its true, that its true. But I don't think that it is a coincidence that the bible is in line with our current observations, that animals bring forth after their own KIND...and what that means is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc...no one has ever observed ANYTHING contrary to this. It is my belief that God created every single animal to produce after its own kind, and with that "kind" comes many different variations within the kind, which is why we have small dogs, little dogs, big dogs, hairy dogs, tall dogs, but they are all dogs. Who knows what the limitations are within the kind, but the variation will always remain within the kind. We have no observational or empirical evidence that states otherwise. If you want to believe that long ago, animals were reproducing and slowly evolving in to things that became different than what it originally were, thats fine. But to call it science and pass it off as if it is an absolute fact is disingenuous.

lunakilo said:

Let me try this one:

Think of this spectrun as representing the evolution of what we today know as dog. Time increses from left to right, and the different corors on the spectrun repersents different species.

Let us say green is dog.

Before dog (green), there was non-dog (light blue). At some point around 500 nm light blue turns into green, thai is non-dog turns into dog. I just say 500 nm because that is where it looks like to me that the color changes from blue to green, but if we zoomed in on 500 nm I am sure we could agree that the color at 499 nm is very much like the one at 500 nm. There is no clear line seperating blue and green. And that also means that it is not clear which one was the first dog.

It is clear that at 485 nm the color is blue (non-dog) , and at 510 nm the color is green (dog), but exactly where blue turns green is not possible to say. I can define that point to be 500 nm, but it is just my definition. You may think it is more like 490 or 510.

Click to expand...

This is cute, luna. Very cute. But unfortunately, once you said "Before dog (green, there was non-dog (light blue), at some point light blue turns in to green, this is non-dog turns into dog"......once you said that you've left science and crossed over to the realms of religion. It happened very fast too, it happened so fast you didn't even know you did it. You've allowed your preconceived notion of evolution to explain the phenomenon. That isn't science, it is religion. But nonetheless, very cute.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

They are two different scenarios, one is producing something that isn't of the same "kind" of animal,

Click to expand...

Define "kind". Why do two different breeds of dog not constitute two different "kinds"? At what point would you consider something a different "kind"? Be specific.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

and other other is producing the same kind of animal, just a different breed of the animal.

Click to expand...

Dogs are a subspecies of grey wolf. The "first" dogs were the offspring of grey wolves - hence the grey wolf produced variation within it's kind by producing the "dog" category of grey wolf, in exactly the same way that a dog producing a different breed of dog is producing variation within the "dog" category. It's exactly the same.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Now I am not saying that just because the bible says its true, that its true. But I don't think that it is a coincidence that the bible is in line with our current observations, that animals bring forth after their own KIND.

Click to expand...

Except the Bible doesn't define "kind" either, so it could literally mean anything. Evolution could be absolutely true (which it is) and you can still say that the Bible is correct. Nothing produces anything "outside" of it's categorization.

This is something you don't seem to understand. Firstly, you need to clearly define the term "kind" before you use the word to make any meaningful claims in a scientific context. Secondly, saying "dogs only produce dogs, etc." is not contrary to the claims made by the theory of evolution. Can you please at least try to understand this?

Call_of_the_Wild said:

This is cute, luna. Very cute.

Click to expand...

I am glad you like it, the it wasn't completely wasted on you

Call_of_the_Wild said:

But unfortunately, once you said "Before dog (green, there was non-dog (light blue), at some point light blue turns in to green, this is non-dog turns into dog"......once you said that you've left science and crossed over to the realms of religion. It happened very fast too, it happened so fast you didn't even know you did it. You've allowed your preconceived notion of evolution to explain the phenomenon. That isn't science, it is religion. But nonetheless, very cute.

Click to expand...

But the gradual change I describe is exactly what is observed Call of the Wild.
People have argued with you on this many times, so I am not going to start again.

You agree ther is change right? So why is it that you insist that there is some magical limit to this change.
If all descendants of the dogs alive today were to stay within the box you define as dogs that would mean that there is some magical line thay cannot change beyond.

If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs?
If so you would have two different species but only one kind.

That is ok, I suppose, since I never heard you say that all creatures of one kind are the same species. But if something like that can happen in the future, what makes you think it didn't happen in the passed?

ImmortalFlame said:

Define "kind". Why do two different breeds of dog not constitute two different "kinds"? At what point would you consider something a different "kind"? Be specific.

Click to expand...

The same reason why different models of cars not constitute different kinds. The Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger are two different models of cars, but they are the same make. Neither one is a Mitsubishi, neither one is a Ford, neither one is a Chrysler, neither one is a Toyota. They are both from the Dodge "kind". They are from the Dodge family. The only kind of car coming out of a Dodge manufacturing plant are DODGES.

ImmortalFlame said:

Dogs are a subspecies of grey wolf. The "first" dogs were the offspring of grey wolves - hence the grey wolf produced variation within it's kind by producing the "dog" category of grey wolf, in exactly the same way that a dog producing a different breed of dog is producing variation within the "dog" category. It's exactly the same.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that the grey wolf isn't a dog? If the first dogs are an offspring of the grey wolf, then what is the grey wolf? What kind of animal is it?

ImmortalFlame said:

Except the Bible doesn't define "kind" either, so it could literally mean anything. Evolution could be absolutely true (which it is) and you can still say that the Bible is correct. Nothing produces anything "outside" of it's categorization.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does. The bible says that Adam named all of the animals in Gen 2:20. How could he name all the animals if there were thousands of animals that still hadn't evolved yet?? The naming of the animals would only make since if he gave each family their generic name...such as "these animals over here will be called dogs....these animals over here will be called cats, etc".

ImmortalFlame said:

This is something you don't seem to understand. Firstly, you need to clearly define the term "kind" before you use the word to make any meaningful claims in a scientific context.

Click to expand...

Obviously I do. I guess I took it for granted that you would of understood what "kind" meant, since I have been constantly saying that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. If you dont know the difference between a dog and a cat then I cant help you. If you go to a pet store and ask the clerk to show you all of the dogs in the store, and instead the clerk shows you all of the cats, would you accept this?? If you wouldn't accept this, then you obviously know the difference between what you asked for and what you were shown. This would be the difference in the word "kind", as if you didn't know. There are dog "kinds", and there are cat "kinds".

ImmortalFlame said:

Secondly, saying "dogs only produce dogs, etc." is not contrary to the claims made by the theory of evolution. Can you please at least try to understand this?

Click to expand...

By saying that dogs produce dogs, that only mean that an animal will never produce something OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS. You can mix match all of the dogs you want, cross breed all you want, the end result is going to be a DOG. As I said, if the very first dog came from a non-dog, which is what you MUST believe if you believe in evolution, then that is an example of an animal producing something other than what it is. Unscientific.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

So, are you saying that the grey wolf isn't a dog? If the first dogs are an offspring of the grey wolf, then what is the grey wolf? What kind of animal is it?

Click to expand...

Last I checked, it isn't a dog. That leaves you a bit stuck, doesn't it?

lunakilo said:

I am glad you like it, the it wasn't completely wasted on you

Click to expand...

:cigar:

lunakilo said:

But the gradual change I describe is exactly what is observed Call of the Wild.
People have argued with you on this many times, so I am not going to start again.

Click to expand...

Um, no it hasn't. You said that difference in color represented the different changes over time...and those are the very changes that no one has ever seen. You went from a non-dog to a dog...now, no one has ever seen this, yet you slipped it in there as if it was a fact. Science is long gone at that point. It is something that is believed to have occurred, but there is no evidence that it did. The notion that just because we see small scale changes from within the kind would also suggest that long ago there were these large scale changes is pure speculation. You can believe it all you want, but don't pass it off as science because this has not been proven

lunakilo said:

You agree ther is change right? So why is it that you insist that there is some magical limit to this change.

Click to expand...

Because, from my experience, and yours, and anyone else that has ever walked this earth, we only see animals produce other animals that are within the same kind that it is. No one has ever observed an animal produce a different kind of animal. So why are we to believe that it happened long ago when no one was around to see it happen?? Science is what we can OBSERVE. No one has ever observed this voo doo stuff that is said to have took place.

lunakilo said:

If all descendants of the dogs alive today were to stay within the box you define as dogs that would mean that there is some magical line thay cannot change beyond.

Click to expand...

It is not magical, luna ...so let me ask you this, do you believe that the human "species" will EVER be able to produce a non-human??? I dont care how long it takes for it to happen. Do you believe that long from now...there will be a sudden change in the offspring off human, and that it will gradually result in a evolutionary phenomenon of a non-human? Do you believe this could happen? Actually, you already believe that humans evolved from something that wasn't a human so I guess you would.

lunakilo said:

If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs?
If so you would have two different species but only one kind.

Click to expand...

Well, can humans reproduce with apes?? We are apes, right??

lunakilo said:

That is ok, I suppose, since I never heard you say that all creatures of one kind are the same species. But if something like that can happen in the future, what makes you think it didn't happen in the passed?

Click to expand...

Thats a good point luna. Can it happen in the future? I don't think so. I don't believe that you can reconcile the Genesis account with the evolutionary account, so being the Christian that I am, I don't see any point in the theory of evolution. But, if it does happen and I am alive to see it happen, I would be an evolutionists. At least I would have a reason to, becuz it will be based on the observational evidence, which is supposed to be what science is all about anyway.

PolyHedral said:

Last I checked, it isn't a dog. That leaves you a bit stuck, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Grey wolves can interbreed with dogs, so this fact along indicates that they are within the same kind.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Um, no it hasn't. You said that difference in color represented the different changes over time...and those are the very changes that no one has ever seen.

Click to expand...

I gave birth to two children who are not exact copies of me.
There is a little change right there.

That is not a change from blue to green, just a small change in shade.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

You went from a non-dog to a dog...now, no one has ever seen this, yet you slipped it in there as if it was a fact.

Click to expand...

Yes I went from non-dog to dog. But the change is GRADUAL. At no point did a non-dog look at its puppies and thin, "hey!, those are dogs." As far as I know, there is no clear definition of what a dog is (which is also why you and PolyHedral can argue about whether a wolf is a dog or not) so it is

If you were to see the change from blue to green you would have to observe the evolution of a creture with enough generations for the change to be visibal over a human lifespan, otherwise you are stuck with circumstantial evidence of which there is a lot.

For example, if humans only produce humans, then why do you not find human remains from from the time of the dinosaurs? Where did humans come from if they didn't exist then? They did not exist then, they do exist now and you find a lot of remains from human-like cretures which become more and more human-like the closer we get to the present time.
I find it har to explain that without resorting to evolution, but maybe you have a better explanation...

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Science is long gone at that point. It is something that is believed to have occurred, but there is no evidence that it did. The notion that just because we see small scale changes from within the kind would also suggest that long ago there were these large scale changes is pure speculation. You can believe it all you want, but don't pass it off as science because this has not been proven



Because, from my experience, and yours, and anyone else that has ever walked this earth, we only see animals produce other animals that are within the same kind that it is. No one has ever observed an animal produce a different kind of animal. So why are we to believe that it happened long ago when no one was around to see it happen?? Science is what we can OBSERVE. No one has ever observed this voo doo stuff that is said to have took place.

Click to expand...

From the dictionary:

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The theory of evolution certainly fits in here, so stop saying it is not science.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

It is not magical, luna ...so let me ask you this, do you believe that the human "species" will EVER be able to produce a non-human??? I dont care how long it takes for it to happen. Do you believe that long from now...there will be a sudden change in the offspring off human, and that it will gradually result in a evolutionary phenomenon of a non-human? Do you believe this could happen? Actually, you already believe that humans evolved from something that wasn't a human so I guess you would.

Click to expand...

Yes of course I do as I have already explained, but not in the sense that a mother will give birth one day and say "Hey! that thing is a non-human" (well not unless she took part in some strange genetic experiment, then maybe she could , but I assume we are talking offspring made the old-fashioned way)

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Well, can humans reproduce with apes?? We are apes, right??

Click to expand...

I am not sure how to read this. This was you answer to me asking "If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs? If so you would have two different species but only one kind."


Does your answer mean that you see humans and apes as one kind?

Ape can both mean the hominidae family to wich humans belongs, but it can also mean those furry creature which climb around in trees and which does not include humans.
To me it means the latter.

So to me humans and apes are different species which cannot reproduce with each other.
They split from one species some time between 5 and 10 million years ago.

Since I didn't understand your answer I will try the question again:
If the descendants of dogs were to split into two lines that couldn't reproduce with each other, would you still call both lines dogs? If so you would have two different species but only one kind.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Thats a good point luna. Can it happen in the future? I don't think so. I don't believe that you can reconcile the Genesis account with the evolutionary account, so being the Christian that I am, I don't see any point in the theory of evolution. But, if it does happen and I am alive to see it happen, I would be an evolutionists. At least I would have a reason to, becuz it will be based on the observational evidence, which is supposed to be what science is all about anyway.

Click to expand...

Since it seems clear to me that it happened in the passed I think it will also happen in the future.

There is no man that one can be pointed to in a historical context that can be proven to be the
supposed Jesus.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

The same reason why different models of cars not constitute different kinds. The Dodge Challenger and Dodge Charger are two different models of cars, but they are the same make. Neither one is a Mitsubishi, neither one is a Ford, neither one is a Chrysler, neither one is a Toyota. They are both from the Dodge "kind". They are from the Dodge family. The only kind of car coming out of a Dodge manufacturing plant are DODGES.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've explained absolutely nothing about what constitutes a biological kind. Are you saying it's just the NAME of a particular population? Is it somewhere between genus and species? Somewhere between class and genus? I asked you to be specific. This analogy of yours is no more specific than "they are different in the same way some other things that are called different names are different".

Call_of_the_Wild said:

So, are you saying that the grey wolf isn't a dog? If the first dogs are an offspring of the grey wolf, then what is the grey wolf? What kind of animal is it?

Click to expand...

A wolf, obviously.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Actually, it does. The bible says that Adam named all of the animals in Gen 2:20. How could he name all the animals if there were thousands of animals that still hadn't evolved yet??

Click to expand...

Well, there's no arguing with that lack of logic.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

The naming of the animals would only make since if he gave each family their generic name...such as "these animals over here will be called dogs....these animals over here will be called cats, etc".

Click to expand...

So, does the Bible give a comprehensive explanation of these classifications and how Adam grouped them as such?

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Obviously I do. I guess I took it for granted that you would of understood what "kind" meant, since I have been constantly saying that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. If you dont know the difference between a dog and a cat then I cant help you. If you go to a pet store and ask the clerk to show you all of the dogs in the store, and instead the clerk shows you all of the cats, would you accept this??

Click to expand...

Once again, this is just dancing around the point. I obviously understand the difference between one species and another species - the question is what, in your words, defines these two species (or any species or populations whatsoever) as belonging to separate and distinct "kinds"? What classifies a "kind"?

Call_of_the_Wild said:

If you wouldn't accept this, then you obviously know the difference between what you asked for and what you were shown. This would be the difference in the word "kind", as if you didn't know. There are dog "kinds", and there are cat "kinds".

Click to expand...

Okay then, let's say I approach you with two animals that you have never seen before. You have no idea what these animals are, or where they come from. Then, I ask you to tell me if these two animals were the same or different "kinds" of animals. What would you look for or examine in these two animals to demonstrate their specific classifications?

Call_of_the_Wild said:

By saying that dogs produce dogs, that only mean that an animal will never produce something OTHER THAN WHAT IT IS.

Click to expand...

Which we already know isn't true, since all living things reproduce with variation.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

You can mix match all of the dogs you want, cross breed all you want, the end result is going to be a DOG. As I said, if the very first dog came from a non-dog, which is what you MUST believe if you believe in evolution, then that is an example of an animal producing something other than what it is. Unscientific.

Click to expand...

This has been explained to you in terms a child could understand over and over and over. The fact that you still outright refuse to understand the fault in your logic is utterly beyond me.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Grey wolves can interbreed with dogs, so this fact along indicates that they are within the same kind.

Click to expand...

Therefore, the existence of ring species has already proven than evolution occurs above the supposed level of "kind".

Thank you for finally admitting it.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Grey wolves can interbreed with dogs, so this fact along indicates that they are within the same kind.

Click to expand...

And we could interbreed with Neanderthals and....? Given enough time interbreeding becomes an impossibility.

Call_of_the_Wild said:

Obviously I do. I guess I took it for granted that you would of understood what "kind" meant, since I have been constantly saying that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats. If you dont know the difference between a dog and a cat then I cant help you. If you go to a pet store and ask the clerk to show you all of the dogs in the store, and instead the clerk shows you all of the cats, would you accept this?? If you wouldn't accept this, then you obviously know the difference between what you asked for and what you were shown. This would be the difference in the word "kind", as if you didn't know. There are dog "kinds", and there are cat "kinds".

Click to expand...

Your 'definition' is a definition by example, which is not a definition ay all.

You are pointing to a dog and saying "that's a dog", byt you are not explaining what makes it a dog.
It has 4 legs, two ears and two eyes, but so does the creature over there which you said was a cat.
What is the unique thing about a dog that makes it a dog and not a non-dog?

If you can answer that, then maybe I can tell you about the first dog.

lunakilo said:

If you can answer that, then maybe I can tell you about the first dog.

Click to expand...

Ooh I got one.

*Raises hand*

Dogs bark, they go "woof"!

Did I win anything?

lunakilo said:

Your 'definition' is a definition by example, which is not a definition ay all.

Click to expand...

Well, a "thing" is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. If you showed a 6 year old boy a picture of a grey wolf, a coyote, a fox, and a blue whale, and you asked him to circle the one animal that is different from the rest, I guarantee he will circle the blue whale. Not only is he capable of picking the difference, he is capable of picking the difference without some biologists or evolutions standing there to persuade him that the dog evolved from the blue whale and any other kind of hog wash :sarcastic

lunakilo said:

You are pointing to a dog and saying "that's a dog", byt you are not explaining what makes it a dog.
It has 4 legs, two ears and two eyes, but so does the creature over there which you said was a cat.

Click to expand...

Ok, so based on what you are saying, if you go to the pet store and ask for the dogs but the clerk brings you out a cat, then you should accept the cat. After all, it has "4 legs, two ears, and two eyes", just like the dog does. So I guess there really isn't a difference. So, take the cat I guess :no:

lunakilo said:

What is the unique thing about a dog that makes it a dog and not a non-dog?

Click to expand...

This question is irrelevant...whatever way we categorize animals, each animal will only produce what it is. What is it? Well, whatever it is....whatever it is it will only produce what it is and not what it isn't.