That's not a formula. In fact, without a definition for what constitutes "dog" and "cat" the statement is meaningless, so your "formula" is self-defeating.
Look up the definition of a dog, and look up the definition of a cat, each definition is what constitutes each animal.
I know. What's your point?
The point is, that evolutionists will have us to believe that millions of years ago, animals started producing animals other than what it was. Thats the point.
I know. What's your point?
That any postulation involving an animal producing another animal other than what it is is pure speculation, with no evidence for it whatsoever.
So, "kind" means "species", then? In that case, your claim is false. We have already observed that evolution transcends the species barrier.
First of all, there isn't even a clear cut definition of what a species is anyway. This is irrelevant anyway, as I keep saying, regardless of how you classify a species, kind, genus, the fact still remains, than an animal will not produce another animal different than what it is. When you take away all of the fluff and feathers and technical babble, that is what it boils down to.
What the hell kind of question is that? How is it even remotely relevant to what I just said?
We are sitting here debating over the fact that I say a dog and a cat are different kinds of animals. You keep asking me to specify what I mean by "kind", so my question to you was, if I point you out a grey wolf and a tiger, one which is a dog, and the other is a cat, and I say "These are two different kinds of animals"...and you disagree with me and say "No they aren't"......and I ask you in what way are they the same..WHAT WOULD YOU TELL ME....I think a dog is a different kind of animal than a cat...if you even remotely think otherwise, tell me how are they the same.
So, kind means "species", then. Can we put a nail in it and just leave it at that?
No, because two animals can be two different species, but be the same kind of animal.
Hold on, so now "kind" means "genus"? I'm starting to get it now. "Kind" just means "whatever the hell I say it is". I could easily say that "me and my brother are a different "kind" of human" and it would make no less sense than anything you've said so far. Therefore, "kind" has no meaning.
More technical babble. I really could care less about genus or whatever the case may be. We all know what a cat is, we can identify a cat when we see it, or a dog when we see one. I have consistently maintained that, dog produce dogs, and cats produce cats. That is what everything boils down to. If you believe in evolution, you believe that millions of years ago, animals were doing things then that animals of today have never been observed to do, and your reply to that may be "Oh, it takes so long for it to occur"...conveniently...it occurs before, and it occurs after, but it never occurs during. That is what the discussion is about. I don't need to use the word "kind" to prove my point...the point is, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish...unless you can show me some concrete evidence that says otherwise, then you are arguing just for the sake or arguing, but when it comes to evidence, you have absolutely none to present.
You've not understood a thing I've written, have you?
Here is what I do understand, that dogs produce dogs, and cats produce cats.....this is all that has been observed. Some people believe that millions of years ago, that animals were producing animals that were different than what it itself was. That is evolution. That is what the discussion is about.
Wrong. The common ancestor of dog, by your definition of "kind", actually was the same "kind" as organisms that came before it. Evolution teaches that there was once a singular population of living organisms which slowly evolved into different "kinds" of animals which then replicated their own "kinds" and those "kinds" replicated various other "kinds" and so on.
Thats it right there!!! Now we are getting somewhere, as you have just broke down the religion of evolution. There is no evidence of a "singular population of living orgaisms which slowly evolved to different kinds of animals"......there is no evidence for this, but it is stated as if it is a brute fact. I have one for you though, an Almighty God created all of the animals with genetic material to produce many different varieties of its kind......meaning, there will be different varieties of dogs, cats, fish, spiders, etc....but there will never be a case of an dog producing a cat, a cat producing a fish....or whatever other nonsensical scenario evolutionists will have us believe.
Life is a branching tree. Every domain reproduces it's own domain, but that domain eventually splits into various kingdoms. Each of those kingdoms reproduces within it's own kingdom, but each kingdom eventually splits into several phyla. Each phyla reproduces it's own phyla, but each phla eventually splits into several genus', and so on. Do you understand?
I do understand. I understand that this is the religion of evolution. You can believe that if you want. I happen to believe differently. I believe that life came from life, and intelligence came from intelligence......unlike the evolutionist, that believes that life came from non-life, and intelligence came from non-intelligence......that thinking comes from the un-thinking......that a mind comes from the mindless......that sight comes from the blind......being the logical person that I am, I will stick to theism.
No matter how much variation is produced by mutation and natural selection, everything still remains in the same taxonomic rank as what came before it. Everything that is born from a dog is still a dog, but there are several different species of dog. Dogs themselves are a family of mammals, and everything that is born from a mammal is still a mammal, but there are different families of mammal.
I repeat, if all dogs share a common ancestor with the grey wolf, then whatever the grey wolf evolved from could not itself be a dog, so there is an example of a animal producing something other than what it itself is. This is speculation, no evidence whatsoever. When you take away the fluff and feathers, that is what it boils down to.
Your claims "dogs only produce dogs" etc., is not a contradiction of evolution. In fact, the fact that there is so much variance within the taxonomic rank of "dog" and so many varied species actually means your argument is self-defeating. Evolution states that variation within each taxonomic rank leads to new variances and classifications within that taxonomic rank. Are you starting to get this now?
What?? The dogs of today come from an animal of long ago that wasn't a dog. Thus, an animal producing another animal that is different that what it itself is. There is no getting beyond this. What I am saying is, this is not true. Dogs did not come from a non-dog, all dogs today were created by a common designer to produce a variety of species within the kind, but they will never produce a non-dog. This is my religion, I admit it is a religion. The problem is you dont admit that yours is a religion, it is accepted by faith, there is no evidence for it, and to pass it off as if it is a brute fact is being flat out disingenuous.
You're correct. But they don't - they produce variation within their own taxonomic rank. Hence, evolution.
But they came from an animal that was different from what they are now....hence....macroevolution
If you ignore the mountain of facts that support it, sure.
So give me your single best piece of evidence supporting evolution.
No, it doesn't. Do you understand taxonomic ranking and the tree of life? If you did, you would understand how it does not remotely contradict evolution.
Jesus Christ is the tree of life. He is the tree, and growing from the tree are fruits, fruits that are called Christians.
You don't appear to know what the theory of evolution actually states. I suggest you go and learn about it.
Dogs produce dogs, always have, and always will. Until you can show me otherwise, it is a religion.
), then you are in direct conflict with evolution, because that is not what the ToE teaches.
