Question for Ray
Rolf
their existence the result of selective breeding, starting with wolves? With
selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
spintronic
Kill all humans today.
All domesticated dogs would die in 2 years.
You would be left with wolves.
Will in New Haven
Not in two years. Many ferals survive and many generations of ferals
would survive. It would take time, generations, for wolves to reclaim
all the territory and there would certainly be wolf/dog hybrids alive
long enough to make a permanent mark in the wolf gene pool. Just as
the coyote is permanently in the gene pool of wolves in several areas,
even though wolves _usually_ try to kill all the coyotes they can
catch.
--
Will in New Haven
Boikat
Wrong. Distinct breeds may die out over a short period of time, but
they will leave offspring that will survive and continue to
reproduce. There are examples in the carolinas of a yellowish dog,
for example.
Which are the descendants of Native American domesticated dogs that
have been living in the wild for centuries.
Related:
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/pdf/wildlife/FERAL_DOGS.PDF
(For the PDF impared)
http://www.extension.org/pages/Feral_Dogs
>
> You would be left with wolves.
No, you would have wolves and feral dogs that often resemble wolves,
but that would not be the only types. A lot would depend on the
environmental pressures (Natural selection, which is, while a
relatively simple concept, is probably beyond your grasp).
Would a chihuahua, as a breed, survive? Not likely. Would any pure
breed of any kind survive? That would also be doubtful, since many
pure breeds have inbred genetic disorders that tag along as baggage of
the breed's desired traits. But once feral, and selective breeding
controls are removed, there is likely going to be enough interbreeding
that the genetic disorders will be weeded out, and a mogrel breed
could develop that is suited for it's environment, not dependant on
humans, and lacks the genetic defects of some types of pure bred dogs.
Boikat
spintronic
Hmm, since your citations are dogs living while humans do. They are
useless.
Wouldn't you say?
Boikat
You really overdid the stupid pills today, didn't you? No, the
citations pull the rug out from under your claims. The example of the
Carolina Dogs should is enough to demonstrate your claim is false.
The fact is celear enough that dogs can live in the wild wthout being
dependant on humans. As a matter of fact, it you had done a little
more poking around on the matter of the Carolina Dogs, you would have
found that they were headed towards extinction due to habitat
distruction and other *human imposed* factors. They would have been
doing just fine, *except* for modern human intereactions.
Try again.
Boikat
Boikat
Will in New Haven
I think the re-expansion of the wolf population, and the coyote
population, would leave very few environments that feral dogs could
exploit. But "very few" is not none, so spinspew isn't right. There
are dogs in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey that seem well-adapted and
have been there for many years. It is not a wolf-friendly environment,
I think, so they might last a long time.
Boikat
True enough. There's plenty of former wolf territory that is devoid of
wolves at this time, I think it's totally possible for a feral breed
of some sort to fill the available habitat and be able to stand their
ground if wolf populations tried to move back into the areas. But, in
the long run, wolves would probably prevail for the most part in their
original range (They are already adapted for that range), with the
only real contests taking place on the fringe of the original wolf
ranges.
Boikat
KlausH
Does the word "Dingo" ring a bell?
Klaus
> Boikat
>
hersheyh
Try 'dingbat'. He answers to that name.
Rolf
>'s when I try to respond, so I better make it from scratch:
While dogs obviously have a fixation on humans, thet doesn't mean they are
incapable of operating on their own, and relating to each other. And take
the Pitbull and similar breeds, they seem to be ferocious enough and willing
to attack anything and anyone; i see no reason why they would not be able to
survive without human beings around. And, as has been pointed out, the
surviving dogs need not all be subjected to direct competition with wolves
if the human race suddenly disappeared.
Besides, the scenario is entirely hypthetical and unrelated to my question
for Ray: Are dogs a special creation or an example of selection - somthing
Ray is in denial of, I just want to know whether he accepts artificial
selection but for some strange reason thinks that there are no selective
factors or pressures in nature? I wonder if he can tell us what the
difference might be?
For as long as I can tell, Ray has never addressed anything even remotely
having with science to do; he has an obsession with people, what they have
written, and with pyramids, UFO's, crops circles, Dr. Scott, Velikovsky and
probably a lot of other bizarre subject as well. Maybe he is an alien in
disguise? But science? He has no idea, he just worship the bible as the
highest scientific authority. Even if it has very little to say about
Michelson-Morley, double slit experiments, QM and then some.
Rolf
Frank J
Does he also bring us a beer on command?
(M)-adman
Once selective breeding controls are removed, (the human factor as you said)
dogs would revert back. Which is exactly as you said.
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
List of confirmed liers
1) J.J. O'Shea
you can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
Dogs evolved via selection, from wolves. A dog is nothing more then a
variation of a wolf.
"Each after their own kind". Exactly as the bible says.
(M)-adman
They also would still be wolves just as spintonic said. They would go back
to being wolves once the selective breeding and genetic mutations were
removed. Remove the human factor of selective breeding and dogs would go
back to being wolves.
The carolina dog is an excellent example of this selective breeding.
Learn some history:
" The Carolina Dog is a feral relic of antiquity, directly related to the
Australian Dingo, African Jackal, and New Guinea Singing Dog, and has been
only recently discovered surviving in uninhabited areas of our own
Southeastern United States. The Carolina Dog was most likely the "Indian
dog" base stock which interbred with dogs brought in by Spanish explorers,
producing the ancestors of what we now call Catahoulas. "
http://www.catahoulaleopard.com/homepg.htm
HTH
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by spintronic
<spint...@hotmail.com>:
Assuming that the above was intended as one sentence rather
than a fragment and an ambiguous sentence, it's irrelevant
to the question, since they're not dependent on humans.
>Wouldn't you say?
No.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
David Hare-Scott
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8071b0dd-9fd7-4fb2...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>Kill all humans today.
>All domesticated dogs would die in 2 years.
Nonsense. There are feral dogs that have lived without humans for
generations.
>You would be left with wolves.
Ever heard of the dingo? Is it a domestic dog or a wolf or a feral dog or
none of these? Do they live without humans?
Your trolling is getting really lazy and predictable how about some subtlety
and make it fun again. Lately you have been as obvious as... as dog's
balls.
David
David Hare-Scott
"(M)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
news:N9PIk.49479$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> They also would still be wolves just as spintonic said. They would go back
> to being wolves once the selective breeding and genetic mutations were
> removed. Remove the human factor of selective breeding and dogs would go
> back to being wolves.
>
Would 4000 years of living in the wild without humans controlling their
breeding be enough for domestic dogs to revert to wolves?
A dingo is not a wolf.
David
Cj
reverted to wildness after arriving in Australia with humans and the
dingo is nothing like a wolf.
There are wild dogs in many places in the world that have reverted from
cultivation to wildness thousands of years ago and none of them have the
faintest resemblance to any of the surviving wolf species. The gene
pool for domestic dogs has changed so much in the last 15,000 years that
there is no possible way for dogs to revert to wolves.
When the dog first appeared in North America roughly 15,000 years ago
according to skeletal evidence it was anatomically different and not a
wolf, that argues for.a separation of wolves and dogs at roughly 20,000
years. Genetics suggest that the wolf-dog transition occurred in four
different and distinct speciation events. A significant genetic change
has separated wolves from dogs for a long time and apparently there's no
going back. Without humans the dog would evolve into something very
different and certainly it wouldn't be a wolf.
Cj
Will in New Haven
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> > "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
I agree with you except that "nothing like a wolf" and "none of them
have the faintest resemblance" are overstatements. I have worked often
with dogs and sometimes with wolves and dogs _are_ wolves in the same
way that men are apes. That is, the same sense that I mean when I say
men are apes and not the same sense as my ex Joan means when she says
men are apes. Or men are dogs, for that matter. She says both.
Ken Shackleton
Nonsense. Natural Selection has no memory, all it has to work with is
the existing variation in the gene pool. It is true that many breeds
of domestic dog would vanish very quickly without human support, but
the remainder would not "revert back" to modern wolves. They would
evolve into a form that is suited to their environment. There is
nothing that would compel them to go back to an ancestral form.
Ken Shackleton
Actually, what Spinny said was that the dogs would die, and be
*replaced* by wolves. While this is still very likely to be wrong, it
is not the same thing as saying that dogs would "revert back" to
wolves.
John Wilkins
> On Oct 13, 9:14 pm, Cj <C...@mist.net> wrote:
> > David Hare-Scott wrote:
> > > "(M)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote in message
> > >news:N9PIk.49479$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >> They also would still be wolves just as spintonic said. They would go
> > >> back to being wolves once the selective breeding and genetic
> > >> mutations were removed. Remove the human factor of selective breeding
> > >> and dogs would go back to being wolves.
> >
> > > Would 4000 years of living in the wild without humans controlling their
> > > breeding be enough for domestic dogs to revert to wolves?
> >
> > > A dingo is not a wolf.
> >
> > > David
> >
> > Excellent point, the dingo was apparently a domesticated dog that
> > reverted to wildness after arriving in Australia with humans and the
> > dingo is nothing like a wolf.
Possibly because it derives from the Asian singing dog, which may or may
not have wolf origins.
> > There are wild dogs in many places in the world that have reverted from
> > cultivation to wildness thousands of years ago and none of them have the
> > faintest resemblance to any of the surviving wolf species. The gene
> > pool for domestic dogs has changed so much in the last 15,000 years that
> > there is no possible way for dogs to revert to wolves.
> > When the dog first appeared in North America roughly 15,000 years ago
> > according to skeletal evidence it was anatomically different and not a
> > wolf, that argues for.a separation of wolves and dogs at roughly 20,000
> > years. Genetics suggest that the wolf-dog transition occurred in four
> > different and distinct speciation events. A significant genetic change
> > has separated wolves from dogs for a long time and apparently there's no
> > going back. Without humans the dog would evolve into something very
> > different and certainly it wouldn't be a wolf.
> > Cj
>
> I agree with you except that "nothing like a wolf" and "none of them
> have the faintest resemblance" are overstatements. I have worked often
> with dogs and sometimes with wolves and dogs _are_ wolves in the same
> way that men are apes. That is, the same sense that I mean when I say
> men are apes and not the same sense as my ex Joan means when she says
> men are apes. Or men are dogs, for that matter. She says both.
>
For some reason, that reminded me of this:
Good evening. The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a
professional logician because it contained a number of logical
fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic
forms, of the type so often committed by my wife.
'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all
that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal
affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead,
but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one
would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary
limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does
not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor
of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?
For example, given the premise, 'all fish live underwater' and 'all
mackerel are fish', my wife will conclude, not that 'all mackerel live
underwater', but that 'if she buys kippers, it will not rain' or that
'trout live in trees' or even that 'I do not love her any more.' This
she calls 'using her intuition'. I call it 'crap' and it gets me very
irritated because it is not logical. 'There will be no supper tonight,'
she will sometimes cry upon my return home. 'Why not?' I will ask.
'Because I have been screwing the milkman all day,' she will say, quite
oblivious of the howling error she has made. 'But,' I will wearily point
out, 'even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting
supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely
then, supper may now, logically, be got.' 'You don't love me any more,'
she will now often postulate. 'If you did, you would give me one now and
again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my
orgasms.' 'I will give you one after you have got me my supper,' I now
usually scream, 'but not before' - as you understand, making her bang
contingent on the arrival of my supper. 'God, you turn me on when you're
angry, you ancient brute!' she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her
sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. 'Fuck supper!' I now invariably
conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds. And so we
thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion
until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yogurt.
...I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief.
But in a nutshell: sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this,
but it 'is' in the same sense that Mount Everest 'is', or that Alma
Cogan 'isn't'.
Goodnight.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, they wouldn't. They are a different species from wolves, and
although they can interbreed with wolves they show a preference not to
do so. They form distinct populations.
> They would go back
> to being wolves once the selective breeding and genetic mutations were
> removed. Remove the human factor of selective breeding and dogs would go
> back to being wolves.
>
> The carolina dog is an excellent example of this selective breeding.
No, it isn't. It has survived (and evolved) for hundreds of years in
the wild.
>
> Learn some history:
Oh, the irony!
RF
Will in New Haven
The preference not to interbreed _seems_ to be on the part of the
wolves. Dogs are dogs, in the same sense that men are dogs, and will
breed with anything that will stand still for it, if they aren't
terrified of it and running away. Wolves prefer to kill and eat dogs.
Boikat
No, they would not.
>
> The carolina dog is an excellent example of this selective breeding.
>
> Learn some history:
>
> " The Carolina Dog is a feral relic of antiquity, directly related to the
> Australian Dingo, African Jackal, and New Guinea Singing Dog, and has been
> only recently discovered surviving in uninhabited areas of our own
> Southeastern United States. The Carolina Dog was most likely the "Indian
> dog" base stock which interbred with dogs brought in by Spanish explorers,
> producing the ancestors of what we now call Catahoulas. "
>
> http://www.catahoulaleopard.com/homepg.htm
And they have been Carolina Dog has been a wild dog for a long time,
existing *without a need for human selective breeding*, until
recently, due to encroachment and habitat distructuion.
>
> HTH
>
> --
Yes, it helps to show you are still too stupid to follow a thread more
than one post long.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> Rolf wrote:
> > What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created species,
> > or are their existence the result of selective breeding, starting
> > with wolves? With selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
>
> Dogs evolved via selection, from wolves. A dog is nothing more then a
> variation of a wolf.
>
> "Each after their own kind". Exactly as the bible says.
Can you be more precise than "nothing more than a variation of"?
Rolf
"Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no> wrote in message
news:gcvo15$6pp$1...@aioe.org...
> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created species, or
are
> their existence the result of selective breeding, starting with wolves?
With
> selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
>
>
Elsewhere, Ray responds to
"But all the experiments and scientific literature says that mutational
change of genome sequence is random wrt need"
with
"Only evolutionists say it is random. The results, that is, design,
organized complexity and adaptation evidence a mechanism reflecting
Intelligent causation. Again, this is why both Creationism and
Darwinism are interpretations of the same scientific evidence."
Does that mean that according to Ray, all mutations wheter good or bad, i..e
harmful or beneficial, are designed, taking place because some force that in
the case of Ray obviously is Yahweh, is willing it?
Or does he think that a good mutation is made by Yahweh, a bad mutation by
Satan?
How does Ray prove that mutations are not random? What about Down's
syndrome, and all other well known harmful mutations, changes in the genome?
I know the answer - it will show what we already know: Ray is out of touch
with reality.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
I would say that it's your post, which doesn't address any of the
material above, that is the useless one.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
No, it's completely different from what he said. Here, as in many
other threads, you seem to be unable to comprehend what you read.
(M)-adman
> On 13 Oct, 22:22, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> Rolf wrote:
>>> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created
>>> species, or are their existence the result of selective breeding,
>>> starting with wolves? With selection beginning about 14.000 years
>>> ago?
>>
>> Dogs evolved via selection, from wolves. A dog is nothing more then a
>> variation of a wolf.
>>
>> "Each after their own kind". Exactly as the bible says.
>
> Can you be more precise than "nothing more than a variation of"?
Dogs are a variation of the wolf. The various dog breeds are variations
within the variations. It is called real evolution.
hth
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> List of confirmed liers
>> 1) J.J. O'Shea
>>
>> you can be added to the list too!
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
(M)-adman
A wolf is a dog is a wolf.
Get over it
>
>>
>> --
>> A cup of coffee and some truth with:
>>
>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> List of confirmed liers
>> 1) J.J. O'Shea
>>
>> you can be added to the list too!
--
A cup of coffee and some truth with:
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
My List of confirmed liars
1) J.J. O'Shea
Don't fret!! YOU can be added to the list too!
Ken Shackleton
Modern dogs and modern wolves are closely related, they are not the
same.
>
> Get over it
Learn it.
Boikat
http://www.my-pet-medicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/biglittledogfx_wb.jpg
So, those are wolves?
Just pretend, for the moment, that you can be honest enough to answer
a question honestly: If you were to find a wolf, and those two dogs
pictured, separately, lets say as fossils, would you *honestly* say
they were the same species? Why "yes", or, why "no"? (Please justify
your answer with the criteria you would use to justify either answer.)
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > On 13 Oct, 22:22, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Rolf wrote:
> >>> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created
> >>> species, or are their existence the result of selective breeding,
> >>> starting with wolves? With selection beginning about 14.000 years
> >>> ago?
>
> >> Dogs evolved via selection, from wolves. A dog is nothing more then a
> >> variation of a wolf.
>
> >> "Each after their own kind". Exactly as the bible says.
>
> > Can you be more precise than "nothing more than a variation of"?
>
> Dogs are a variation of the wolf. The various dog breeds are variations
> within the variations. It is called real evolution.
I see you cannot be more precise.
Boikat
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > On 13 Oct, 22:22, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Rolf wrote:
> >>> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created
> >>> species, or are their existence the result of selective breeding,
> >>> starting with wolves? With selection beginning about 14.000 years
> >>> ago?
>
> >> Dogs evolved via selection, from wolves. A dog is nothing more then a
> >> variation of a wolf.
>
> >> "Each after their own kind". Exactly as the bible says.
>
> > Can you be more precise than "nothing more than a variation of"?
>
> Dogs are a variation of the wolf. The various dog breeds are variations
> within the variations. It is called real evolution.
So, these are two wolves?
http://www.my-pet-medicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/biglittledogfx_wb.jpg
http://www.billybear4kids.com/animal/whose-toes/wolf/WolfStanding.jpg
If you found them separately, and a wolf (see pictures), you'd say
they were all three of the same species?
Can you say that honestly, and if so, based on what?
And if so, i suppose these tow are both house cats?
http://www.sandomenico.org/uploaded/photos/Library/mountain_lion.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/102/256184801_b5ce67e5ae_o.jpg
If you said the three "dogs" were all wolves, then why are these two
"cats" not both "house cats"?:
Do you have the brain power to answer that honestly?
(I doubt it, but here's your chance to dazzle everyone with your
brilliance)
Boikat
Boikat
Cj
Actually I wouldn't classify them as wolves, primarily because of the
skull proportions (they're quite different) and the relative size of the
teeth (wolves have proportionally larger teeth). Sorry old man,
skeletal anatomy is different for the two species.
Cj
Boikat
>
> > So, those are wolves?
>
> > Just pretend, for the moment, that you can be honest enough to answer
> > a question honestly: If you were to find a wolf, and those two dogs
> > pictured, separately, lets say as fossils, would you *honestly* say
> > they were the same species? Why "yes", or, why "no"? (Please justify
> > your answer with the criteria you would use to justify either answer.)
>
> > Boikat
>
> Actually I wouldn't classify them as wolves, primarily because of the
> skull proportions (they're quite different) and the relative size of the
> teeth (wolves have proportionally larger teeth). Sorry old man,
> skeletal anatomy is different for the two species.
> Cj
Neither would I. I wouldn't even classify the great dane and the
chihuahua as the same species. But that's just me (I think that's
just me. Others may also agree. (shrug).) But according to
assmonkey, they are still "wolves". I'd just like to see him support
that claim in a meaningful way.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created species, or are
> their existence the result of selective breeding, starting with wolves? With
> selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
All species were introduced into reality by a fresh act of special
creation. Selective or artifical breeding has never produced a new
species that can instantly and excessively procreate. Darwinian
speciation is self-evidently impossible----pro-Atheism nonsense. The
same evil mastermind that convinced priests that they could speak and
change one substance into a different substance, which in essence is a
corruption of God's seat of power, that is, speaking and reality
changing on command, is the same evil mastermind that convinced
priests who dress in suit and ties that they too can speak and change
species into a different species.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Can you actually provide evidence that supports your assertions Ray?
I don't want to read any waffle about how you have evidence that is
going to "destroy the theory of evolution" and "ruin the life of every
evolutionist".
I want you to present your evidence here so that it can be addressed.
To be fair I will give you seven days to post that evidence.
If you can't meet those conditions I guess it will be safe to assume
that you don't have any evidence.
The clock starts now.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:356792d3-9316-4c3f...@r38g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
I take that to mean a clear and distinct NO!
But why use so many words just to say no? What is bugging you? Is it
possible that you may stoop down to our pathetic level of ignorance and let
us in on a little of your profound wisdom?
Is artificial breeding a reality, is it possible, is it happening, have
people engaged, both directly, planned, and by chance when selecting, say,
seeds for crops like wheat, corn et cetera?
How do you define species - are they defined by God in the bible or do you
have your own arbitrary classification based simply on morphology?
Since you are such an expert on self-evidence: It it self evident that you
are nuts. It is also self-evident
that your paper never will see the light of day. See? When we declare
something as self-evident, it is self-evident and not longer a debatable
subject.
It is self-evident that I am superior to you in all respects, therefore
whatever you say is irrelevant. It is self-evident that UFO's are a fact. It
is self-evident that crop circles are created by magic. Do you know anything
that is not self-evident?
>Ray
DJT
> On Oct 13, 8:13 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created species, or are
> > their existence the result of selective breeding, starting with wolves? With
> > selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
>
> All species were introduced into reality by a fresh act of special
> creation.
Then why are all new species so closely related to already existing
ones? Does God get tired with species?
> Selective or artifical breeding has never produced a new
> species that can instantly and excessively procreate.
What do you mean by "instantly and excessively" procreate? Modern
corn has been bred from teosinte, so that it doesn't interbreed with
it's parent species, and it "procreates" excessively.
> Darwinian
> speciation is self-evidently impossible----pro-Atheism nonsense.
Yet speciation has been directly observed. How can something that's
been observed to happen be "self evidently impossible"?
> The
> same evil mastermind that convinced priests that they could speak and
> change one substance into a different substance, which in essence is a
> corruption of God's seat of power, that is, speaking and reality
> changing on command,
Ray, as I understand Catholic doctrine, the transubstantiation is not
caused by the priests speaking the words, but by God performing a
miracle. How is it a "corruption" of God's power, for God to use his
power? By the same token you are "speaking" species to be produced
by magic, rather than by natural processes. Does that make you under
the power of an "evil mastermind"?
>is the same evil mastermind that convinced
> priests who dress in suit and ties that they too can speak and change
> species into a different species.
Again, it's not scientists causing the speciation, in populations.
They aren't "speaking" to change the species, they are observing the
change happening on it's own. No magic power is involved, simply
mutation and selection, both natural, ongoing processes.
DJT
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Oct 13, 8:13 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> What about dogs. Are they also one of your specially created species, or are
>> their existence the result of selective breeding, starting with wolves? With
>> selection beginning about 14.000 years ago?
>
>All species were introduced into reality by a fresh act of special
>creation. Selective or artifical breeding has never produced a new
>species that can instantly and excessively procreate. Darwinian
>speciation is self-evidently impossible----pro-Atheism nonsense.
How strange, then, that this "self-evident impossibility"
has been observed numerous times.
> The
>same evil mastermind that convinced priests that they could speak and
>change one substance into a different substance, which in essence is a
>corruption of God's seat of power
That would be Jesus Christ, at his last meal with his
disciples. And his religious heirs do the same in the same
way, by invoking a miracle from God.
>, that is, speaking and reality
>changing on command, is the same evil mastermind that convinced
>priests who dress in suit and ties that they too can speak and change
>species into a different species.
But will you ever change into a rational person who thinks
before spouting gibberish? That would be a *real* miracle.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Devils Advocaat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Four and a half days left for Ray to post his evidence.