|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2009 7:40:58 GMT -5
I thought some of the older hands might be interested to know that Carico writes again!
She is posting on Christian Forums under the handle "Peace4ever". I don't know what prompted her to return, or change her name, but its definitely the same poster. She seems slightly more coherent than previously, (possibly as the result of medication?) but the same ridiculous PRATTs (eveloution is about giraffes giving birth to fish, if evolution is true, why is there no written record of the first ape to human birth, evolutionists are idiots they don't even know what "kind" means), strawmen, refusal to listen to people who actually know what they are talking about, and, most telling, spasmodic overuse of inappropriate smileys peppering every post are all there. I've directly asked a number of times if its the same poster, and she ignores the question, which is yet another well known Carico trait.
Thought y'all might like to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 16, 2009 11:08:41 GMT -5
Yay! I love Carico and her strawmen. Every now and then, my lighter dies. So when she wheels out these strawmen, someone will let it ablaze and I can light my cigarettes off that. Also, she is proving herself a renewable source of cheap gardening supplies, namely fertilizer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 16, 2009 16:20:19 GMT -5
LOL Carico.
I didn't think anyone could be that stupid and still breathe.
Everytime I read their posts I feel my IQ droping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jun 16, 2009 18:43:16 GMT -5
You can't hide a genuine Carico.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 16, 2009 23:53:32 GMT -5
Alright, if Carico can define "kind" in a way that makes sense from every angle scrutinized, I will admit she is smarter than me.
Somehow, I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Jun 17, 2009 4:40:15 GMT -5
Alright, if Carico can define "kind" in a way that makes sense from every angle scrutinized, I will admit she is smarter than me. Somehow, I don't see that happening. Thats easy, a "kind" is almost like a species, only not. |
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Jun 17, 2009 5:27:08 GMT -5
I'm surprised she hasn't shown up under her new name here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jun 17, 2009 8:26:52 GMT -5
Alright, if Carico can define "kind" in a way that makes sense from every angle scrutinized, I will admit she is smarter than me. Somehow, I don't see that happening. A kind is a biological group which contains one or more existing, extinct or potential species, such that any species contained within can (micro)evolve to any other species of the kind, but not to any outside of it. Made up on the spot, but I think it works well enough. It makes the assertion that no species can evolve into a different kind tautological, so it doesn't make that much sense... |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 19, 2009 21:08:32 GMT -5
Made up on the spot, but I think it works well enough. It makes the assertion that no species can evolve into a different kind tautological, so it doesn't make that much sense... If it had any rigorous meaning to it, it would be known by now. I have thought that a "kind" is a clade that is composed of whatever you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 19, 2009 22:17:42 GMT -5
I'll also be putting this in the thread about AIG. This is the closest thing to a definition of "kind" they have on their article.
They also try to make it look like "species" is just unclear, but it isn't. If 2 animals can interbreed & create a fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Concise, clear definition. Nothing like the vagueness of "kind."
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 19, 2009 23:58:11 GMT -5
I'll also be putting this in the thread about AIG. This is the closest thing to a definition of "kind" they have on their article. They also try to make it look like "species" is just unclear, but it isn't. If 2 animals can interbreed & create a fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Concise, clear definition. Nothing like the vagueness of "kind." It's not so clear as some might think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_speciesThe species concept is apparently tricky. But, it beats having such a vague collection as a 'kind', and the various definitions of 'species' are apparently consistent. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jun 20, 2009 1:12:44 GMT -5
Made up on the spot, but I think it works well enough. It makes the assertion that no species can evolve into a different kind tautological, so it doesn't make that much sense... If it had any rigorous meaning to it, it would be known by now. I have thought that a "kind" is a clade that is composed of whatever you want. No, it's a grade. A clade is a group of species that share a certain common ancestor, while a grade is a group of species that share certain characteristics. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 20, 2009 1:57:44 GMT -5
I'll also be putting this in the thread about AIG. This is the closest thing to a definition of "kind" they have on their article. They also try to make it look like "species" is just unclear, but it isn't. If 2 animals can interbreed & create a fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Concise, clear definition. Nothing like the vagueness of "kind." It's not so clear as some might think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_speciesThe species concept is apparently tricky. But, it beats having such a vague collection as a 'kind', and the various definitions of 'species' are apparently consistent. I know it's not crystal clear. But you got what I was trying to get across, anyway: "Kind" is a Hell of a lot more vague & inconsistent. |
|
