Originally Posted By: paul

yes I eat pork , what this discussion is about has nothing do
do with what we eat.
I suppose your intentions are to obfuscate the discussion with
all the laws contained in the bible to try and gain momentum in
the discussion , but the laws are for people to follow and the
laws are like a set of rules for guidance for people , the laws do not control what animals will do in the wild.


This time Paul it is you who jumping to conclusions which are actually totally wrong.

I am actually trying and doing my best to interact with you in an open an honest discussion because you are not trolling. I can't discuss it in science terms because your definitions are all over the shop for science.

At the end of the discussion I would hope to understand your beliefs or at least the logic they are built on.


I understand and respect the logic the jewish religion is built on, I understand and respect the logic Rev K religion is built on.

I am not saying that I will be converted but hopefully I get where you are coming from since you are actually interacting.

See nice Orac comes out when we are discussing not trolling.

My problems with you is there is obvious inconsistancies with you and your beliefs and I am trying to get to the bottom of why that is. I am often on a knife edge with you as whether you are just trolling or you actually believe what you say because the inconsistancies are very large.

The pork issue was obvious to me because you went so hard at me about genesis being literal it stunned me that you ate pork because it literally says not to. So in my defence I am still not sure how to reconcile this other than say you view genesis as literal by leviticus as not ?????


Originally Posted By: paul

and what we are discussing is what animals can do in the wild
as far as breeding is concerned.


Ok I need you to explain that one ... are you saying there is a difference between wild and ?????? (domestic or perhaps man captive) animals


Originally Posted By: paul

by trying to vector the discussion in the direction you seem to be vectoring it into you extrapolate the discussion.


You are answering the questions I can only go to whatever answers you are willing to provide. I am not sure what you think I could be vectoring. I am not trying to trap you or anything if that is what you think ... I am not sure you can trap people in there beliefs .. they believe what they believe?

Having done reading on the bible and resolving how the jews resolve the minefield of evolution vs the bible I do know there are some classic logic problems. The jewish Rabbis have been struggling with the issue as well if you read the link above and it is interesting the issues it brings up.


Originally Posted By: paul

mule , donkey , horse are all the same KIND.
the mule is a partition from the donkey and the horse.
a mule is not a new KIND or new species.
a mule is a breed.



Yep okay that makes sense to me I see how you are defining it I think. Now the check which yes I put in the form of a statement.


So Tigers and Lions can produce a liger so Tiger and Lion are same "kind"?

I guess I should also check the negative of that so if two animals can't produce an offspring are they necessarilly different "kinds" or are there exceptions to this. So can we have two of a "kind" that can't produce offspring?

Last edited by Orac; 01/01/13 05:16 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.