oliver...<<..say a cat and dog/are separate species>>..giberish/deleted

The whole classification is:
dog/KINGDOM:Animalia
PHYLUM:..Chordata
CLASS:..Mammalia
ORDER:..Carnivora

FAMILY:..Canidae
GENUS;..canus
SPECIES;..familiaris

Canis lupus familiaris,/a subspecies of wolf.

cat/..Kingdom;Animalia;
Phylum - Chordata;
Class - Mammalia;
Order - Carnivora;

Suborder - Feliformia;
Family - Felidae;
Subfamily - Felinae;
Genus - Felis.

cat=..The genus IS Felis...

The species below the genus Felis..get a little fuzzy/with Felis sylvestris catus..being the consensus,..but with some usage..(archaic, I think) of Felis domesticatus or Felis domesticus catus, and Felis catus..('catus' being italicized).because to subsequent species share them as a common ancestor.

In order for two different species to be able to interbreed,
they must be closely related.

CLEARLY CAT AND DOG ARNT
their genus diverged long before genus level

THUS NO CAT/DOG...can breed..BECAUSE THE GENUS BARRIER..cant be crossed

Generally,..animals within the same genus/can interbreed
for example,..that most famous of hybrids,/the mule,..is a cross between a male donkey and female horse,..

both of which belong to..the genus Equus...!

Depending on how closely/related they are,..species in different genera but the same family..can sometimes interbreed too/for example, the puma and the leopard..both belong to the family Felidae,/but the genera Puma and Panthera respectively,/can interbreed to produce a hybrid known as a pumapard....BUT ITS STERILE

Being closely related/basically means that two species share a greater amount of genetic material/with each other than with other animals.

Beyond family level,/two species cease to share enough genetic material/for the egg and sperm to 'recognise' each other,..which is why you can't breed animals from different families like,

a cat - a dog sperm/simply wouldn't be able to fertilise a cat egg, and vice versa.

Most hybrids/are sterile..because/the parent species/often have different numbers of chromosomes,/which means the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells....

no cat dog..is possable..live with-it

for you to/say...gibberish...restored..<<a cat and dog are separate species,../because to subsequent species/share them as a common ancestor.>>>is cccc-rap...

how can you state such gibberish

&#@>>>...OH right..redirection...lol..
TO AVOID PRESENTING FAULSIFYABLES..you aint got...lol/ha/ha

lol...you got me...
great destraction...lol
-
-
-
0

PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE...
present your faulsifyable's
but..you aint got none.....right...lol

David f,

"We can have objective information about anything that can be detected by our senses or instruments. eg. Amperage and voltage are objective information about electric currents."

Of course, electrons are objects!

I agree that science and religion should be thought of separately.

I'm not the first to point out that science is a method of enquiry;
it is not a belief system in itself. A good scientist holds all possibilities open. Science is not supposed to be a religion.

Science will catch up with religion eventually :)

.

Dear Suzeonline,

.

"No creationist can ever 'prove' that God created the world or it's inhabitants, just as scientists can never 'prove' there wasn't a God who created the world ... let's just go on with what science can prove today".

As you may possibly have noticed, some of the participants in this debate are already complying with your wish.

Others are "getting on with what religion can prove today", which, though you did not mention it, follows on the same principle.

Man, so it is said, Suze, "does not live on bread alone". Nor is he entirely rational.

He also has a psyche.

He has emotions, desires, pride, prejudices and several other attributes.

He only sees what he wants to see but cannot see all that we wants.

He only sees what he knows, what he recognizes. He does not see what he ignores.

He does not know what it is that he sees and the rest is invisible.

He goes through life tapping the ground with a long white cane. His perception is partial and false. His ability to interpret what he sees is limited. His memory is fettered and repressed. He often finds reality quite frightening. His courage is in short supply. His expression is approximate and imprecise.

Truth, even for an honest man, is inevitably a deformed representation of whatever reality may possibly have existed at the time he perceived it.

So, as you quite rightly observe, dear Suze, we are all wandering around on this forum, tapping the ground with long white canes, endeavouring to avoid bumping into each other, hoping to share in some vision of reality which most certainly has eluded us, and doing our best to offer whatever we can in return.

.

Pynchme and suzeonline,

Much has to do with the relationship between the enquirer and the objective. In science the enquirer is independent of the objective; whereas, with religion the enquirer is assimilated into the objective and in a sense becomes one with objective. As the Chinese say, "one cannot see the face of the mountain from inside the cave". Herein, the theist is hard pressed to think rationally, because of the absence of the apt qualifying syntax.

AJ Philips,
>>discovering that the TV doesn’t actually exist<<
I do not understand how you can discover that your TV set does not exist if you are watching a program on it! Of course, you can “discover” that God does not exist, though others might not be convinced. That is hardly news, confirming only that there is no universally convincing evidence one way or another.

>>how does one rationally FORMULATE the presupposition that a GOD OF SOME SORT (my emphasis both times) exists?<<
By expressing it - to follow a form preferred on this OLO - as lack of (or absence of) belief in the Sagan maxim i.e. in the reducibility of all existence to that accessible through science (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9389#150883).