A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 06:20 PM by Metazoa Zeke.)
A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
When creationist are faced with evidence of eyewitness of evolution happening they will say "well that's going to happen,they're the same kind." Like everyone I always wonder what is a kind?Huh Many creationist have used it and never defined it. Ray Comfort for example always shows eyewitness examples of evolution as same kind, but i'll get to that later. For now I'll use Answers in Genesis definition of kind. Before I go on I'd like to thank answers in genesis for helping me become an atheist,even as a christian i knew that there arguments were incorrect, and I wouldn't be debunking the claims they make. Back to the point. Answers in Genesis never directly defines kinds but you can tell what their definition is. To them a kind is a family(1). If you look at the source I gave you, you'll notice that on answers in genesis kids every kind stops at the family level. Now the creationist response would be " Ya kinds are a family what the problem with that?" The problem is it come into conflict with your bible and science.

First lets look at the bible. In the book it describes a kind as something that can bring forth(2). However knowing that eyewitness evolution would debunk the definition and then the whole bible, and because creationist hate science, creationist like those at Answers in Genesis have changed kinds into families. Another problem with that is when it comes to the chapter of Leviticus when it defines kind (also notice that Christians aren't supposed to eat these either).(3) Lets take the order strigiformes. These are the owls. First look at the source I gave you for Leviticus when it describes owls and their kind. The bible says little owls and owls are different kinds. However there are only two families (kinds) of owls strigidae (true owls) and tytonidae (barn owls). (4) Now a creationist will ask "what is the problem with this, your just twisting the bible because you love your sin more then gawd!" Well its definition. There is no such thing as little owls but smaller owls are in the same family as owls strigidae. In fact this is what i was talking about when it came to the bible and science. If all kinds are at the family level like Answers in Genesis says it is(5), then the bible is wrong because then little owls and owls would be the same kind, and this contradicts Leviticus because it says that little members of strigidae and bigger members of strigidae and tytonidae, however if answers in genesis is going to go with Leviticus, then that means science and evidence of owl taxonomy is wrong, and unfortunately due to the evidence to the contrary of what Leviticus says about owls, then the bible would be wrong. To be fair I have heard Ken Ham say most say that "Most kinds are at the family level."

This brings me to what I was talking about before when I was talking about Banana Man's definition of kind. Ray Comfort, unlike AIG doesn't give a definition of kind and never will. However debunking Ray's idea of "kinds" will debunk Ken Ham's statement of not all kinds being the same as well. Ray Comfort faces the problem of the both of them when he says "All bacteria are the same kind," then goes to say "All canidae are the same kind." The creationist would say "Well ya bacteria are the same kind, and canidae are the same kind, stop trying to prove your religion of evolutionism for your gawd Darwin!" The problem creationist is the classification of both by science. Bacteria is a domain(6),the highest level of life, and canidae are a family.(7) The problem is where do kinds stop. If canidae are the same kind, then macro evolution has been proven so much that a creationist that denies it is beyond help. A domain is the second highest thing after life, meaning that it is above even kingdom. If all Bacteria are the same kind, the word is now vague. If kind is at the domain level then all Eukaryotas are the same kind.(9) This would also mean that all animals are the same kind because all animals are part of Eukaryotas.

It also makes evolution valid through the word kind. For example humans are part of the ape kind, which is part of the monkey kind, which is part of the euarchontoglires kind, which is part of the exafroplecentalia kind, which is part of the theriiforme kind, so on and so forth. This would take Ken Ham off his rocker because we could then apply the same problem to him when it comes to those kinds that are not at the family level. I would go into the problem with kinds and the flood but thats for another time. Share this with anyone you like and correct any errors i made. Thanks for reading and leave any suggestions about what religious claim i should debunk next.Thumbsup

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
21-01-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Paragraphs are a welcome respite from the wall of text. Just saying.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-01-2014, 06:11 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Here are the sources I almost forgot about them

1.http://www.answersingenesis.org/kids

2.http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-24/

3.http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=leviticus&chapter=11&verse=

4.http://tolweb.org/strigiformes/26388

5.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/zoo/great-horned-owl

6.http://classic.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Bacteria/

7.http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/canidae/

8.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.Ut8MHRAo7IU

9.http://classic.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/eukarya/


sorry about that Big Grin

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:11 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
(21-01-2014 05:59 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Paragraphs are a welcome respite from the wall of text. Just saying.
what does that mean

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:14 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Hi, Pal and welcome to the forum.


I really would like to read this, but might you kindly go back and edit so that it's in paragraphs?


Thanks.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
(21-01-2014 06:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Hi, Pal and welcome to the forum.


I really would like to read this, but might you kindly go back and edit so that it's in paragraphs?


Thanks.

oh thats what you guys mean, sorry im new to this and im still a teen so i might rush everything even if it takes awhile.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
(21-01-2014 06:17 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 06:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Hi, Pal and welcome to the forum.


I really would like to read this, but might you kindly go back and edit so that it's in paragraphs?


Thanks.

oh thats what you guys mean, sorry im new to this and im still a teen so i might rush everything even if it takes awhile.

Thank you!


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 07:23 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
(21-01-2014 05:54 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  When creationist are faced with evidence of eyewitness of evolution happening they will say "well that's going to happen,they're the same kind." Like everyone I always wonder what is a kind?Huh Many creationist have used it and never defined it. Ray Comfort for example always shows eyewitness examples of evolution as same kind, but i'll get to that later. For now I'll use Answers in Genesis definition of kind. Before I go on I'd like to thank answers in genesis for helping me become an atheist,even as a christian i knew that there arguments were incorrect, and I wouldn't be debunking the claims they make. Back to the point. Answers in Genesis never directly defines kinds but you can tell what their definition is. To them a kind is a family(1). If you look at the source I gave you, you'll notice that on answers in genesis kids every kind stops at the family level. Now the creationist response would be " Ya kinds are a family what the problem with that?" The problem is it come into conflict with your bible and science.

First lets look at the bible. In the book it describes a kind as something that can bring forth(2). However knowing that eyewitness evolution would debunk the definition and then the whole bible, and because creationist hate science, creationist like those at Answers in Genesis have changed kinds into families. Another problem with that is when it comes to the chapter of Leviticus when it defines kind (also notice that Christians aren't supposed to eat these either).(3) Lets take the order strigiformes. These are the owls. First look at the source I gave you for Leviticus when it describes owls and their kind. The bible says little owls and owls are different kinds. However there are only two families (kinds) of owls strigidae (true owls) and tytonidae (barn owls). (4) Now a creationist will ask "what is the problem with this, your just twisting the bible because you love your sin more then gawd!" Well its definition. There is no such thing as little owls but smaller owls are in the same family as owls strigidae. In fact this is what i was talking about when it came to the bible and science. If all kinds are at the family level like Answers in Genesis says it is(5), then the bible is wrong because then little owls and owls would be the same kind, and this contradicts Leviticus because it says that little members of strigidae and bigger members of strigidae and tytonidae, however if answers in genesis is going to go with Leviticus, then that means science and evidence of owl taxonomy is wrong, and unfortunately due to the evidence to the contrary of what Leviticus says about owls, then the bible would be wrong. To be fair I have heard Ken Ham say most say that "Most kinds are at the family level."

This brings me to what I was talking about before when I was talking about Banana Man's definition of kind. Ray Comfort, unlike AIG doesn't give a definition of kind and never will. However debunking Ray's idea of "kinds" will debunk Ken Ham's statement of not all kinds being the same as well. Ray Comfort faces the problem of the both of them when he says "All bacteria are the same kind," then goes to say "All canidae are the same kind." The creationist would say "Well ya bacteria are the same kind, and canidae are the same kind, stop trying to prove your religion of evolutionism for your gawd Darwin!" The problem creationist is the classification of both by science. Bacteria is a domain(6),the highest level of life, and canidae are a family.(7) The problem is where do kinds stop. If canidae are the same kind, then macro evolution has been proven so much that a creationist that denies it is beyond help. A domain is the second highest thing after life, meaning that it is above even kingdom. If all Bacteria are the same kind, the word is now vague. If kind is at the domain level then all Eukaryotas are the same kind.(9) This would also mean that all animals are the same kind because all animals are part of Eukaryotas.

It also makes evolution valid through the word kind. For example humans are part of the ape kind, which is part of the monkey kind, which is part of the euarchontoglires kind, which is part of the exafroplecentalia kind, which is part of the theriiforme kind, so on and so forth. This would take Ken Ham off his rocker because we could then apply the same problem to him when it comes to those kinds that are not at the family level. I would go into the problem with kinds and the flood but thats for another time. Share this with anyone you like and correct any errors i made. Thanks for reading and leave any suggestions about what religious claim i should debunk next.Thumbsup

G'day and welcome to the forum.

Now, that was pretty good. I can't help but wonder what response one would get if they forwarded this to the fobs at AiG...

Moving on from the praise, I do have one problem. Pseudo-Strawmen. You seem to have a habit of parodying creationist arguments with misrepresentative strawmen, for instance: "The creationist would say "Well ya bacteria are the same kind, and canidae are the same kind, stop trying to prove your religion of evolutionism for your gawd Darwin!" this is just a thing which gets me a little disconcerted, don't know if anybody else even cares, but just figured it was worth mentioning, might make your arguments seem a little more valid were those tendencies curbed.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
21-01-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Moving on from the praise, I do have one problem. Pseudo-Strawmen. You seem to have a habit of parodying creationist arguments with misrepresentative strawmen, for instance: "The creationist would say "Well ya bacteria are the same kind, and canidae are the same kind, stop trying to prove your religion of evolutionism for your gawd Darwin!" this is just a thing which gets me a little disconcerted, don't know if anybody else even cares, but just figured it was worth mentioning, might make your arguments seem a little more valid were those tendencies curbed.
[/quote]

Thanks for pointing that out. If i was going to say what creationist where saying I have been serious instead of trying to do a parody my bad. I have actually heard them say i accept evolution because i hate god, and many think i worship Darwin for some reason. This will be the last time i do this next time i'm going to go to what creationist websites actually say.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
21-01-2014, 08:47 PM
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on:Kinds
Potholer54 has a lovely video on kinds. It's a shame that he is retiring his YouTube channel. You might be able to use this as fodder.



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: