A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 01:24 PM
A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
I came across this blog the other day, by accident. I was curious how the Creation Museum depicts “The Serpent” in Eden, whether or not they showed it with legs, so that they could be remove when it is sentenced to a life crawling on its belly. So I goggled it, and anywho…this is how I stumbled upon this girl’s blog from her trip to the Creation Musem, where she took pictures and posted them. I do not know who the girl is at all (looks Pentecostal), and don’t mean to make fun of her because she seems young still, but I did see she wrote the following, which I simply could not pass commenting on. Excerpt with picture below:


[Image: img_3471.jpg]

"I was totally looking forward to the petting zoo. Because there they have two creatures. Zorses. A combination of horse and zebra. They interbred these two breeds as an example that they are the same kind; horse kind. This is a blow to evolution which says that everything is in a species, where they say that animals are in kinds. It’s a lot like a horse and donkey mix: you get a mule. Other interbred creatures that have been seen have been ligers (lion and tiger)."

I bolded that part, not her. Quick comment on it, in case it's not completely obvious. She seems to be saying evolution says "everthing is in the same species" (whatever she means by that), where they say (the "they" she is refurring to is the museum) "that animals are in kinds".






Oh, and spoiler alert...because it's why I looked in the first place...does the serpent have legs?
[Image: img_3316.jpg]

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
Someone clearly doesnt understand the concept of micro and macro evolution that has been explained (and obviously ignored) countless times within several youtube videos.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Germans are coming's post
06-01-2014, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 01:39 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
So there you go. Evolution is wrong because some species that still closely share enough genetic information, can in some cases reproduce. But more distantly related species, whom share less common genetic information cannot.....Consider which is not what evolution would inform us of Blink

....so if evolution is correct... then more distantly related species like a tree and a lion should be able to mate, but closely related species like a donkey and a zebra could not... because they are more like each other than a tree and lion...Hobo wait...I don't think she thought that through....

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 11:49 PM
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
(06-01-2014 01:24 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  [Image: img_3471.jpg]

"I was totally looking forward to the petting zoo. Because there they have two creatures. Zorses. A combination of horse and zebra. They interbred these two breeds as an example that they are the same kind; horse kind. This is a blow to evolution which says that everything is in a species, where they say that animals are in kinds. It’s a lot like a horse and donkey mix: you get a mule. Other interbred creatures that have been seen have been ligers (lion and tiger)."

Yeah but, the Zorses are also sterile just like Mules; they are incapable of 'bringing forth from their own kind'. You cannot breed a Zorse with a Zorse to get more Zorses. Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-01-2014, 12:38 AM
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
(07-01-2014 11:49 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah but, the Zorses are also sterile just like Mules; they are incapable of 'bringing forth from their own kind'. You cannot breed a Zorse with a Zorse to get more Zorses. Dodgy

That's presumptuous, i bet enough Zorse orgies would result in a genetically fertile version. evolution is not something that sticks to rules, religiously.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
08-01-2014, 03:30 AM
Re: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
Can you breed a Zorse and a zeus and get caboose?

You can't tell.from the picture but that serpent could jump around prior to it's punishment. It never says it had legs, where you there? Are you God? I didn't think so

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like ClydeLee's post
08-01-2014, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 03:54 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
(08-01-2014 03:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Can you breed a Zorse and a zeus and get caboose?

Actually, that would explain a lot... Consider

[Image: caboosisms_by_elijarman-d504lr5.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-01-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
Why do people believe in stupid things like baraminology (the taxonomy of "kinds")? It's obvious this stupid school of thought was created to explain how all the animals could fit on the ark, but that's really just doubling down on the crazy of the whole story. How exactly is the fucking "horse kind" supposed to get off the ark at Mount Ararat, and then travel half the globe and diversify enough to become horses, ponies, donkeys, and zebras inside of five thousand years?

Also, horses are easier because they only lived in "the old world" until brought across the ocean a few hundred years ago. What about things like wolves, which existed in both hemispheres? Did the "dog kind" evolve into fantastic swimmers and then evolve back into fucking wolves?

God, just stop trying to make stupid pseudoscientific explanations and just say God teleported them, or something. Admit that the whole flood story was unnecessary, but God did it anyway because of [mysterious ways] and shut up about it. Or stop believing in it all together. That would be even better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
08-01-2014, 09:29 AM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2014 06:43 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
Let them make their list of kinds. Let them be specific. Specific claims are easy to refute. The problem with existing baraminology is that there is no specific hypothetical list of kinds. It all comes down to "common sense", "you'll know it when you see it", "I don't gotta explain shit", etc.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
08-01-2014, 08:06 PM
RE: A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution"
This is a pretty damn good video on the subject. Toward the end the creator rips Ray a new one concerning his definition of "kinds."



[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: