Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2016, 07:05 PM
Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
Many creationists love to use the tired ploy of kinds to deny evolution but trying to get them to define let alone defend the concept is like pulling teeth so the purpose of this post is to categorize and dissect some of the more common pseudo-definitions and silly justification creations use to defend their non-existent concept not this isn't an attack on all concepts of kinds only the ones that commonly show up on forum debates

1. Intuitionalism

Example" it's just obvious that all cats are the same kind just look at them sheesh you dumb Evo tards are so dense "

Question why is it obvious ?

Surely creation don't believe that merely looking at two animals will help you tell if they related because if that's the case why are men and apes not the same kind. (and no the bible says were not is not an argument if the standard of kind is looking similar then men are apes)

What of the opposite there are lots of animals that are not dogs but look like them and if looking similar is the standard of a kind then on what kind of similarities are primary determinates of a kind .

If similarity is the determiner then why are not all mammals a kind .After all there are creationists who think reptiles are one kind but the difference between turtles and snakes is surely just as broad as dogs and bears. And not even starting the massive variation in bacteria which is several hundred times magnitude difference to a reptile and a mammal by raw appearance and yet will be lumped in as a kind.

And what if one were to get extremely skeptical and argue that god only made for instance a lion and a linx look alike .After all creationists are always telling us bear and dogs may look alike but there were created separately and are not a kind so why are the linx and the lion not the same

2. Interbreedism

Example" if it can breed it's clearly the same kind "

Note creationist rarely invoke this alone tending to fusion of the above and interbreedism but some present this alone so i set it apart

Question Can you determine kinds by the presumption they can intebreed

By what standard dose the creationist envoke the idea that say a lion and a osolot can breed he never seen them interbreed. they have never breed a pair in the lab. and as a mentioned above creationists don't accept genetic similarities as proof of relation afterall' it's just common design'. So what makes them the same kind even lions and tigers breeding could only prove their lion kind or tiger kind not cat kind so unless they interbreed a lion with a house cat they can't live up to their own standards

3.Obsevrationism

Example "wolves became dogs therefore dog kind we observe this "

Question did any creationist see the supposed generic dog kind that got off Noah's magic boat diverge into say jackals how about African wild dogs or even foxes rationalists are constantly being hassled by for instance not having seen dinosaurs graduate to birds but can creationists be consistent

You'd think someone would have mentioned it somewhere. Or hell if the super duper huper hyper ultramegalution creationist insist happened did. You would wonder why this isn't constantly being brought up throughout antiquity at best all the creationist can say is wolves dogs and coyotes are all a kind.But this presents a direct contradiction to the idea you can tell kinds by looking at them as all the above look as much like a dog as a wolf

4. Apathism

Example" It doesn't matter if i can't say what a kind is a cat and a lizard look different they can't interbreed nor did we see them evolve so there !"

Question why do you look only at the differences between lizards and cats and dismiss and similarities as just common design then turn around and dismiss the differences of creatures you consider the same kind by the same means

ultimately it's just a rehatch of the above only more snarky a bellicose and really is all above.

Conclusion

The only thing I'll add is that from an evolutionary perspective the difference between a lizard and a cat is merely a matter of degree after all both are eukaryotes both are vertebrates both chordates and part of the kingdom Animalia so differences are merely variation and creationist notions of mockery are unfounded .

Thoughts?

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
Kinds are a way for creationists to hide from scientific scrutiny, it has zero scientific validity and is refuted by ring species.

An example would be the Herring gull and the Black-backed gull pictured here:

[Image: PT05_ubt.jpeg]

Creationists would classify these as the same "kind" based on superficial appearances - they can't breed with one another.

Creationists need to burn their bibles and pick up a fucking biology book.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
29-05-2016, 08:58 PM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(29-05-2016 08:50 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Kinds are a way for creationists to hide from scientific scrutiny, it has zero scientific validity and is refuted by ring species.

An example would be the Herring gull and the Black-backed gull pictured here:

[Image: PT05_ubt.jpeg]

Creationists would classify these as the same "kind" based on superficial appearances - they can't breed with one another.

Creationists need to burn their bibles and pick up a fucking biology book.

Their webbed feet are *kind *of perdy.

There is not one Biology text in use in any major accredited university that classifies by use of "kind". It's 110 % bogus. BS. Pure and simple.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-05-2016, 09:32 PM
Question RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(29-05-2016 08:50 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Kinds are a way for creationists to hide from scientific scrutiny, it has zero scientific validity and is refuted by ring species.

An example would be the Herring gull and the Black-backed gull pictured here:

[Image: PT05_ubt.jpeg]

Creationists would classify these as the same "kind" based on superficial appearances - they can't breed with one another.

Creationists need to burn their bibles and pick up a fucking biology book.

the problem with ring species is they really don't exist not like it matters though as genetic drift and genetic isolation don't need geological isolation but ring species are not a thing which sucks

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dracomalice's post
30-05-2016, 02:51 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
Another problem that Creationists have is explaining the divergence of animals from the original "kinds". It seems to me that divergence is just another term for evolution. But of course you won't hear them use that word.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
30-05-2016, 06:09 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(29-05-2016 09:32 PM)Dracomalice Wrote:  
(29-05-2016 08:50 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Kinds are a way for creationists to hide from scientific scrutiny, it has zero scientific validity and is refuted by ring species.

An example would be the Herring gull and the Black-backed gull pictured here:

[Image: PT05_ubt.jpeg]

Creationists would classify these as the same "kind" based on superficial appearances - they can't breed with one another.

Creationists need to burn their bibles and pick up a fucking biology book.

the problem with ring species is they really don't exist not like it matters though as genetic drift and genetic isolation don't need geological isolation but ring species are not a thing which sucks

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

Interesting, now I know more about that, thanks.

Though there are numerous evolutionary examples where similar looking animals cannot breed, I'll stay away from the "ring species" term.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
30-05-2016, 09:40 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
"Though there are numerous evolutionary examples where similar looking animals cannot breed, I'll stay away from the "ring species" term."

what one would you say the one the creationist could deny least ?

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2016, 09:44 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
"Though there are numerous evolutionary examples where similar looking animals cannot breed, I'll stay away from the "ring species" term."

what example do you think a creationist could deny least ?
(thou being creationists It's almost a given denial will ensue)

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
(30-05-2016 09:40 AM)Dracomalice Wrote:  "Though there are numerous evolutionary examples where similar looking animals cannot breed, I'll stay away from the "ring species" term."

what one would you say the one the creationist could deny least ?

If you could show them pictures of two animals that look similar and then get them to admit it's a "kind" and then show them how they can't breed, that would demolish their "kind" concept.

This is easy to do of course, but what you'll find then is a moving of the goal posts.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2016, 11:10 AM
RE: Creationist Kinds Inconsistency and and hypocrisy
oh I'm well aware of the excuses they make

1." oh they can breed they just won't"
Really so how do you know there the same kind

or

2.they'll just deny it's the same kind

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: