Kinds: An Example Of Creationist Idiocy.
14-09-2013, 03:35 PM
Kinds: An Example Of Creationist Idiocy.
The following stupidity hails from the infamous den of lunacy known as Answers in Genesis, the comments are mine.
Quote:The first thing that needs to be addressed is “what is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system.
And Kind Isn't?
Quote: And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!
Probably because the modern english word species didn't exist in ancient Hebrew...:
Quote: The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6, 8 when God instructed Noah to take two of every kind of animal onto the Ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So, a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
Uh, no, Lions and Tigers can breed together, but they are most definitely not the same animals, obviously, many hybrids (though not Ligers or Tigons, admittedly) are in fact sterile or suffer from other illnesses.
Quote:As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So, there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand.
I...Don't understand, you try to classify "Kinds" as analogous to "Family", and then you use Dogs,a Species, as an example of a kind? What.
Quote:But in today’s culture, where evolution and millions of years are taught as fact, many have been led to believe that animals and plants (that are classed as a specific “species”) have been like this for tens of thousands of years and perhaps millions of years. So, when they see things like lions or zebras, they think they have been like this for an extremely long time.
That's because they have.
Quote:From a biblical perspective, though, land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s Ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time. But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on. God placed variety within the original kinds, and other variation has occurred since the Fall due to genetic alterations.
Dogs and Cats are specific species, not "Kinds" by your definition, congratulations, you fail biology, history, and somehow creation "Science". A New level of stupid has been reached.
Quote: use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms.
In other words, evolution on a scale and at a speed that Darwin would have laughed at. Nice.
Quote: Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.
What is your source for this? nothing, but you need it to make your ridiculously literal reading of Genesis even remotely plausible.
Quote:Baraminology is a field of study which attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into baramins.
No ,it's pseudoscientific bullshit.
Quote: This is done based on many criteria, such as physical characteristics and DNA sequences. For living organisms, hybridization is a key criterion. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1 However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall).
No it's a result of you being an idiot and not understanding Biology, History, or the Bible.
Quote:Zonkeys (from a male zebra bred with a female donkey)
Quote: zorses (male zebra and female horse)
Quote:, and hebras (male horse and female zebra)
Quote: are all examples of hybrid animals. Hybrid animals are the result of the mating of two animals of the same “kind.” Perhaps one of the most popular hybrids of the past has been the mule, the mating of a horse and donkey. So, seeing something like a zorse or zonkey shouldn’t really surprise anyone, since donkeys, zebras, and horses all belong to the horse kind.
Quote:The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the Ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the Ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. For example, even though many different dinosaurs have been identified, creation scientists think there are only about 50 “kinds” of dinosaurs.
And actual scientists think you're insane.
Quote: Even though breeding studies are impossible with dinosaurs, by studying fossils one can ascertain that there was likely one Ceratopsian kind with variation in that kind and so on.
The staunchest evolutionist would balk at the level of speciation you imply.
Quote: This is especially well illustrated in the dog kind in which current members (e.g., coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs) are confirmed to be descended from an ancestral type of wolf.2
Which is called..........?????
Quote:Hybrid animals are usually the result of parent animals that have similar chromosome numbers. Many times the hybrids are infertile due to an uneven chromosome number that affects the production of eggs and sperm. However, this is not always the case, as even some mules (horse + donkey) have been known to reproduce. Consider some of these amazing animal hybrids:
Here we go....
Quote:These hybrids are the result of mating within the family Equidae. As we’ve said before, zonkeys are the result of mating a male zebra and a female donkey; zorses are the result of mating a male zebra and a female horse; and mules are the result of mating a male donkey and a female horse. But reverse matings (such as hinnies produced from a male horse and female donkey) are rare, although still possible. All are considered “infertile” due to uneven chromosome numbers, but fertility has been observed in some cases. Zonkeys and zorses have a mixture of their parents’ traits, including the beautiful striping patterns of the zebra parents.
The fact that the offspring are sterile suggests that these "members of the same Kind" are far more different genetically than you want them to be.
Quote:These hybrids are the result of mating within the family Felidae. Ligers are the result of mating a male lion and a female tiger. Ligers are the largest cats in the world, weighing in at over 1000 lbs (450 kg). Tigons are the result of mating a female lion and a male tiger. These matings only occur in captivity, since lions live in Africa, tigers live in Asia, and the two are enemies in the wild. Female hybrids are typically fertile while male hybrids are not.
You imply a cross between..say..a housecat and a Lion is genetically possible. You are wrong.
Quote:Turning to the ocean, this hybrid is the result of mating within the family Delphinidae. The wolphin is the result of mating a false killer whale (genus Pseudorca) and bottlenose dolphin (genus Tursiops). Such a mating occurred in captivity at Hawaii’s Sea Life Park in 1985.3 The wolphin is fertile. This hybrid shows the difficulty of determining the species designation, since a major criterion is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even though the whale and dolphin are considered separate genera, they may, in fact, belong to the same species.
Uh, No, you're laughably wrong. The species you have named are both in the Toothed Whale classification, they're both Dolphins.
Quote: This shows how difficult it is to define the term species
Maybe for a moron like you.
Quote:. Of course from a biblical perspective it is easy to say they are both the same kind!
Shut up. Please.
Here's my conclusion; You're a dumbass.
I Will have My revenge on AlternateHistory.com, in this life or the next
~WrappedInShadows (AKA Me)
The following 2 users Like TheLastEnemy's post:2 users Like TheLastEnemy's post
cjlr (14-09-2013), Chas (14-09-2013)
14-09-2013, 04:53 PM
RE: Kinds: An Example Of Creationist Idiocy.
did he used a speeded up version of evolution to explain why evolution is wrong?
The following 1 user Likes nach_in's post:1 user Likes nach_in's post