Birdwatching for creationists

I didn't think Raptor was a kind, I thought it was a nasty.

I was in my Aunt's garden on Friday and I was surprised to see a pigeon (Fowl kind) zooming along as if it had afterburners blazing. A second later a Kestrel (Raptor nasty) followed...

I once watched a pair of mockingbirds (sparrow kind?) chase a hawk (raptor kind?) out of there area.

But in reality... why the hell are you giving rob this kind of exposure, you're just encouraging him.

DiscoveredJoys: sometimes it works both ways. One spring we watched a Sharp-shinned Hawk (Raptor nasty) tail-chase a terrorized Blue Jay (Crow kind) down the length of of a shelter belt, and when they reached the end of the hedgerow, they reversed roles, and came back toward us, with the jay in hot pursuit of the hawk.

I kind of like Matt's taxonomy. Just think: no more hassles with silent Empidonax flycatchers!

This is a perfect system, if you go one step further and just say there is the "animal" kind, and the "plant" kind, you could see everything that has ever existed in nature from my computer chair. A dog, and a fern. That is all that ever has or ever will exist in nature . . . who knew.

if you go one step further and just say there is the “animal” kind, and the “plant” kind,

which would a dinoflagellate with chlorophyll be?

oh, dammit, sorry, not supposed to ask questions. That's being a dick!

and that's bad.

:(

*sulks off to corner*

Ichthyic said: which would a dinoflagellate with chlorophyll be?

There are serious and knowledgeable people who say that recognizing subspecies is a bad idea. Wasn't Steven Jay Gould one of them. In my studies I have encountered only two named subspecies. I elevated both of them to full species. So much for that!

Pete Moulton said: One spring we watched a Sharp-shinned Hawk (Raptor nasty) tail-chase a terrorized Blue Jay (Crow kind) down the length of of a shelter belt, and when they reached the end of the hedgerow, they reversed roles, and came back toward us, with the jay in hot pursuit of the hawk.

This creationist says the dog kink [sic] is the smae [sic] as the bear kind and the seal kind and probably more.

if you go one step further and just say there is the “animal” kind, and the “plant” kind,

Jim Thomerson said: There are serious and knowledgeable people who say that recognizing subspecies is a bad idea. Wasn't Steven Jay Gould one of them.

Henry J said: That doesn't leave mush room for the other fun guys.

@ #1: that kestrel is proof of intelligent design =D

stevaroni said: "No way is this branch is big enough to hold up a cat".

Kind of mixed up, I should think.

damn that reality!

*shakes fist*

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC392428/pdf/pnas00016-0199.pdf

I'm so confooozed...

I object. Pelicans are not waders, they must be another kink. Humming birds are another yet. You left out buzzards, but they are arguably in the raptor kink. There is a clearly distinct parrot kink, and they live in the USA, even if introduced and invasive.

But the glaring omission that shows you have no understanding of True Kinks of Birds is that you completely forgot Batkink!

That robert guy (read some of his stuff at the old Dawkins forum) almost convinces me that there must be a god to create something like him. And that he would have an incredible sense of humour. Or is that guy a hypothetical god's attempt of satire?
Anyway, hard to imagine evolution could have anything to do with the likes of him.
Amazing.

This presumes that "kinds" are something like orders of birds. My extensive experience with creationists has shown me that kinds are:

1) Always genera
2) Typically families
3) Invariably the same as species
4) Something else, maybe.

Generally within the context of a single argument.

Creationist uber-idiot Jabriol once argued that the cat family constituted a single kind, then later claimed that lions and house cats were different kinds, in the space of the same email. When the contradiction was pointed out to him, his classic reply was, "that you problem, i has define kind". Always eloquent, our jabby.

The only thing all creationists agree on is that humans are absolutely a different kind than anything else.

In general, I find "kinds" get bigger and more inclusive as you get away from humans. I'm not sure if this is a result of familiarity breeding more awareness of fine distinctions, or simple ignorance of the diversity of the groups they're stuffing together, or some other psychology. Humans are a "kind" species. The rest of the primates tend to be kinds at genera or there about. The rest of the mammals and the birds tend to be kinds at the family level, though some (like rodents) are often made into "kinds" at the order level. Reptiles are almost always lumped into "kinds" equivalent to orders. Many creationists are fine with all fish constituting one kind, and away from the vertebrates, kinds might often be classes or entire phyla (insects, when creationists bother to remember they exist, tend to be divided as orders).

It's amusing to hear a creationist who claims there are huge, unbridgeable gaps between humans and chimps, lump guppies, hammerhead sharks, batfish and flounder into the same kind without any qualms.

But, you know, this is all science, right?

Creationist uber-idiot Jabriol once argued that the cat family constituted a single kind, then later claimed that lions and house cats were different kinds, in the space of the same email. When the contradiction was pointed out to him, his classic reply was, “that you problem, i has define kind”.

Tulse (or anyone who can), that haz to be a picture. Can u make it?

Peter, will this do?

Part of the Creationist scam is refusing to clearly define what a "kind" is. Is it a genus, a family or even an order? Creationists do not say, so whenever we show that one species gave rise to another, they can always move the goalposts and claim those two species are still of the same "kind".

Don't forget Robert Byers is the guy who thinks thylacine are "wolf kind". Srsly.

If "kinds" are that flexible, you might think he'd have no problem with humans and chimps being the same "kind" but of course he does.

Then there's the non-flying bird kind.

Are penguins, ostriches, emu's, Rheas and Kiwi's all the same kind?

but penguins swim, so maybe they're fish kind?

alloytoo said: but penguins swim, so maybe they're fish kind?

The Founding Mothers said:

alloytoo said: but penguins swim, so maybe they're fish kind?

Just back from a few laps at the pool. What the hell does that make me?

Michael Suttkus, II said: ... In general, I find "kinds" get bigger and more inclusive as you get away from humans. I'm not sure if this is a result of familiarity breeding more awareness of fine distinctions, or simple ignorance of the diversity of the groups they're stuffing together, or some other psychology. ...

The interesting question is the taxonomy (or should that be baraminology?) of creationists. Is it right to classify creationists as a single kind? Are there subgroups that, while potentially interfertile, are separated by geographic or theological barriers that prevent cross-pollination?

Consider Hucksteria hovindae (commonly called "the Florida booby"). This species is distinguished by its characteristic orange jumpsuit plumage and its generally prone posture (indeed, it lies at virtually all times except, paradoxically, when it is asleep).

Contrast this with the elegant Intellectuus dembskii with its attractive ‘cardigan’ plumage and distinctive banneds that grow in number at an astonishing rate, sometimes two or three per week.

And then there is the feared and ferocious Flaccidus luskinius, (or the Seattle Whinger). This terrifying creature will defend itself and its brood with a characteristic snivel and display of footstamping and frantic flapping. Those subjected to such an attack have been known to be paralysed with laughter for minutes at a time.

Can these all truly be said to belong to the same species? That they are ‘cousins’ is indisputable: their fundraising and persecution calls are strikingly similar. They also have the cuckoo’s habit of occasionally laying an egg in their competitors’ nests (Wells’s shitehawk springs to mind) which, when hatched, insinuates itself into the other species and defecates over all it sees.

The answer must clearly be that yes: the Theory of Evolution proves they are. Under evolutionary pressure they have been forced a wide variety of habitats (Arkansas, Kansas, and Dover, Pennsylvania are clear examples) to adopt a common diet, indicating a shared metabolic ancestry. They have all been reduced to eating Crow.

That is genius, Amadan.

Michael Suttkus, II said: It's amusing to hear a creationist who claims there are huge, unbridgeable gaps between humans and chimps, lump guppies, hammerhead sharks, batfish and flounder into the same kind without any qualms.

SWT said: Amusing, but not surprising. I suspect that the real difference in their minds is that humans have souls (image of God and all), while they believe chimps don't have souls. Kinds may not matter so much once you've made the primary distinction between the "human" kind and the "everything else" kinds.

Hi Matt,

You missed an amusing error, if not a (sic), at "Hopefully howls in the same way and doesn’t hyphenate its identity."

Is there actually a kind that goes by the name of Hopefully?

TomS said:

SWT said: Amusing, but not surprising. I suspect that the real difference in their minds is that humans have souls (image of God and all), while they believe chimps don't have souls. Kinds may not matter so much once you've made the primary distinction between the "human" kind and the "everything else" kinds.

If what concerns the creationists is the individual immortal and immaterial soul, then they wouldn't have much problem with evolutionary biology, would they? They might have a problem with reproductive biology or some other science. Assuming, that is, that they actually think about it. Rather, I suggest, their problem is that they don't want to be related to monkeys.

The objection to classifying humans as apes etc is largely because it contradicts an unquestioning and unthinking reading of Holy Writ. Those Fundies worship the bible (or, allowing for geographic factors, the Koran) rather than the god whose word it supposedly contains. In those subsets of their faiths where blind submission is a virtue, this suits (and perpetuates) the power structures that give rise to them.

Don't forget the "bat kind."

Leviticus 11:
13. `These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard,

14. and the kite and the falcon in its kind,

15. every raven in its kind,

16. and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,

17. and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl,

18. and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture,

19. and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

I always wonder why creationists get their collective panties in a bunch over the idea that we, humans, are related to monkeys, yet, feel it's hunky-dory that we're descended from, and are still being punished for the unforgivable crimes of a pair of disobedient morons who screwed up the Universe beyond even the ability of God to repair.

Gary Hurd said: Don't forget the "bat kind." Leviticus 11: 13. `These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14. and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15. every raven in its kind, 16. and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17. and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18. and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19. and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

Gary Hurd said: Leviticus 11: 13. `These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten ... the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind,

... and the bat.

No animals=no heaven. Who would ever want to spend eternity in a place devoid of other animals? Doesn't sound very bloody heavenly to me.

Dale Husband said: Part of the Creationist scam is refusing to clearly define what a "kind" is....

Humans only have souls because they were shoes.

DS said: Hey man, don't be too hard on the morons. After all, how sure are you that you wouldn't be fooled by a talking snake?

Pete Dunkelberg said: Tulse (or anyone who can), that haz to be a picture. Can u make it?

You missed an amusing error, if not a (sic), at "Hopefully howls in the same way and doesn’t hyphenate its identity." Is there actually a kind that goes by the name of Hopefully?

Its [sic] immigrated but hopefully it assimilates and doesn’t ask for interference on its behalf to the loss of American wolves. Hopefully[, it] howls in the same way and doesn’t hyphenate its identity.

Be a team member and not another team on the bench.

If what concerns the creationists is the individual immortal and immaterial soul, then they wouldn’t have much problem with evolutionary biology, would they? They might have a problem with reproductive biology or some other science. Assuming, that is, that they actually think about it. Rather, I suggest, their problem is that they don’t want to be related to monkeys.

@ Matt Young

I hate to be pedantic, but from what I understand, at the family level members of Icteridae (grackles, cowbirds, orioles, and allies) are not nested within Corvidae (crows, jays, magpies, and allies).

Sorry, but it just bugs me (my mentor during my undergraduate studies focused on blackbird and crow evolution).

Sepia said: @ Matt Young I hate to be pedantic, but from what I understand, at the family level members of Icteridae (grackles, cowbirds, orioles, and allies) are not nested within Corvidae (crows, jays, magpies, and allies).

Do creationists have a list of the 'kinds' and where did you get the list of bird 'kinds'.

Michael Roberts said: Humans only have souls because they were shoes.

TomS said: If what concerns the creationists is the individual immortal and immaterial soul, then they wouldn't have much problem with evolutionary biology, would they? ...

John_S said: I think that's exactly how the Roman Catholic Church gets around the problem. Their attitude, as I recall someone's paraphrase of it, is that "God creates the immortal soul. How He gets the mortal flesh to put it in, whether by evolution or some other means, is a matter for the scientists and is irrelevant to the faith."

Do creationists have a list of the ‘kinds’ and where did you get the list of bird ‘kinds’.

I hate to be pedantic, but from what I understand, at the family level members of Icteridae (grackles, cowbirds, orioles, and allies) are not nested within Corvidae (crows, jays, magpies, and allies).

I don’t know about “nested within corvidae” but many members of the grackle, cowbird and allied families are apparently nested within my yard. And they make a freakin’ mess, let me tell you.

Matt Young said: Corvidae, Shmorvidae. I called them the crow kind because they are black and all black birds are obviously related. I also frequently have a bunch of grackles, cowbirds, or starlings in my backyard, but since I can't tell one from the other I just call them the crow kind and leave it at that. I tell you, ignorance is bliss

If what concerns the creationists is the individual immortal and immaterial soul, then they wouldn’t have much problem with evolutionary biology, would they? They might have a problem with reproductive biology or some other science. Assuming, that is, that they actually think about it. Rather, I suggest, their problem is that they don’t want to be related to monkeys.

— TomS

Frank J said: In fact I bet that if dogs and cats were our closest relatives they wouldn't be nearly as obsessed with being related to them.

Not that I should be doing the Creationists' work for them, but... I was watching a nature documentary last night (BBC's LIFE, narrated by David Attenborough) and was rather astonished to see that flamingo chicks don't look like miniature flamingos. Instead, they look like baby ducks. Apparently the more extreme flamingo characteristics (long legs, long neck, pointy-downy beak) develop as the chick grows older. So maybe a Creationist case could be made that a flamingo is a variation of the "duck kind," with the extreme characteristics added on to a basic duck form.

As I doubtless demonstrate all too clearly whenever I post here, I don't have a rigorous scientific background, so I am free to speculate and conjecture without much regard to facts. But I did look flamingos up on Wikipedia (hey, research!). Their fossil remains are known to go *way* back, so their last common answer with ducks was one heck of a long time ago. If they're at all closely related to anything today, it's probably grebes.

I noticed something similar with giraffes. The local zoo announced that a baby giraffe had been born, and I went over to take a look at it when it was available for public viewing. The calf looked like an okapi. The long neck and the long legs hadn't really grown out yet. Heck, the critter could caper, and otherwise move more agilely than its mother could. If anything, the calf's body plan seemed more practical than the adult's. Which again made me wonder if this is a case of extreme characteristics being imposed as add-ons to a more basic form. Maybe okapis and giraffes are members of the same kind? (Or more rationally, shared a common ancestor that would have more or less resembled a modern okapi.) I seem to be close to proposing a theory of something or other recapitulating the other thing, and no doubt this has all been noticed before and adequately explained by qualified scientists...

Tree of life page http://tolweb.org/Neoaves/26305 does put flamingos next to grebes, but outside of that there's a lot of birds closer to flamingos than ducks are.

Giraffe and Okapi it does put on the same page - http://tolweb.org/Giraffidae/52401

As you know the anti-evolution activists of the ID “kind” don’t care whether they’re related to monkeys, and sometimes even admit the common ancestry.

"Thus, my life ticks include 11 of 11 kinds, if you count the chicken I ate. If there are any other kinds, they are still birds, and they do not live in the United States or Canada, so to hell with them"

Wow! My life list is complete! I'm 11 for 11 too! No more need to teach my Field Ornithology class as an excuse to see new birds.....

harold said: I respect your strategy of insistently pointing out the contradictions that ID introduced into the creationist camp. It is important to keep in mind, of course, and I'm sure you'd agree, that all creationists secretly understand that ID is a scam designed to either trick judges, or more likely, provide a fig leaf of bafflegab to imagined sympathetic judges, in order to allow contradiction of the theory of evolution, and clearly implied sectarian messages, into public school science class, despite the constitution. Someone like Robert Byers is in favor of Michael Behe because he understands that when Behe claims to believe in common descent, that claim is functioning as part of an overall effort to "court proof" evolution denial. Not only is this true whether or not Behe accepts common descent (and a con man like Behe may not even really know what he himself believes), but the FL's and Byers's of the world thought that they NEEDED other guys to take an eternal one for the team by claiming to "accept all of science except evolution". Pointing out the contradictions is thus only useful for educating the unbiased. The creationists already know that some ID types claim not to be YEC - that was the whole point of the scam - and they are glad of that, because they agree with running the scam. They already know that some other Christians have no problem with evolution, and they despise them for it and declare them not to be "true" Christians. There is, of course, a third group - the few, isolated pre-ID old time "creation scientists" who are "OEC" for some crackpot reason of their own. The attitude of a typical YEC toward them is probably "I'll defend the guy in this world because I hate him less than an 'evolutionist' but I'll laugh in the next world while I watch him burn in Hell for getting the age of the earth wrong."

Hey don't blame adam & eve for the world's mess. After all, neither one of them could have recognized a lie when they heard it. One; they had never been lied to and two; they didn't know the difference between good and evil since the apple was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think this fight was fixed!

Matt Young

Do I spell that bad?
Anyways.
Kind is how the bible divides biology. So its our guide. Yet what a kind includes is not spelled out.
Organized creationism therefore differs.
To me the need is to squeeze things into as few kinds as possible and that nature shows me this is the truth. Creatures must have sense in their being here.So having all these strange creature types leads one to see them as merely adaptations from a original kind.
After the fall creatures all changed in their morphology to deal with a new world of death .Snakes being an example of a creature changing dramatically but still within the snake kind despite no legs.

Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove. What is meant by these names is perhaps unclear but a good direction of thought. so birds are not a kind.
There are kinds of creatures which we just classify as birds.
Therefor these kinds of birds and more led perhaps to many new types now called species.

Of coarse I see marsupials as clearly placentals with minor details difference.
Yet further i see dogs and bears and water bears(seals0 as so alike in morphology that theres no reason to see them as anything but of a kind.
Birds mat have wings but that is a minor point relevant to their kinds.
Noah had a dove but the dodo is just a flightless dove.
So the seal is a water bea/dog.

Seeing creatures in kinds works better then dividing everything up as intermediates between intermediates.

Ichthyic said: if you go one step further and just say there is the “animal” kind, and the “plant” kind, which would a dinoflagellate with chlorophyll be?

Kind is how the bible divides biology. So its our guide. Yet what a kind includes is not spelled out.

IOW, it lets boobs like Bobby play "let's make shit up" and claim it has a basis in reality.

whee!

Byers, you are pathetic.

Robert Byers said: Matt Young Do I spell that bad? Anyways. Kind is how the bible divides biology. So its our guide. Yet what a kind includes is not spelled out. Organized creationism therefore differs. To me the need is to squeeze things into as few kinds as possible and that nature shows me this is the truth. Creatures must have sense in their being here.So having all these strange creature types leads one to see them as merely adaptations from a original kind. After the fall creatures all changed in their morphology to deal with a new world of death .Snakes being an example of a creature changing dramatically but still within the snake kind despite no legs. Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove. What is meant by these names is perhaps unclear but a good direction of thought. so birds are not a kind. There are kinds of creatures which we just classify as birds. Therefor these kinds of birds and more led perhaps to many new types now called species. Of coarse I see marsupials as clearly placentals with minor details difference. Yet further i see dogs and bears and water bears(seals0 as so alike in morphology that theres no reason to see them as anything but of a kind. Birds mat have wings but that is a minor point relevant to their kinds. Noah had a dove but the dodo is just a flightless dove. So the seal is a water bea/dog. Seeing creatures in kinds works better then dividing everything up as intermediates between intermediates.

that’s the dinoflagellate’s lifestyle choice and it should be ashamed of itself.

I wonder if there are re-education camps for dinoflagellates...

Frank J said: In fact I bet that if dogs and cats were our closest relatives they wouldn't be nearly as obsessed with being related to them.

John_S said: I think that's exactly how the Roman Catholic Church gets around the problem. Their attitude, as I recall someone's paraphrase of it, is that "God creates the immortal soul. How He gets the mortal flesh to put it in, whether by evolution or some other means, is a matter for the scientists and is irrelevant to the faith."

Pointing out the contradictions is thus only useful for educating the unbiased.

— harold

Now I see why creationists say 'there is no missing link' and why they are so stubborn about it. You can pile up thousands of bones, it won't do. Because it is YOU who can tell Homo habilis from Homo erectus - and, from the creationist point of view, they are just apes. Because, from the creationist point of view, humans are defined as pants-wearing white Christians... LOL! This is the real dark side of 'there are kinds only'

Personally I see them all as one "kind," the "catfood kind"... ;o)

Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove.

This was a beautiful post. My thanks.

Because it is YOU who can tell Homo habilis from Homo erectus - and, from the creationist point of view, they are just apes.

— moscow brat

Robert Byers said: Matt Young Do I spell that bad?

Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove. What is meant by these names is perhaps unclear

Yet further I see dogs and bears and water bears (seals) as so alike in morphology that there's no reason to see them as anything but of a kind.

Birds mat have wings but that is a minor point relevant to their kinds.

Ichthyic said: if you go one step further and just say there is the “animal” kind, and the “plant” kind, which would a dinoflagellate with chlorophyll be?

Robert Byers said: ...So the seal is a water bea[r]...

For reference: http://tolweb.org/Tardigrada/2471

stevaroni said:

Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove. What is meant by these names is perhaps unclear

Genesis also makes clear that one of them didn't come back. Since there were no spares, you can scratch one species right there (maybe the phoenix kind, mayhap?) Perhaps he sent one of the unicorn kind out on a recon mission too?

Unfortunately for the baloney-slinging bronze-age Arab goat-herders who wrote this stuff, they forgot that “clean” animals weren’t defined until a thousand years later, when God spoke to Moses in Leviticus.

Amadan said: The interesting question is the taxonomy (or should that be baraminology?) of creationists. [snip pure genius]

Robert Byers, if you want people on Panda's Thumb to stop making fun of your laughably grotesque stupidity while pointing out and dissecting all of the stupid things you say, stop posting here.

Otherwise, if you continue saying stupid things in your pathetically vain attempts to sound smarter than actual scientists, people will continue pointing out how and why you are stupid, and people will have themselves a laugh at your expense while doing that.

Robert Byers said: ... snip ... To me the need is to squeeze things into as few kinds as possible and that nature shows me this is the truth. ... snip ...

alias Ernest Major said: You're well on the way to agreeing with biologists that every known species of the contemporary Earth, Homo sapiens included, belongs (defining a kind as a group of organisms united by common descent) to a single kind.

Henry J said:

Genesis makes clear that on the ark Noah sent out a raven and a dove.

And one of them came back with a fresh branch from a living tree. It was never explained how that tree survived.

John_S said: Bible-literalistic creationists have a problem defining "kink"

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Matt Young Do I spell that bad?

Badly, Bob. It's an adjective.

moscow_brat said: Now I see why creationists say 'there is no missing link'...

Dornier Pfeil said: I thought badly was an adverb modifying the verb spell. How can it be an adjective?

Yet further i see dogs and bears and water bears(seals0 as so alike in morphology that theres no reason to see them as anything but of a kind. Birds mat have wings but that is a minor point relevant to their kinds. Noah had a dove but the dodo is just a flightless dove. So the seal is a water bea/dog.

One thing is for sure, Byers is one of a kind.

If dogs bears and seals are "so alike in morphology that there is no reason to see them as anything but a kind", then obviously humans, chimps, gorillas and orangs are one kind as well. And, according to the magic flood hypothesis, they all must have arisen by speciation in the last six thousand years. Of course that would mean that there were no humans around to build the ark. Oh well, so much for baraminology.

Does that mean Noah was a chimpanzee?

RDK said: Byers:

Yet further i see dogs and bears and water bears(seals0 as so alike in morphology that theres no reason to see them as anything but of a kind. Birds mat have wings but that is a minor point relevant to their kinds. Noah had a dove but the dodo is just a flightless dove. So the seal is a water bea/dog.

WTF am I reading? Is he talking about this water bear? So dogs and bears are related to microscopic extremophiles? Byers is either fatally compromised in the head, or he's the greatest sock ever made.

Maybe Noah's family were really ManBearPigs. That would've saved some room on the ark.

Someone alert Al Gore.

eagle, ossifrage, osprey, vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckoo, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing and bat.

DS said: One thing is for sure, Byers is one of a kind. If dogs bears and seals are "so alike in morphology that there is no reason to see them as anything but a kind", then obviously humans, chimps, gorillas and orangs are one kind as well. And, according to the magic flood hypothesis, they all must have arisen by speciation in the last six thousand years. Of course that would mean that there were no humans around to build the ark. Oh well, so much for baraminology.

Henry J said: Does that mean Noah was a chimpanzee?

John_S said: Leviticus 11 makes a distinction between the following bird:

eagle, ossifrage, osprey, vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckoo, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing and bat.

Now granted, we don't know exactly what current Linnaean species the original Hebrew words referred to; but it seems that the Bible makes a sufficient distinction between, say, the eagle and the hawk, that they must be separate "kinds". So what makes an eagle and a hawk different "kinds", but not a human and a chimp or a cat and a tiger?

Robert Byers said:

John_S said: Leviticus 11 makes a distinction between the following bird:

eagle, ossifrage, osprey, vulture, kite, raven, owl, night hawk, cuckoo, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, swan, pelican, gier eagle, stork, heron, lapwing and bat.

Now granted, we don't know exactly what current Linnaean species the original Hebrew words referred to; but it seems that the Bible makes a sufficient distinction between, say, the eagle and the hawk, that they must be separate "kinds". So what makes an eagle and a hawk different "kinds", but not a human and a chimp or a cat and a tiger?

One could say these kinds are from a later division after the flood. not the original kinds. Hawhs and eagles are considered different kinds now and so it was then. Yet when filling the ark they would of been of the same kind. Kind in the bible could be just a word for practical differences without indicating the original kind from whence the types originated. kind does not preclude diversity later from it. So one can squeeze types into a kind if morphology etc allows it.

No, Byers is just an idiot who is a joke.

Michael Roberts said: Robert You do such a send up of creationism that I think you are an atheist having a joke

Robert Byers said: One could say these kinds are from a later division after the flood. not the original kinds. Hawhs and eagles are considered different kinds now and so it was then. Yet when filling the ark they would of been of the same kind. Kind in the bible could be just a word for practical differences without indicating the original kind from whence the types originated. kind does not preclude diversity later from it. So one can squeeze types into a kind if morphology etc allows it.

Robert Byers said: One could say these kinds are from a later division after the flood. not the original kinds. Hawks and eagles are considered different kinds now and so it was then. Yet when filling the ark they would of been of the same kind. ... kind does not preclude diversity later from it.

Michael Roberts said: Robert You do such a send up of creationism that I think you are an atheist having a joke

Um... "ignore him quite politely."

stevaroni said: Ahhh.... So they were just one type of animal, but they, um... diverged, and now they are just two distinct types of animal which have separate characteristics and populations and no longer interbreed. Seems I've heard that description before somewhere....

I have seen Byers' nonsense posts on theology Web

DS said: No, you're thinking of evolution. Evilutionists admit that that would take millions of years. Byers claims that it had to happen in just six thousand years.

Actually in about one thousand years - from the Flood to Moses, in the example he gave.

Amadan--a late comment, I know, but....brilliant! Genius! I think I just pulled a muscle laughing!
This will be emailed to my mom and sis *stat*!

Ichthyic said: if you go one step further and just say there is the “animal” kind, and the “plant” kind, which would a dinoflagellate with chlorophyll be? oh, dammit, sorry, not supposed to ask questions. That's being a dick! and that's bad. :( *sulks off to corner*

amy o in yokohama said: Amadan--a late comment, I know, but....brilliant! Genius! I think I just pulled a muscle laughing! This will be emailed to my mom and sis *stat*!

Silly, Noah and his family were Ardipithecus ramidus, from which both humans and chimps evolved. Humans became more specialized for walking and chimps for climbing.

I always wonder why creationists get their collective panties in a bunch over the idea that we, humans, are related to monkeys, yet, feel it’s hunky-dory that we’re descended from, and are still being punished for the unforgivable crimes of a pair of disobedient morons who screwed up the Universe beyond even the ability of God to repair.

I've been reading this blog on a reandom foundation for greater than a month. Sustain the content.