A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds

[Duke Guilmon]

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." 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

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

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

3. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book...r=11&verse=

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

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

6. http://classic.sidwell.edu/us/science/vl.../Bacteria/

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

8. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...t8MHRAo7IU

9. http://classic.sidwell.edu/us/science/vl...b/eukarya/

[Chad32]

I've always wondered why people get so hung up on the word kind. Of all the problems you could latch on to, "kind" seems pretty low on the list to me. I get that in order to be scientifically accurate, you need to be more specific than the word kind allows, but I don't see the big deal.

Maybe I would understand it better if I read all that up above, including the links, but I'm too lazy right now.

[ThePinsir]

Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

[Duke Guilmon]

Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

I can teach thee about owls.

[truthBtold]

Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

I can teach thee about owls.

Who?? Who?? Who?? Haahha. I made a funny.

[LostLocke]

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.

One of the best parts is when you can point out that raccoons are canidae. The differences and distinction between them and wolf-like canines are glaring, but if they say a wolf "turning into" a raccoon is just 'micro-evolution', then you might as well say everything is micro-evolved and of the same kind.

[Duke Guilmon]

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.

One of the best parts is when you can point out that raccoons are canidae. The differences and distinction between them and wolf-like canines are glaring, but if they say a wolf "turning into" a raccoon is just 'micro-evolution', then you might as well say everything is micro-evolved and of the same kind.

But raccoons are part of the family Procyonidae, while Canidae is another different family. You are thinking of the order Carnivora in which they are both a part of.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I fucking love owls.

[John V]

@OP: You seem to think that creationists are stuck with the traditional Linnaean classifications. Why is that? Evolutionists propose changes to the traditional classifications all the time, typically based on genetic analyses which come out different from the morphological classifications.

[Minimalist]

I've always wondered why people get so hung up on the word kind.

Because Taxonomic Classification is too difficult for their tiny little jesus freak minds to handle!