Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-20-2002, 07:40 PM

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp</a>

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 07:47 PM

Great. Don't answer anyone's questions, just keep posting links to irrelevant rubbish.

Megatron · 03-20-2002, 07:52 PM

What a load of crap.

pseudobug · 03-20-2002, 07:53 PM

IT will be interesting to see this garbage ripped to shreds.

ANy of your freakin' thumper kinds fertile other than perhaps some of the plant hybrids, randman?

randman · 03-20-2002, 08:03 PM

3 posts full of BS name-calling, Is this ya'll's ideas of ripping the article to shreds?
LOL.
Why am I not surprised?

lpetrich · 03-20-2002, 08:06 PM

I had to roar with laughter when I saw their depiction of the history of the "cat kind". Essentially, that article claims that all the different living felines are the result of a few thousand years of evolution!!!

And the differences between species are not only in size; the pantherines (lions, tigers, and leopards) roar, while domestic cats and other small felines don't. Lions are social and male ones have manes, while most felines are solitary and do not have manes. And a pantherine cub is typically the size of a full-grown domestic cat!

Also, the article defines "created kind" as those that are interfertile -- even if the interfertility is across species.

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Is this ya'll's ideas of ripping the article to shreds?

Why don't you explain the article in your own words? Better yet, tell us what its point is. It doesn't appear to have one.

Kevin Dorner · 03-20-2002, 08:09 PM

From the article:

"He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)"

Just how did koalas swim several thousand miles of ocean, without eucalyptus leaves all the way?(I can imagine the answer... more ad hoc of the koala "kind" microevolving from an aquatic mammal.)

I still couldn't find a definition of "kind" anywhere in there. There was much about hybrids, but no firm and quantitative definition. That "kinds" can hybridize, but non-hybriding doesn't mean that they are not of the same "kind" was as close as it could get (which doesn't really say anything...) Of course not: the promoters of this term know that as soon as they offer a definition, then it will be pounced on and several good counterexamples will be offered of why the definition is wrong. So it must be kept meaningless so that it can be altered at will to prevent counterexamples.

Edit: As well, the correct definition of a "species" wasn't presented. The article seemed to indicate that because two different species can have offspring, then something is wrong... not so. Instead: if their offpsring can then have offspring among themselves, they are of the same species. For example: donkeys and horses can mate to produce mules, but the mules are then sterile as they have an odd number of chromosomes. Donkeys and horses are then different species. There is no ambiguity, though they are able to produce offspring, they are still different species.

Edit2: Oops... it was mentioned (as noted.) Must be getting soft in the head in me old age; missed it.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:
So it must be kept meaningless ...

But of course. And here is one of the reasons why:

Quote:

While Answers in Genesis believes that teachers should have the freedom and encouragement to critique evolution, we recognize the danger of making it compulsory for teachers to present alternative theories (imagine the potential mockery of the Biblical position).

Imagine!

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
Also, the article defines "created kind" as those that are interfertile -- even if the interfertility is across species.

Across genera even. Nothing in this pointless article contradicts evolution. randman is apparently too dim to realize this.

03-20-2002, 07:40 PM	#1
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Wholphins and Ligers, YEC article on kinds <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2002, 07:47 PM	#2
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Great. Don't answer anyone's questions, just keep posting links to irrelevant rubbish.

03-20-2002, 07:52 PM	#3
Megatron Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: New York Posts: 5,441	What a load of crap.

03-20-2002, 07:53 PM	#4
pseudobug Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: land of confusion Posts: 178	IT will be interesting to see this garbage ripped to shreds. ANy of your freakin' thumper kinds fertile other than perhaps some of the plant hybrids, randman?

03-20-2002, 08:03 PM	#5
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	3 posts full of BS name-calling, Is this ya'll's ideas of ripping the article to shreds? LOL. Why am I not surprised?

03-20-2002, 08:06 PM	#6
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I had to roar with laughter when I saw their depiction of the history of the "cat kind". Essentially, that article claims that all the different living felines are the result of a few thousand years of evolution!!! And the differences between species are not only in size; the pantherines (lions, tigers, and leopards) roar, while domestic cats and other small felines don't. Lions are social and male ones have manes, while most felines are solitary and do not have manes. And a pantherine cub is typically the size of a full-grown domestic cat! Also, the article defines "created kind" as those that are interfertile -- even if the interfertility is across species.

03-20-2002, 08:09 PM	#8
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	From the article: "He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)" Just how did koalas swim several thousand miles of ocean, without eucalyptus leaves all the way?(I can imagine the answer... more ad hoc of the koala "kind" microevolving from an aquatic mammal.) I still couldn't find a definition of "kind" anywhere in there. There was much about hybrids, but no firm and quantitative definition. That "kinds" can hybridize, but non-hybriding doesn't mean that they are not of the same "kind" was as close as it could get (which doesn't really say anything...) Of course not: the promoters of this term know that as soon as they offer a definition, then it will be pounced on and several good counterexamples will be offered of why the definition is wrong. So it must be kept meaningless so that it can be altered at will to prevent counterexamples. Edit: As well, the correct definition of a "species" wasn't presented. The article seemed to indicate that because two different species can have offspring, then something is wrong... not so. Instead: if their offpsring can then have offspring among themselves, they are of the same species. For example: donkeys and horses can mate to produce mules, but the mules are then sterile as they have an odd number of chromosomes. Donkeys and horses are then different species. There is no ambiguity, though they are able to produce offspring, they are still different species. Edit2: Oops... it was mentioned (as noted.) Must be getting soft in the head in me old age; missed it. [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.