We creationists don't know what kinds are but know there fixed kinds.
45 comments
WUT TEH HECK?!?!
You fail at life.
So finally a semi-working definition of "kind".
Kind: A lifeform that has a common word in their common name and vaguely similar appearence as another lifeform.
Tasmanian Tigers are of the same kind as Bengal Tigers; Koala Bears are of the same kind as Polar Bears and Tasmanian Devils are of the same kind as Tasmanian Tigers (coz they have "Tasmanian" in their common name).
Does that work for you guys?
Firstly, I didn't know there were marsupial wolves...not saying they don't exist, but this is in fact the first I've heard of such a thing.
Second....you do realize you JUST described evolution, almost to a "T," right?
Tell me, are bats birds?
They both fly.
Well, at least he sort of nailed the part about marsupial wolves and placental wolves sharing a common ancestor.
Of course, the last common ancestor of both of them probably looked more like this cute little guy than a wolf. And it lived long, loooong before Noah was supposed to have gotten his Flood on. It ate bugs at night, laid eggs, and spent a lot of its time evading things that wanted to turn it into a meat snack. Still, credit where credit is due.
Stopped clocks and all that.
The fun thing being that they aren't even wolves, i.e. canines.
And they're extinct. GG, humanity, GG.
So, marsupial wolves and placental wolves, which have LESS IN COMMON GENETICALLY than humans do with chimps, both belong to the same "kind"?
Well, then, clearly, humans and chimps belong to the same "kind", too.
Glad we've settled that.
@[b]Andrew
I don't know if you were just trying to make a point or not, but there is no such thing as a Koala bear. Koalas are marsupials, and have nothing to do with the bear family
(Sorry, I'm an Aussie, and that's a pet peeve of mine, and many other Aussies too)
@Rhys: No Andrew is mocking the fundie usage of the word kind. Since marsupial wolves and placental wolves both have the word wolf in their name they are the same kind, therefore since Kola bears and Polar bears have the word bear in their name they must be the same kind.
It's seriously fucked up logic because the origins of these names lie not in any morphological similarities between the two species but instead is based upon our ignorance of their differences.
There is something to be learned from this type of post.
On the LSAT , one of the types of logic questions which are commonly given are the so-called "strengthen or weaken" questions. These are questions in which a certain type of logical argument is presented, and you are asked to find which of the four answer choices would best strengthen that argument by providing evidence (or weaken the argument by providing evidence contradictory to it).
My point is, many of the people we are mocking on these boards are so incredibly stupid, that they do not have any idea how to go about building a logical argument, or refuting someone else's argument .
That is why we constantly see posts like this.
"So, now I have to look for that non-marsupial kangaroo cognate. "
Well rats have long tails, and they jump well. Admittedly they're somewhat smaller, and they do give birth to lots of kits, but ....
Oh man, reading the responses to this idiot is like watching a firing squad in action.
And our Oolon Colluphid does a bang-up job of revealing the glaring idiocy of Rob's stance - to which Mr. Byers says (in essence), "I'm right because I think I'm right."
In fact, he actually says that wolves and marsupial 'wolves' are the same because "they look the same (to me anyways)." Holy Joe Christ on a biscuit.
The problem with your argument is that, while you find it impossible to believe animals evolved over billions of year to the stage they are at now, you have no problem with them evolving to that stage in the span of a couple of thousand (or even a few hundred) years.
@ ApYrs & Puck
Thanks!!!!!
We +scientists+ don't know what kinds are but we know there are fixed kinds, +as seen by looking at any phylogenetic tree+.
Muuuuch better... You're getting closer, Robbie. That's a good boy.
Ah I see the marsupial tard from Byers DID make it here after all.
It should come as no surprise that after being presented with multiple pieces of scientific evidence by numerous posters, including professional scientists with experience in the field of mammalian phylogeny , Byers continued to assert his garbage. He then went on to say "you guys are a bunch of amateurs" later in the thread.
Needless to say, this one is in serious need of a smacking about the head with a hardbound copy of The Origin of Species .
To make it even funnier, one of the other posters did some detective work and discovered that Byers' "paper" on "marsupials and the flood" was such a piece of dreck that it was pulled by the Raelians from their website for being too ridiculous . You can't make this up, can you?
Translation: We don't know what 'kinds' are, we just make it up and then use evolution to explain the differences, without realising we use evolution because we don't know what evolution actually entails.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
