["If God's "kind" boundaries are impenetrable, then why in the world would He make a "reptilian bird"???"]
God created birds after their kind. A reptile is a kind so a reptillian bird is acceptable. A bird that resembles a land creature is also acceptable ie. the bat.
I would consider bees and other flying insects 'birds' made after their kind ie. insects
The other animals are not ducks, rhinos, porcupines or elephants. The dolphin is a fish.
43 comments
So if you have a flying fish, is it a fish made after it's kind (bird), or is it a bird made after it's kind (fish)? Which 'kind' wins out when they conflict?
I know, it's a stretch, but if dolphins can be fish, then everything goes.
Actually, that dolphins are fish is probably the least stupid statement in MarkT's post. Cladistically, whales are mammals are amniotes are tetrapods are sarcopterygians are bony fish.
Yes, this means that people too are bony fish - no-one ever said cladistics was going to be intuitive. On the plus side, unlike traditional classifications, it doesn't make you think that codfish are closer to sharks than to you.
once more, with feeling:
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up.
If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up.
[continues until MarkT commits suicide (vain hope)]
AAAAAAAAAUGH!!! Good grief, in the name of humanity, make the antiscience insanity stop already!
This genius is obviously bucking for the "Fundie Science Expert" Award. With almost the entire month yet to go, I'd still say he's got a heck of a good shot at it.
~David D.G.
OK fuckhead, now explain:
* coral
* anemones
* polychaete worms
* monotremes
* sea snakes
* tree climing fruit eating crabs.
* bioluminescent bacteria living in deep sea creatures
* jellies being a colony of organisms
* your average human hosting 100 trillion lifeforms on/in their body
And also
* stick insects
* rock oysters
* flying fish
* hawk moths
* eagle rays
* dogfish, catfish, sunfish, moonfish, batfish, starfish
* sausage dogs
* timber wolves
* sea cucumbers
This could go on forever.
"God created birds after their kind. A reptile is a kind so a reptillian bird is acceptable."
A bird is a "kind" and a reptile is a "kind" so a bird that is a reptile is acceptable? WTF?
"A bird that resembles a land creature is also acceptable ie. the bat."
So, any kind can resemble any other kind? What then is a "kind?"
"I would consider bees and other flying insects 'birds' made after their kind ie. insects"
Uh huh. You might consider left shoes to be triangles but that doesn't make it so.
"The other animals are not ducks, rhinos, porcupines or elephants."
Huh? Ducks, rhinos, porcupines and elephants are not animals?
"The dolphin is a fish."
MarkT is a deluded and a fool.
I'm not normally in the habit of defending fundamentalists, but I really don't see a big problem with this quote.
If you think in a more ancient classification scheme it makes sense.
Fish = things that live in water.
Birds = anything that flies.
etc.
Its not perfect of course, but for an ancient sheep herder (the audience of the old testament) it works quite well.
Actually, dolphins are fish that have been ported to iDesigncorp's operating system. This was actually explained several posts ago.
Anonymous Intelligent Designer
Biodesign, incorporated
"Making Life Forms For Your Planets Today"
Headquarters:
450 Wellington Road
Main Base
Magrathea
Other contact address:
2254 Pendarat Avenue, Suite 4
Aufteleark City
Renscellen
(from my own creation, so don't bother looking for this one's sci-fi reference.)
When one considers that the individual in question finds no problems whatsoever with the account of Creation as related in the Old Testament, nor with the account of the Flood or a 6000 year old universe, should we be surprised biology and zoology completely elude him?
A testament to the contortions, distortions and delusions one must make or have in order to fit the natural world and science into the "infallible literal bible world view".
It reminds me of:"Oh the tangeled webs we weave, when first we practice to decieve".
Dear The Last Conformist,
Forgive my linnean ways. I can't help it. My evil parents made me go to school and partake of higher education. I had to read books and write satan-inspired papers and things. You see, I'm educated. I know it's a sin, but I have always been turned off by ignorance. Poor me.
And the award for most nonsensical sentence goes to...
*drumroll*
MarkT for >>The other animals are not ducks, rhinos, porcupines or elephants.<<
"I'd like to think God for the bible and my parents, for belting me upside the head with it all those times as I grew up."
Really, what does that even _mean_? o_O
I'm Mark T. I quoted an paraody site against creationism. I am definitely NOT fundamentalist but a liberal Christian and Exiled Believer (John Shelby Spong & co). Visit misc.education.home-school.christian, alt.christnet.christianlife and aus.religion.christian for my posts against fundamentalism. Join in the fun!
fstd is a great site that I support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
########################################... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
########################################
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
with a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron, "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.) p.3
MarkT,
Please stop talking now. Not only are you making Christians look bad, you are making the rest of the species look bad as well.
Once again, please STFU and sign yourself up for a course in biology at your local college.
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.