[Explaining that insects and birds are two of the same "kind"]
Maybe you just don't recognize rational thoughts any more.
The bird category would include any flying creature. I didn't say birds are insects. I said insects would fall into the bird category. But I'm not saying they are related to any feathered bird. In fact, I'm trying to stay away from saying I know what kinds God created. [...]
And finally, the pterodactyl wing looks like the bat's wing to me, except the thumb and the first two fingers form a claw. Pterodactyls walked on their wings like bats and they had hairy bodies like bats. I'm not saying pterodactyls and bats are related species but they could be a kind. Both are birds according to the Bible.
38 comments
Wait, so insects do not share the characteristics of birds, yet they fall into the bird "category"? THIS is the grand classification system of the creationist movement?
On a side note, do pterodactyls (or bats) actually walk on their wings in the way he describes? I thought they mostly used them to fly.
Where to begin?
The Bible gives bats as a type of "birds", which presumably just means that the word translated as "bird" really means "flying vertebrate" or something like that. However, it never treats insects as birds.
Gen. 1:21 makes it clear there are several bird "kinds".
Bat wings differ rather drastically from pterosaur ones in that they embed multiple fingers in the flight membrane.
Pterosaurs, of course, primarily used their wings for flight, but at least some species were capable of a rather bizarre form of quadrupedal walk. Bats, AFAIK, don't walk at all.
I have a few friends that are YECs, so I showed them this... This guy is crazy even by their standards.
(17:05:19) Friend: ...Holy shit, what the HELL is wrong with him!?
(17:05:34) Friend: HOW WOULD INSECTS FALL INTO THE BIRD CATEGORY!?
(17:06:12) Friend: HOW CAN ANYTHING WALK ON ITS WINGS!? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT IDEA!?
(17:06:20) Friend: CAN I HUNT THIS PERSON DOWN AND SOIL HIS CORPSE!?
And lets not forget, this would make whales, seals, sea turtles and sea snakes (along with numerous aquatic invertabrates) "fish". And so what "kind" are flying fish?
This kind of "classification" scheme is something you'd expect from a 4 year old.
I...um...
That is...
er...
What the fuck? He's not serious, right? No one could actually be this stupid, right?
I mean, this is on the same level as (or possibly even dumber than) Eternal's classic Argument From Bull.
'All bulls are male. So how do bulls make more bulls? Ha, explain that, evolutionists!'
Apologies to Pythonazi's...
A-one, two, a-one two three four
Half a brain, philisophically,
Must ipso facto half not be.
But half a brain has got to be
Vis a vis it's entity.
-d'you see?
But can a Brain be said to be
Or not to be an entire brain,
When
half the brain is not a brain,
Due to some ancient injury.
So, let me get this straight. Noah took a breeding pair of every "kind" of animal on the Ark. (Actually seven of every kind, and fourteen if they had a cloven hoof. Whatever.) This guy says all flying insects, bats, and birds are of the same "kind." So to represent all of those animals, Noah could have just taken seven pigeons aboard. Okay. Woosh, forty days of rain, everything not aboard the Ark dies. Noah opens the doors, lets the seven pigeons free... and... all modern insects, bats, and birds descend from those pigeons? Holy shit. How would that happen? Maybe evol--
Sorry, my keyboard actually refused to let me finish that fucking paragraph.
Amusing how they seem to run up against that so much, Fukka. If they define "kind" too inclusively, then they argue for a super-fast evolution after the Flood which is probably too fast to even be possible. If they define it too exclusively, they don't have room for everything on the Ark. And I strongly suspect there is no middle ground (or, rather, the middle ground is where *both* of these make the story impossible rather than just one).
The bible was created before modern terminology was used. For example, that is why the word "Dinosaur" wasn't ever used, because the word dinosaur wasn't invented yet. Also, the way we classify animals today was different from how they did it back then. That didn't make them wrong for calling insects and birds the same "kind", it was just how they labelled things back then.
<<< That didn't make them wrong for calling insects and birds the same "kind", it was just how they labelled things back then. >>>
It definitely has some serious implications for the Ark myth - define "kind" too inclusively, and you are arguing that evolution occurred after the flood on a faster scale than generally considered possible; too exclusively and you don't have room for everything on the Ark. (And my guess is that the "middle ground" is where these two problems occur simultaneously.)
@Crosis: It's really dumb. If for some bizarre reason they feel obligated to defend the Ark as literal truth, the "whooh 10,000 species of birds are all the same 'kind'" argument still isn't the best they can do. The Ark is pretty huge - it could easily have held tens of thousands of animals (if, of course, it had existed). The extinct species are the killer point; with some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, it seems that 2 of every land-living vertebrate alive today, plus food and water, might be squeezed in in less than 2000 metric tons.
Now we just need to determine the buoyancy of gopher wood to see what mass the ark could support...
Why is that fundies deny that "macroevolution" exists, but there were "kinds," which explains how all of the animals could fit on the ark? If there were only two bears on the ark, but there are lots of species of bears now, would have to have "macroevolved?" Isn't that speciation?
In other words; your God has not the slightest idea about taxonomy, whatsoever.
I thought he was omnipotent....
Btw, "rational thought" does not mean "I will stubbornly disregard any scientific evidence that contradicts my mythology".
I recognize rational thought. I am well acquainted with rational thought. Rational thought is a friend of mine.
Your post, sir, contains no rational thought.
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.