Essay talk:Me and potholer54

"we creationists DO NOT deny that speciation occurs..."

You do hold some almost rational views by creationist standards, next you'll be saying you don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Christopher (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

buddy... Creationists DO NOT deny speciation... whoever does deny this... DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what speciation means... You need to understand what creation teaches!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You may not but most creationists do. Christopher (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

What they say is "kinds" which would be closest to "family" in Linnaean taxonomy--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He already did a video on creationists who accept Speciation. He did it after a YouTuber spotted a Kent Hovind video where he accepted it. The concept of a Kind is very messy; it isn't agreed upon by all creationists. Speciation can be accepted, in that two populations can diverge enough they look radically different. Dogs are a clear example of that process, though are interfertile and easily seen as one "Kind" due to it. The problem is when it comes to Ring species, which Hovind accepts, meaning he accepts Speciation towards non-interfertility. You can argue then that Hovind's brand of creationists accept evolution the same as biologists, only with multiple genesises of organisms that evolve rather than all sharing a common ancestor.-- 194.81.33.242 (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dogs are all the same species though, as potholer54 pointed out. Christopher (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Baraminology

You say 'kinds' would be closest to taxonomical 'families'. I'm curious as to how closely they match. I'll just list off a few species, with links to pictures, and you say which are all of the same kind. If multiple kinds are represented in each group, please specify which kinds, and which species are in those kinds.

• Group 1

1. Mountain Cottontail
2. Wolly hare
3. Swamp Rabbit

• Group 2

1. Himalayan Pika
2. Collared Pika
3. Large-Eared Pika
4. Swamp Rabbit

• Group 3

1. American Crow
2. Common Raven
3. Black-Billed Magpie

• Group 4

1. Eurasian Magpie
2. Eurasian Jay
3. Clark's Nutcracker
4. Blue Jay

• Group 5

1. Wood Mouse
2. Single-Striped Grass Mouse
3. Blanford's rat
4. Great Gerbil

• Group 6

1. Gray Fox
2. Red Fox
3. Arctic Fox

• Group 7

1. Red Fox
2. African Wild Dog
3. Coyote
4. Gray Wolf
5. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel

• Group 8

1. Lion
2. Tiger
3. Bear Snow Leopard

• Group 9

1. Jaguar
2. Ocelot
3. Eurasian Lynx
4. Domestic Cat
5. Brown Bear

• Group 10

1. Sumatran Orangutan
2. Bornean Orangutan

• Group 11

1. Mountain Gorilla
2. Sumatran Orangutan
3. Western Lowland Gorilla
4. Central Chimpanzee
5. Olive Baboon

Sorry for the length; just wanted to get a decent idea as to what a 'kind' is. While in general every member of the groups above are of the same Family (there are a few exceptions). A few groups are a single Genus, and some have members of different Families, but the same Order. I've also tried to stay away from tricky things like beetles, fish, plants, and the like. Thanks! Onychoprion (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes... it's easy to make fun... but in reality, describing a different taxonomic system is hard. Imagine explaining what Phylum is to someone who goes by Aristotlian taxonomy (air dwellers, land dwellers, water dwellers)Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think he's actually trying to understand baraminology. Give him the benefit of the doubt instead of dancing around the question. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 23:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not making fun, I'm seriously wondering how kinds works. If I were to try to explain what a Phylum was to Aristotle, I'd first explain how modern taxonomy works, the reasoning behind the divisions, etc. And -- assuming I'm the Aristotlian person in this example -- if Aristotle gave me an example bunch of animals to classify, I would do my best with what I could remember, and look up the rest. Onychoprion (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Damian, be nice and help him out. Dismissing genuine inquisitiveness as 'trolling' means you widen the gap between yourself and the world. For shame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)