the prohibition on eating (and sacrificing) pigs might very well have been 'scientific'
I've long been drawn to the idea that the boar was once worshiped, being one of the few animals that could kill a man in that part of the world, and that that is the origin of the prohibition of pork.
Early in human history, there would be a time before the idea of intelligence existed, man's great advantage over the beasts that he was still unaware that he possessed. So, he saw himself as inferior to the animals with skills he feared or respected, and showed deference to these animals, perhaps including never killing one for fear of reprisal.
The boar may have been viewed as a god once, and the prohibition against eating one outlived the period of animal gods, just as some Amerind tribes worshiped the bear, the wolf, and the crow undoubtedly out of respect for their natural skills including their abilities to kill human beings.
But eventually, man came to understand what intelligence was, that he had more of it than the beasts, and that this was the supreme skill. That may be when theriomorphic gods (animal form) began morphing into therioanthropic forms (half man-half beast like Horus and Pan) and then finally into anthropomorphic gods like the Greek and Viking pantheons. That to me is the evidence that the beasts were once exalted above man until it was understood that we had the intelligence to dominate them.
I imagine the ancient Hebrews underwent a process like this, going one step further and combining the gods into one, monotheism, but maintaining some traditions for no reason that anybody could remember any longer, and calling it a command from God for no known reason.
I have heard some speculate that the similarity in the taste of human flesh and pork may have had something to do with it as well.
Have you ever heard of long pig?
His main focus seems to be in finding some way to ridicule others, but he definitely does not like getting any of that back. Kind of thin-skinned for someone doing what he does.
I think his purpose is the same as any other creationist's - to promote his religious beliefs. Since forum rules prohibit overt proselytization, and because there are no good arguments for creationism better than an incredulity fallacy to be made anyway, that perforce takes the form of an attack on the science that contradicts his religious beliefs, often in the form of ridicule, as you noted.
That is the beauty of it. You can make ["kind"] mean whatever you want it to mean.
Like macroevolution.
Let me be clear about this: the Bible is not a science book.
You know what's not a science book? A telephone directory. Also, a dictionary. How many scientific claims have you cited from scripture already? You won't find scientific claims in these other books, because they're not science books. The Bible is not just a science book - it is also a history book, a book of myths, a book of poetry, and a guide to living - but it does attempt to explain how the world came to be and how to do things like treat leprosy - the kinds of things that science books do.
The problem is that its method is mythopoeisis, not empiricism, so unlike modern science, the Bible's science is inaccurate and therefore not useful.
Genesis 1 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
There you go - an attempt at science from scripture.
knee-jerk responses would most likely go unanswered
Creationist apologetics is nothing but knee-jerk reactions from a small toolkit of PRATTs - invisible barriers to evolution, evolutionary science is in crisis, pretending to care about and understanding science, the creationist just can see how it could happen without help, Haeckel's drawings, Darwin was a racist, quote mining, or some invented statistic for the probability of life forming spontaneously, or some misunderstanding of Pasteur's work..
Saying that the Bible is not a science book is a knee-jerk comment seen repeatedly, often just before treating it as a science book as you are doing here.
I'm not saying everything written in Genesis is confirmed by, or is consistent with science! I'm only giving the ones that are!
You're tacitly conceding that science is the arbiter of truth about how the world works - not scripture. If you treated the Bible as the authority, you would be telling us how much of what is in the Bible science got wrong rather than how much the Bible writers got right.