• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis Goes Silly Again

Skwim

Veteran Member
This is pretty much how science sees the taxonomy of various cats.

cat%20taxonomy_zps7t2ylqou.png

Source: Wikipedia
Various species having evolved from those that gave rise to other evolved species.





This is how Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis sees it

cat-species.png

No lions and tigers were on Noah’s Ark. Instead, God brought one pair of every “kind.”
At least 38 living (shown here) and 36 extinct cats descended from this original pair!.
source


According to AiG here all species of cats came from a single pair which gave birth to lions, then tigers, then pumas, then bobcats, then . . . (or some such order of births). Because it says there are 38 living species and 36 extinct species of cats and we assume there were no twin male-female births, this poor cat had to have gone through 148 births. And each somehow producing a different species with every other pregnancy.

Sound reasonable? Of course it does. :rolleyes:

.

.
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I think children's stories should be as fantastical and silly as possible. It helps to develop the imagination of young minds and develop a sense of whimsy and wonder. This 'Ken Ham,' sounds like a wonderful author of children's fantasy stories.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
This is pretty much how science sees the taxonomy of various cats.

cat%20taxonomy_zps7t2ylqou.png

Source: Wikipedia
Various species having evolved from those that gave rise to other evolved species.





This is how Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis sees it

cat-species.png

No lions and tigers were on Noah’s Ark. Instead, God brought one pair of every “kind.”
At least 38 living (shown here) and 36 extinct cats descended from this original pair!.
source


According to AiG here all species of cats came from a single pair that in turn gave birth to lions, then tigers, then pumas, then bobcats, then . . . (or some such order of births). Because it says there are 38 living species and 36 extinct species of cats and we assume there were no twin male-female births, this poor cat had to have gone through 148 births. And each somehow producing a different species with every other pregnancy.

Sound reasonable? Of course it does. :rolleyes:.
I wonder where he thinks Hyenas and Meerkats fit in....Different "kinds", I guess.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You would think some one like Ham would have put sabre tooth tigers in that list.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
According to AiG here all species of cats came from a single pair that in turn gave birth to lions, then tigers, then pumas, then bobcats, then . . . (or some such order of births). Because it says there are 38 living species and 36 extinct species of cats and we assume there were no twin male-female births, this poor cat had to have gone through 148 births. And each somehow producing a different species with every other pregnancy.

Sound reasonable? Of course it does..
And think about it in terms of the overall history they believe in. First you had God creating a "cat kind" less than 10,000 years ago. I'm not sure if they believe God originally created a single breeding pair from which all subsequent species evolved, or if God created all the species within the "cat kind". But either way, about 4,000 years ago the entire group was reduced to a single breeding pair (when the flood occurred). Then after the flood, in less than 4,000 years that single pair gave rise to all the diversity of cats we know of today. That's a lot of evolution in a very short period of time, from a genetic bottleneck that is as extreme as can possibly be.

It's surprising just how much of an "evolutionist" Ken Ham turns out to be!
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
And think about it in terms of the overall history they believe in. First you had God creating a "cat kind" less than 10,000 years ago. I'm not sure if they believe God originally created a single breeding pair from which all subsequent species evolved from, or if God created all the species within the "cat kind". But either way, about 4,000 years ago the entire group was reduced to a single breeding pair (when the flood occurred). Then after the flood, in less than 4,000 years that single pair gave rise to all the diversity of cats we know of today. That's a lot of evolution in a very short period of time, from a genetic bottleneck that is as extreme as can possibly be.

It's surprising just how much of an "evolutionist" Ken Ham turns out to be!
As I interpret his web page there was no evolution---Ham's way of steering clear of any post flood evolution. Each species having been born as is, from a single common "kind" that was aboard the ark ("kind" being pretty much equal to the family rank in taxonomy). Like the 36 + species of the Canidae family: wild dogs, gray wolves, maned wolves, coyotes, Jackals, bush dogs, foxes, racoon dogs, etc. all coming from the single pair of "dog kind" animals on the ark. Of course this proposal is still requires a prodigious number individuals:

Number of families and required number of reproductive individuals.

522 fish families (1,044)
136 mammal families (272)
61 amphibian families (122)
57 reptile families(114)
175 bird families (350)
2,140 arthropod families (4,280) source

Total number of individuals needed to be gathered together and taken aboard the ark: (1 male + 1 female from each family) = 6,182, and we haven't even touched plants and fungi.


.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
As I interpret his web page there was no evolution---Ham's way of steering clear of any post flood evolution.
From what I can tell, they kind of dance around it and try to have it both ways. They clearly believe that new species arose from singular pairs of each "kind" (as you can see at THIS PAGE), and they believe that it all took place via populations changing over time, but they also are very adamant that they don't believe in evolution (CLICK HERE). And if you want to read something truly bizarre, CLICK HERE and read their explanation of how it happened in simplistic genetic terms. Basically, they believe God "front loaded the original kinds with lots of genetic information" and then somehow all the heterozygous offspring for each allele magically knew to pair up and isolate themselves away from the rest of the population.

I guess once you allow for magic, anything's possible.

It's also hilarious to see them say "In the past, there was only one pair of cats. Then, over less than 4,000 years that single pair gave rise to 36 new species through speciation, populations changing their genetic over time, migration, and reproductive isolation........but there was no evolution". It's a lot like Deeje and her whole "it's adaptation, not evolution" talking point.

Each species having been born as is, from a single common "kind" that was aboard the ark ("kind" being pretty much equal to the family rank in taxonomy). Like the 36 + species of the Canidae family: wild dogs, gray wolves, maned wolves, coyotes, Jackals, bush dogs, foxes, racoon dogs, etc. all coming from the single pair of "dog kind" animals on the ark. Of course this proposal is still requires a prodigious number individuals:

Number of families and required number of reproductive individuals.

522 fish families (1,044)
136 mammal families (272)
61 amphibian families (122)
57 reptile families(114)
175 bird families (350)
2,140 arthropod families (4,280) source

Total number of individuals needed to be gathered together and taken aboard the ark: (1 male + 1 female from each family) = 6,182, and we haven't even touched plants and fungi.


.
And not only that, just think of all the terrible effects we know happen with even moderate genetic bottlenecks. Taking a population down to a single breeding pair simply isn't biologically feasible.....until you add in some magic. Further, even if that did somehow magically happen, we also know that such bottlenecks leave traces in the genomes of all descending populations. So if the whole flood thing happened the way AiG paints it, we would expect that when we sequence genomes from various taxa, we should see signs of simultaneous massive bottlenecks across all of them. It's a pretty obvious test of their beliefs.....one that we already know the answer to (YEC fails the test).

That's why I struggle with debating young-earth creationism. It's so obviously absurd and contradictory to pretty much all the available evidence from so many areas, it's just barely above flat-earthism in terms of "things too stupid to waste time arguing over".
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
From what I can tell, they kind of dance around it and try to have it both ways.
Yes they do, because the last I had read from them they supported rapid speciation after the flood.

They clearly believe that new species arose from singular pairs of each "kind" (as you can see at THIS PAGE), and they believe that it all took place via populations changing over time, but they also are very adamant that they don't believe in evolution (CLICK HERE).
I took a look at the video on your "THIS PAGE" link where right away we see one of creationist's old ploys of misleading the reader/viewer: present only that part of the truth that supports your contention and forget about the part that blows it out of the water. If one notes, the video talks about the success of cross breedings between lions and tigers, horses and zebras, and camels and llamas, all of which is true. HOWEVER, none of the hybrids reproduce.

Male and female ligers (lion and tiger) cannot mate and reproduce
Male and female Zorses (zebra and horse) cannot mate and reproduce
Male and female camases (camel and llama) have never mated

As for your "CLICK HERE" link, it's obvious AiG doesn't know whether it's coming or going. No surprise.

And if you want to read something truly bizarre, CLICK HERE and read their explanation of how it happened in simplistic genetic terms. Basically, they believe God "front loaded the original kinds with lots of genetic information" and then somehow all the heterozygous offspring for each allele magically knew to pair up and isolate themselves away from the rest of the population.
Yeah, one has to wonder if they're really that stupid, or they know the facts and simply lie about them because they assume their readers are stupid.

It's also hilarious to see them say "In the past, there was only one pair of cats. Then, over less than 4,000 years that single pair gave rise to 36 new species through speciation, populations changing their genetic over time, migration, and reproductive isolation........but there was no evolution". It's a lot like Deeje and her whole "it's adaptation, not evolution" talking point.
I recall that sad discussion.

And not only that, just think of all the terrible effects we know happen with even moderate genetic bottlenecks. Taking a population down to a single breeding pair simply isn't biologically feasible.....until you add in some magic. Further, even if that did somehow magically happen, we also know that such bottlenecks leave traces in the genomes of all descending populations. So if the whole flood thing happened the way AiG paints it, we would expect that when we sequence genomes from various taxa, we should see signs of simultaneous massive bottlenecks across all of them. It's a pretty obvious test of their beliefs.....one that we already know the answer to (YEC fails the test).

That's why I struggle with debating young-earth creationism. It's so obviously absurd and contradictory to pretty much all the available evidence from so many areas, it's just barely above flat-earthism in terms of "things too stupid to waste time arguing over".
One can tire of it. I certainly have.

.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Skwim,

We definitely agree on AiG and their bizarre scenarios. As far as....

Yeah, one has to wonder if they're really that stupid, or they know the facts and simply lie about them because they assume their readers are stupid..

.....my guess is they're counting on the vast majority of their readers not having any idea what terms like "heterozygous" and "homozygous" mean, but nevertheless figuring that the people at AiG must know what they mean, which makes them experts, and therefore their conclusions are reliable. Something like "they seem to know what they're talking about, and since they're supporting the word of God, it must be true!"

And that's how ridiculous things like young-earth creationism maintains adherents.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
.....my guess is they're counting on the vast majority of their readers not having any idea what terms like "heterozygous" and "homozygous" mean, but nevertheless figuring that the people at AiG must know what they mean, which makes them experts, and therefore their conclusions are reliable. Something like "they seem to know what they're talking about, and since they're supporting the word of God, it must be true!"

And that's how ridiculous things like young-earth creationism maintains adherents.
Absolutely. I've found that most followers, and it doesn't much matter of what, aren't that interested in understanding the nitty-gritty of an issue as long as the issue is one they want to support. But it's within the nitty-gritty that the leaders of creationism contort the truth and outright lie so as to build their argument. As we've seen countless times among creation supporters here on RF, they can recite the debating points, but have no idea how to defend them.

.
 
Last edited:

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
What's even more funny about all of this is that ICR has an article witten by a Nathaniel T. Jeanson Ph.D., claiming that veggie lions roamed the Garden of Eden, too. Before the Flood! So, vegetarian lions must be the original cat kind. Not that strange beast depicted in that drawing by Ken Ham of AiG. Can't these creationists get their stories straight?
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
One can tire of it. I certainly have..
The church my parents attend, too. In the country I live in, YEC's only tend to go to churches run by SDA's, JW's, etc. YEC's tend to avoid speaking at mainstream churches. Like the plague. The are very oral in letters to the newspapers, though. The same one's tend to write many letters to newspapers, every day. Under different names.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm thinking of becoming a Creation Science Museum denier! Why should I believe it really exists? 'Monument to Scientific Illiteracy' ? Good one! I'll believe it when I see it in person. Reconstruction of Noah's Ark? Ha ha. No way. I don't care what CNN says.
 

Derek500

Wish I could change this to AUD
I'm thinking of becoming a Creation Science Museum denier! Why should I believe it really exists? 'Monument to Scientific Illiteracy' ? Good one! I'll believe it when I see it in person. Reconstruction of Noah's Ark? Ha ha. No way. I don't care what CNN says.
You don't make any sense. Was this supposed to be funny?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
You don't make any sense. Was this supposed to be funny?
It is supposed to be an expression of how I feel about creation science museums. It is perhaps dark humor. I was taught creation science through Ace and Abeka, and this delayed my education about what science was. ICR people came into my church and taught me this stuff and sold their books. It was most unfortunate.
 
Top