What are Created Kinds? - Dr. Todd Wood (Conf Lecture)

[@paulgarduno3127]

After the Great tribulation & the Milenium; God will give us a brand new Creation.! Nowhere in the book of Revelation says that it will take ; "Billions of years". Praise The Lord.

[@jesusislord2123]

As far as I know, those bones in the whale are used for mating, Hmm... to guide things into place.

[@pastorbrianediger]

The "clean" kinds would have a headstart in diversity as well, right? That could possibly help with trying to decide what is and is not part of a baramin.

[@pastorbrianediger]

@Darth Quantum I have taken biology and did pretty well in it. Evolution doesn't work. There is far too much complexity in DNA for it to happen. Speciation can happen, but not molecules to man evolution. These folks aren't liars. Also, there is good historical evidence to support Christianity. I have a Bachelor degree in theology and I'm working on a Master of Divinity. You want to chat? Give me a specific thing you want to chat about. Don't tell me to go get a textbook. I've read some of those already.

[@davidh5101]

He has a PHD in Biochemistry from UofV? Is this a real university lecture somewhere?

[@mers3481]

With apobaramin, there's no dots outside the square... 🤨 What characteristics are you using to plot those graphs?

[@davidgardner863]

Let me give a condensed version of this lecture. We have no idea what a created kind is.

[@bradspitt3896]

Carry on, no need to listen to other perspectives.

[@jimagnew1643]

VERY FEW THINGS THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN FALL TOGETHER, AND WORK OUT TOGETHER,. TAKE A DROP CORD ROLL IT UP, THROUGH IT IN THE BACK OF A PICKUP TRUCK, HAUL IT AROUND FOR A WHILE,. IT WILL UNRAVEL, IT WILL BECOME SO TANGLED THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME EFFERENT TO UNTANGLE IT,. LEAVE IT THERE AND DRIVE AROUND A MILLION MILES,. DO YOU THINK IT CAN OR WILL EVER ROLL ITSELF BACK UP ? THINGS DON'T GET BETTER ON THERE OWN,. THEY ALWAYS GET WORSE , SO IT IS WITH OUR LIVES.

[@jb0433628]

Why is there no public database of animal DNA ?

[@phookadude]

Leviticus 11:22 states that locusts, destroying locusts and grasshoppers are all separate "kinds" point to kind having a at least a very close meaning to species. The attempt to make kind mean something like class or order is not biblical.

[@abebayehudesalegn4477]

Nice lesson.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Dr Wood says "165 horse species of the same k I nd after the flood is hard to swallow." I agree but then I wonder if I tnwould not be possible that they could be diversification in the fossil record preserved by the flood. And still be the same kind. What makes them a result of speciation after the flood? But not necessarily before it?

[@animaladventures14]

What do you know? I literally just watched Todd Wood's bunny baraminology video two days ago!

[@jimagnew1643]

if we got donkeys mules and horse's, and this is what's going on with humañs , and there all mixed up,. No wonder we have so many numb skulls .

[@chadsuratt2161]

Good video

[@dinoj1734]

9:22 can't watch anymore because he is just waffling on and not making any sense at all. It is all a load of horse manure, or donkey manure, or maybe hybridised mule manure.... God created a huge number of different kinds, and not just one or two of each kind. Did God create 1 tree?? Many different kinds have gone extinct. We know of many that have, and probably lots more that we don't know about. Fossil evidence for what? there were different kinds around before? You betchya! Another point: asexual organisms divide by mitosis, nothing to do with 'crossing kinds'.. there is sometimes a randomising of the genes to produce various 'varieties', but this is rearrangement of existing genes, not making new ones..

[@jamesprince1609]

Sorry you don't get the concepts he is expounding. These explanations are given to articulate concepts that are hard to parse out. The Bible uses like and as, as well as parables to explain concepts that are of a like "kind". 🙂

[@FilipCordas]

Here is a question for all you creationists. I heard some mention that Noah needed only 30000 kinds on the boat, and that is only 'micro' evolution, but most scientists would consider this macro evolution, so what is the number that you would call macro evolution? Is 20000 macro, 1000? 2? At what point would you call the accumulation macro?

[@johnmonk9297]

Macro evolution means a reptile one kind became a bird another kind. No amount of animals will produce macro evolution. The fossil record shows not one animal that is part reptile part bird. Your question is based on a misunderstanding hence has no meaning. DNA proves you cannot change from one kind to a different kind. You need new information mutation is from a loss of info and your bird that mutates is still a bird etc.

[@FilipCordas]

​@@johnmonk9297 So could you tell me what do you think a reptile is? Is there a reptile kind or not? What makes a kind a kind and why is the limit so fuzzy? And I asked for a minimum number of kinds before the creation of sub kinds becomes macro? Also could you give me approximate number of kinds on the boat.

[@RD-um9dy]

I always heard that mutations can produce different information...for example duplication events happen and then various point mutations could change the new dna sequence. Also couldn't birds be mutated reptiles.

[@FilipCordas]

@@RD-um9dy Well that's sort of my point according to creationists all Noah need to bring was a rock and everything could have micro evolved from it so what is this magic number where micro becomes macro.

[@jamesprince1609]

@@FilipCordas You are assuming your own conclusions in questioning our view. You cannot assume your conclusions when doing so because you are creating a strawman. Then you try to knock down the strawman assuming you are devastating our view. We have different assumptions. If you find out what we actually believe then you can better question our concepts. But you never do.

[@jesusislord2123]

Is he just pretending to be a creationist??

[@dizzyparkermusic]

I find him venturing into weird places for sure, like allowing way too much interpretation in the whale category. I was brought here from his human types and found a lot more diversity in LIVING humans than anybody ever talks about.

[@jamesprince1609]

Nope. He is just trying to explain complex concepts using illustrative methods. Perhaps you cannot see the parallels. Or you grasp the concepts better than many and find these explanations tedious.

[@jesusislord2123]

46:34 He stated a good definition of kind - ''bears.... dogs... cats'' - can someone explain that to him. ….. and really!?.. is the panda a bear?

[@FilipCordas]

What about Racoon Dogs? They are dog but hibernate like bears are they the dog bear kind?

[@marcusmuse4787]

@@FilipCordas Dogs and bears are both within the suborder Caniformia (literally meaning dog-like carnivorans. This taxonomical classification includes dogs, bears, wolves, foxes, raccoons, and mustelids.

[@marcusmuse4787]

yes, the panda is a bear species.

[@MattyJohn146]

lost me n the first sentence "dont kow what the bible means" speak for yourself

[@yonatancruz2761]

CREATION = was a human concept attached to their deities.

[@standeakin5608]

LOL. Write up your hypothesis, present it as a science paper and get it peer-reviewed by real scientists. Then if you are right you may get awarded a Nobel prize . Of course that will never happen because your hypothesis is ridiculous.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Okay Richard.

[@jamesprince1609]

Here we go again. Creation scientists have the same degrees as your evolutonary scientists.. But they cannot submit their papers to secular humanist science journals because the editors reject them because of biased worldviews of those editors. Creation scientists are forced therefore to create their own peer reviewed publications to present their papers to. You either don't know this, know but reject this, or just don't care about truth or "real" science. This man is far smarter than you, and you cannot argue his arguments. So, you attack his credentials and shoot down his arguments by saying they aren't peer reviewed.

[@tdzenda]

Perhaps, perhaps...is boring.

[@lederereddy]

I have watched, learned and enjoyed several of your documentaries, so, I am not trying to be belligerent, but I think this sort of exhaustive extrapolation of the word kind is walking into an evolutionists trap of irrelevance. A kind can only be understood in the context of what's being referred to. Once you know what life form, you know what kind it is. Because kind means exactly what it means. And all of this banter only seems to diffuse into undo confusion, which, like I said, feeds into undo confusion and thus, competitive intellectual vulnerability. In other words, the kinds question is just another ploy by evolutionists to make us creationists look bad... IMHO...

[@agnosticmoron6711]

What??? "...kind means exactly what it means." lol If 'kind' means something, then there should be a definition, right. Right.

[@malongsserve4735]

Good fake science

[@ThuhElement]

noahthelibertarianatheist science is a tool, how does this make fake science?

[@malongsserve4735]

David Johnson because there is nothing scientific here only preexisting assumptions. Looking at things through the bible first before analyzing a fossil is not scientific.

[@ThuhElement]

noahthelibertarianatheist but then turning around and conducting cross breeding is not considered a step in science? Please explain your opinion.

[@alexscott730]

As opposed to bad real science??

[@jb0433628]

@@malongsserve4735 And yet evolutionnists claim that layers of sediments are millions of years old ONLY because evolution requires millions of years. And yet fossils often cross several "million years" of layers, which is ridiculous.