What is Creationism?

No.

• These denominations are defined in terms of being separate organisations, not necessarily separate beliefs. This is a critical difference, not commonly noted by critics.
  
• The largest component (something like two thirds to three quarters) of these totals are independent churches, mostly in Africa. These are not necessarily different in doctrine, but are simply independent organisations.
  
• These estimates include national branches of the same denomination (e.g. the Lutheran Church of Germany and the Lutheran Church of Australia) as separate organisations in the count.
  
• There are many churches among the independent churches which would have effectively the same teachings, just different locations, different leaders, etc.

How many christian denominations worldwide?For instance Wikipedia list 38 "denominations" of the Anglican Church alone.
[edit] I.e. One for each country List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia [/edit]Most of the Christian churches believe in the same core elements but have disagree on minor matters or on forms of worship. In my church, Anglican, any communicant member of another Christian church is welcome to take communion with us.Edited by CRR, : as marked

Isn't it amazing how Christianity has evolved over the years.Enjoy

The fact that you call them hybrids indicates that they are different species. Otherwise, you would just say that they are part of the population.You can't get hybrids without speciation.As to created kinds, it is a meaningless term because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are no objective criteria for determining which species belong to which kind. Even more, why can't two species share a common ancestor and be incapable of producing offspring? Creationists never explain that either.Let's take apes as our example. Are chimps, gorillas, and orangutans in the same kind? Is the genetic distance between these species indicative of the genetic differences we should see between species of the same created kind?

What we expect is a reason to trust the questions we do answer. Just believing really, really hard that something is true is not a reliable way to answer questions. Reality does not suddenly change because we decide it should be a certain way.

Correct. They are different species, in conventional Linnaean classification, within the cat kind. Some of the hybrids are even different genera.Of course that then raises an issue with the Biological Species concept which says a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other populations. That would mean that if you can get a fertile hybrid then they would be part of the same species. This is part of what is known as the Species Problem.Hybridisation chains then provide one objective criteria for mapping which species belong to which kind. However it is also possible for species within the one kind to be fully reproductively isolated. I would expect that some crosses of the cat family would incapable of producing offspring, fertile or sterile, even by artificial insemination, just as a female Chihuahau won't carry to term pups sired by a Great Dane.So if you can show by hybridisation a chain linking a group of species and genera couldn't you call that a Kind? You couldn't call it a Family since some Families in the current Linnaean system could contain more than one Kind.

Yes, there is such a thing as the "Species Problem". Biology is messy. It is difficult to arrive at a neat and tidy solution to biological problems such as species.So you have yourself some kind of "tidy" "feline basic created kind". Really? Well, gee, isn't it funny that none of the hybrids jump that panthera line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felid_hybrid)? Funny, isn't that? Like there's some actual reproductive barrier there. Which had to have happened after that "feline basic kind" had emerged from the Arc and evolved the shit out of itself at such radical rates that even the most radical evolutionist would never dream of invoking.And of course, the "basic worm kind" and the "basic insect kind" pose far greater problems for creationists. So when are you going to abandon that stupid argument?Edited by dwise1, : url cleanup

Creationists can and do call anything a kind. I've just been reading 'The impossible voyage of Noah's ark' which, if you'll excuse the pun, blows the entire story out of the water. Here's a small extract about kinds.

quote:

---

Taxonomic problems.
The taxonomy of kinds is another bewildering subject. The only clear thrust of creationist writing seems to be ridiculing the concept of species, a term usually rendered with quotation marks. We respond with White that, "if we were to give up the notion of species altogether, most discussions in such fields as ecology, ethology, population genetics, and cytogenetics (to name only a few) would simply become impossible" (p. 5).
Aside from this, the creationist baramin can vary anywhere from the level of genus to order (Siegler, 1978)-or even to phylum (Ward, p. 49)although there seems to be a vague consensus approximating it with the biological family. The most often-cited instance of a kind, for example, is the family Canidae, which has fourteen genera and thirty-five species (Siegler, 1974). But Sciuridae (squirrels) has 281 species, and the genus Rattus (old world rats) has several hundred. Would creationists recognize the eighteen families of bats, with their eight-hundred-plus species, as eighteen distinct kinds, or would they make the order Chiroptera into a single bat kind? Would they distinguish the nearly thirty families (two thousand species) of catfish? At the other extreme are many families with but a single species, and even higher categories, such as the orders Tubulidentata (aardvarks) and Struthioniformes (ostriches) or even the phylum Placozoa, with but one representative. Why did the creator endow rats, bats, catfish, and mosquitos (twenty-five hundred species in family Culicidae) with such adaptive potential but withhold this potential from aardvarks, ostriches, and placozoans, especially when we learn that "each baramin was intended to move toward maximum variation" (Ancil, p. 124)? What becomes of the science of taxonomy under this basis or when the "major categories" (phyla?) are sea monsters, other marine animals, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle, and crawling animals (Henry Morris, 1974, p. 216)?

​

The theory of kinds is incoherent and confusing. Since it runs counter to all the known facts of genetics and taxonomy, the burden of proof is upon the creationists to verify it. Where are the fossil baramins? What findings show that such ideal creatures ever existed? If complete sets of kind alleles could survive twenty-four hundred or more years of radiation before the flood, it should be possible to find specimens today with inexplicably large chromosomal complements, perhaps in undiversified families. Unfortunately for "baramin geneticists," studies have been done on such families (cf. Loughman, Frye, and Herald), and nothing extraordinary has been discovered. Still no experiments are forthcoming from the ICR to test its hypothesis. It is, in fact, "armchair science" without a shred of evidence, and we are justified in rejecting it entirely and assuming that "two of every sort" means two of every species.

---

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | National Center for Science EducationBut really, if you can read the whole thing and come out believing that the biblical story of the flood is literally true, you've achieved a level of delusion I find it impossible to understand is real.

P. concolor L. pardalis (puma ocelot) bridges the gap between larger and smaller cats. Is that what you were looking for?[edit]
Oops, my mistake. That should have been P. concolor(Puma) P. pardus(Panthera/Leopard) = (Pumapard)Hybridization data connects the largest cats, P. tigris and the massive Liger (400+kg), to the smallest cat, F. nigripes, via seven documented hybrid steps: P. tigris (110—320 kg) P. leo (120—250 kg) P. pardus (30—85 kg) P. concolor (35—100 kg) L. pardalis (11—16 kg) L. wiedii (3—9 kg) F. catus (3—7 kg) F. nigripes (1.5—2.5 kg).
The cat family - creation.comEdited by CRR, : As marked.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

Puma is not panthera. Neither is ocelot. They are both Felinae, more closely related to each other than with any member of Pantherinae.You did not address the divide between Felinae and Pantherinae and why that divide refutes the creationist "basic created kind" arguments. So what point were you trying to make? Or were you just trying to cause confusion?Speaking of the "basic created kinds" argument that pairs of basic created kinds (eg, basic canid kind or basic felid kind) were on Noah's Ark (thus trying to solve the space problem) and that all species within a "basic created kind" are descended from that kind's Ark pair. Of course that requires that they all evolved and did so almost instantaneously. Creationists try to explain that away by quibbling over "macroevolution vs microevolution" and point to hybrids to claim that "macroevolution" never happened. But that reproductive barrier between Pantherae and Felinae demonstrates that "macroevolution" does indeed happen and that it's just microevolution happening for more generations.You weren't here when Faith tried to argue against macroevolution using felids. She argued and demonstrated that the various felid species all came into existence through microevolution and accidentally proved that macroevolution is accumulated microevolution. As soon as she realized what she had done, she started frantically denying it and redefining practically every word in the dictionary.There's also the little matter of Georges Cuvier (Jean Lopold Nicolas Frdric Cuvier (23 August 1769 — 13 May 1832)), acknowledged founder of vertebrate paleontology. He was also strongly opposed to evolution and appeared to believe in The Flood. I read some of his writings at university. Based on his examination of animal mummies brought to France from Egypt and comparison with modern animals, he concluded that there had been no evolutionary change for most of the history of the world.The problem that Cuvier poses for the "basic created kinds" claim is that he leaves creationists with far less time for species to have evolved after the Flood. Those mummies he examined and found to be identical to modern animals dated from right after the Flood. Instead of having several thousands of years, creationist evolution had less than a thousand, maybe a few centuries or days. The radically extreme speed required by creationist evolution is now required to be that much greater. And ludicrous.

Oops, my mistake. That should have been P. concolor(Puma) P. pardus(Panthera/Leopard) = (Pumapard)

While I'm reading The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark you can read this.

Great true story and factual and geological and biological.....Noah built the boat for decades, and finally it got put to use, even with the mockery of those around him....NoahsArkAnd as we know or anyone can find out, Jesus himself confirmed Noah and His ARKJesusconfirmedNoahandtheFloodHence, Christians who deny the Flood and deny Noah's life, are on pretty shaky slippery ground when they contradict Jesus HIMSELF

Why stop there?Cats, dogs, seals, and bears (to name a few) are part of the Carnivora kind. We are also part of the mammal kind with other mammal species. There is also the amniote, vertebrate, and eukaryote kinds. The Species Problem is a human problem. There is no law in nature that says species must fit into black and white categories because humans want them to. The Species Problem is simply human bias.If evolution is true then we should have the "Species Problem". Complete speciation doesn't occur in a single generation with evolution, so there should be a period of time where separate populations should still be able to produce fertile offspring. The second sentence contradicts the first sentence.If the links in that chain of hybridization are lost to extinction then you would have two separate kinds as determined by hybridization.Added in edit:I would also be curious to an answer to this question. Would you consider the genetic differences between species in the "cat kind" to be a good measure for what constitutes a kind? Given your inability to define what a kind is, how could you know which species belong to which kinds?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.