Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Someone hasn’t been keeping up. One of your references used Michael Denton as a source. Denton’s latest book affirms a completely naturalistic history for life, including its beginning.
The idea that populations resist change is not unique to creationism or ID. This is probably the single most investigated area of evolutionary biology. You could say that rocks resist erosion, but the Appalachians are more eroded than the Rockies.
LOL. I suppose they just get together with the bildeburgers every year and agree on what to lie about.
[[Denton’s latest book affirms a completely naturalistic history for life, including its beginning.]]
I’m afraid it simply affirms an opinion for those hwo beleived anyways- again, the affirmation is based not on the facts of the evidnece, but the affirmation goes further, beyond the evidence, and bases an opinion- not fact on what the evidence might suggest. In order for Denton to ‘affirm a completely naturalistic history for life’ in light of the absense of factual data, he would need to base his opinion on assumption that common descent is true. Since htere is no way to test whether it is infact true, and since there is no way to make the diffinitive statement basedo n that fact, there is no way one can ‘affirm a naturalistic history’. I’m not sure what or how Denton can make that affirmation. It may be his own opinionated conclusion that there is enough anecdotal evidneces to convince him, but for many, there simply is nowehre near enough, nor is there any biological evidneces ot suggest it- only assumptions of somethign that ‘happened in the past’
We have an entire legal system that imprisons people and even executes people based on opinions about what happened in the past.
Your healthy skepticism is noted, however. I wonder if you apply it to the claims of religion.
As far as I can tell, Baraminology doesn't predict anything.
It doesn't predict discontinuity among taxa, it merely observes that it exists. Their terms don't even have strict definitions and they're still arguing over how much science they intend to include.
The main goal of Baraminology seems to be to preserve the 24 day of Genesis in the creation of life as opposed to the modern understanding of geology and biology.
Here's a paper from one of the Study Group's conferences in 2003.
You don’t believe Einstein’s general relativity tensor can be used to show that empty space generates curvature by virtue of being empty??? /sarcasm
I agree with you. It’s gibberish.
Even if they could come up with some affect, the Pioneer anomoly isn’t an acceleration of the spacecraft away from the sun, its an acceleration towards the sun, where all the mass is.
If I look at that paper, it might make me dumber. I don’t think I’ll take the chance.
[[Your healthy skepticism is noted, however. I wonder if you apply it to the claims of religion.]]
Actually yeah I do- but that is my own personal battles with God which do nothign to undermine my Faith or affect my eternal salvation in the end, as the actual salvation experience was a very real life altering experience which was confirmed by the Holy Spirit, the very real xsense of being set free from sin (not that that means I never sin, but I’m free from the penalty of sin now), and by the continual ongoing relationship that is continually confirmed by a personal experience with God, but yes, they do cause some fallible misunderstanding fueled questioning of God by me at times- but thanks for asking.
[[We have an entire legal system that imprisons people and even executes people based on opinions about what happened in the past.]]
And yes, that’s true, however, as you know, many mistakes are made and the whole truth is a very elusive prize. While evidence can indicate an outcome, what isn’t known can also indicate other equally valid outcomes that are closer to hte truth than the outcome that is decided on even unanimously.
[[It doesn’t predict discontinuity among taxa, it merely observes that it exists.]]
What a crock- The Phylogenetic system doesn’t even predict discontinuity because obviously that would be a problem for it- Baraminology predicted discontinuity, found discontinuity and thusly predicted correctly- Are you by chance attempting a biased downplaying of prediction and contemptuously insulting it by suggesting the predictions aren’t important? Because if you are, if you’re looking down your nose at it, then you must also look down your nose at the predictions of evo science who, in your own words ‘simply observe’ the predictions they made when they find what they are looking for. Cripes-
[[The main goal of Baraminology seems to be to preserve the 24 day of Genesis in the creation of life as opposed to the modern understanding of geology and biology.]]
That’s another crock- The classes BETTER fit a scientific discontinuity model than they do a common ancestry model, and many instances of evidneces are observed and study to show this- You may dissagree, and htink that the lack of evidence supporting common ancestry isn’t a problem for your particular beleif, but snidely downplaying a ligit alternative to your beleif in no way dimishes hte ligitimacy of the Baraminoly system. I hate ot break it to you- but the Phylogenetic classification system isn’t hte infallible end all be all system you seem to think it is- so please, spare us the silly little high horse insults. Attacking hte character of somethign you dissagree with without showing scientific eviudence WHY it it might be wrong is nothing but a petty, uninformed attempt to silence something out of ignorance. If you’ve got scientific evidence Baraminolgy isn’t a scientific method, then please, do post it, otherwise, your unscientific opinions are really nothing but pettiness lacking in substance.
[[If I look at that paper, it might make me dumber. I don’t think I’ll take the chance.]]
Attaboy- avoid the subject because you can’t produce anythign significant to discount it- lol-
Baraminology predicted discontinuity, found discontinuity and thusly predicted correctly...
Observation is not prediction. Baraminologists still can't agree on a definition of a baramin and are looking to Hebrew scholarship of the Old Testament to help solve their problem.
The classes BETTER fit a scientific discontinuity model than they do a common ancestry model, and many instances of evidneces are observed and study to show this
Again baraminologists haven't yet defined what a "class" is. I'll simply quote the article,
Nevertheless, we do find Biblical support both for discontinuity between high-ranking taxonomic groups (here we suggest supraordinal taxa) and for continuity among species...The description of their creation on different days also supports discontinuity among these major groups of organisms.
[[Again baraminologists haven’t yet defined what a “class” is. I’ll simply quote the article,]]
There most certainly is a working definition of class which more closely describes the major taxon than does the hypothesis of common anscestry. Shal I point out the major classifications problems with Phylogeny? Are you asserting that a system needs to be problem free to be concidered ‘true science’? The definiotion of ‘class’ is based on several criteria, which as you know full well, presents a problem even amoung phylogentic classifications. Again, if you have scientific evidence that Baraminology isn’t a valid classification, then present it. Their definitions of Class isn’t nearly as problematic as you make it out to be, and infact is LESS problematic than the phylogentic one- They’ve been able to take hte scientific evidences, based on several ligitimate fields’s explanations, and coem to a logical conclusion that you may or may not agree with- but an objective annalysis shows to be as ligit if not more so than previous examples of classifications.
[[Observation is not prediction.]
That is bull dookie- Evos ‘predicted’ that we should double hinged jaws, and by golly, they found a double hinged jaw animal- they took evidence that they had, predicted what could be OBSERVED in the fossil record, and it was found to be true when the double hinged jaw was found.
Baraminology predicts that there will be a genetic disconect between major classes, they find evidnece that supports this throguh testing and observation.
Please, srop the disingenious insults about ‘it’s just observation’ because the majority of science is based on observation. You’re attemptinjg to downplay this issue and make it out that it is so simplistic that it shouldn’t be called science when the FACT is that there is Far Far more to the system than observation. It is more scientifically involveed than you are willing to admit because doing so would undermine your ‘it’s simple observation’ insult. Your argument is severely lacking in scientific rebuttles.
[[Baraminologists still can’t agree on a definition of a baramin and are looking to Hebrew scholarship of the Old Testament to help solve their problem.]]
That is also fALSE- The originator of the term Baraminology has point blank stated that the bible doesn’t offer nearly enough precision to form the Baraminological system- that’s why they have turned to the stringent scientific evidneces to form the system.
You’re subjective opinion is fine- but if you’re going to argue that Baraminolgy isn’t valid, then you need to show scientific evidence that everythign has common anscestry- until then, your objections are as I said, seriously lacking and border on petty objections. Baraminologist explain classes just fine- Making out like the whole system is flawed because there is some dissagreement on some obscure taxon deep within the classes is disingenious simply because the system that you yoursdelf put so much faith in is equally, if not more so flawed. You forget to mention that part, and you forget to implicate your own system as invalid when you one-sidedly malign something you dissagree with.
If you can show that the following classifications aren’t valid classifications, then by all means do so- but to make the insinuation that the classification system is seriously flawed is false, it isn’t- and htere isn’t major dissagreements on major points- there may be dissagreements on obscure points- but if you’re going to nitpick about that and suggest it isn’t ligit classification as a result- then the intellectually honest hting to do is to reject your own classification system as being unscientific because that suffers the same problems-
Explain scientifically why holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, polybaramin, archaebaramin, neobaramin and paleobaramin aren’t ligitmate classifications. I’m not interested in your biased opinion- I’m asking for the scientific evidence showing why it isn’t valid.
You have yet to specify what the discontinuity is.
Well you certainly are passionate in your support. I give you credit for that.
Unfortunately the literature on your topic doesn’t support anything you say. In the excerpt I gave you the BSG had to resort to the evilutionist terms just to communicate their ideas. That article is on their current reading on their website.
Why don’t you just define a baramin for me based on your interpretation and we’ll go from there?
From DarwinCentral.org's blog. Deals with baraminology.
no doubt nothign but biased info- much like has been posted here by those that can’t stand hte idea that their system might have problems ando ne might be more precise.
[[In the excerpt I gave you the BSG had to resort to the evilutionist terms just to communicate their ideas.]]
Gasp- you’re kidding me, right? They ... shriek ... ‘borrowed a term’? From Evolutionists no less?
Sorry—
Are you suggesting the science of evolutionists is off limits to creationists?
[[Why don’t you just define a baramin for me based on your interpretation and we’ll go from there?]]
My itnerpretation? I’d do it disservice as it is, as you know, a very complicated highly detailed system much akin to Phylogenetics which uses many many different scinetific criteria to classify Taxon. I gave a link a page or so ago that has some pretty good explanations of how they go about classifying based on scientific criteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.