Cottshop, you don't even know your own creationist talking points!
Baraminology means study or taxonomy of the created kinds. See Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and appears on the christiananswers.net website.
This article notes that the word "baramin" was conceived by Frank L. Marsh and first published in 1941; it is derived from the Hebrew verb bara, create and min, kind.
And what is a "kind?" I am surprised you don't know. You have been asked many times just on this thread. “Kinds” are, as Frair writes in the above cited article, “categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week.”
And how do you know what is in each kind? Easy! We are told that scripture has priority over all other considerations.
We are also told that:
Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) “every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. SourceIn other words, "kinds" is a purely religious term with no relation to science.
If you’re not going to follow along- then please- don’t post- You just posted EXACTLY what I said about KINDS- Cripes- pay attention! I even gave a link explaining exactly what it was/
Yawn- another false accusation- how surprising of you.
[[In other words, “kinds” is a purely religious term with no relation to science.]]
You really haven’t got a clue do you? Baramin is a much deeper classification system than the pathetic attempt at deriding it by you suggests, and if you aren’t going to be honest and are going to deceive, then again- don’t post-
Since you decide to be dishonest- I’ll point out your dishonesty and post the following FACTS about baraminology so that others can see for themselves that you just patently lied!
-—”In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry.” Etc etc.
-—”The second term used in baraminology is monobaramin (mono, from the Greek for single or one). The term monobaramin is defined by ReMine (1993, p. 444) as:
a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof).
When a holobaramin is represented by a tree, one or more branches of that tree would be a monobaramin. For example, among humans, the caucasians would be a monobaramin” etc etc
-—”A third baraminic term is apobaramin (Greek apo, away from), which “is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin” (Wise, 1999-2000). It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. “But it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it”. No member organism of a holobaramin within an apobaramin shares ancestry with any organism outside of its own holobaramin (this being based upon the definition of holobaramin).”
Anythign in there sound like ‘purely religious classifications’ Coyoteman? No? Didn’t think so- but you just keep right on spilling your little vitriolic deriding crap- meanwhile, I’ll keep pointing out the lies you’re telling!