[[You’ve simply made a vague claim.
What, exactly is your claim?]]
I didn’t make a claim- Sir Ed made the claim that Baraminolgy isn’t predictive- Baraminology certainly is predictive.
Ed- JS- we’re getting nowhere here- arguing moot points that are easily provable, and the discussion has devolved into a symantic merry-go-round which has no merrit in light of hte issues that were being discussed- The original statement By Sir ed was that Baraminology isn’t science becaUSE’ it isn’t predictive’ which is false and easily refutted- Now, the others in this thread are discussing an interesting topic- let’s give them the floor
Then you will have no trouble posting some links supporting your position.
It seems odd to me that the evolution critics with the most to gain from such a revelation -- Behe, Dembski, and Yockey -- have not mentioned it.