You linked a series of someone’s personnel blogs that lack any coherent organization. They certainly contained no definitions of terms or scientific reasoning.
You didn’t even include the BSG’s site which concludes that there is no current, satisfactory definition of a baramin.
Do you have a working definition of a baramin or not?
If you can’t even define the term, how can you support any of your claims?
[[You linked a series of someone’s personnel blogs that lack any coherent organization. They certainly contained no definitions of terms or scientific reasoning.]]
Not sure what wasn’t coherent about the explanations of how the different Baramins are determined through scientific evidences- but I guess if you can’t see the explanations that are plainly outlined, oh well- I both listed a site that explained the different baramins, as well as posting htem here.
[[Do you have a working definition of a baramin or not?]]
Absolutely- I’ve listed the defining scientific Criteria for determining Classifications- the only thing you can produce to claim that KINDS isn’t a valid terminology is a biased opinion based on the unproven, unsupported idea that everythign is related by common anscestry.
If you can prove that Baraminology can’t use a scientific classification of Major kinds using several different scientific criteria which support the term KINDS, then you have got an argument- if you can’t- then all you’ve got is a biased antagonistic opinion on the matter- and as such, this conversation is at a standstill. Almost every major KIND has been determined using many scientific criteria- so, again, if you have some proof that it isn’t valid (and I don’t want ot hear the tired out generalized “You can’t even decide on Kinds” which is a lie- as there are sonly some obscure species deep within the system which are problematic to BOTH sides classification systems) then present it- otherwise- as I mentioned- this ocnversation can’t proceed further.
You misrepresent what the BSG site is saying and are attemtping to make out htat the whoile system is flawed when it absultely is not. And I’m sorry, but quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of having to repeatedly point those biased generalized statements out
[[If you can’t even define the term, how can you support any of your claims?]]
Shall we go to the Phylogentic system and point out hte problems and point to the claims and then make the false claim that the whole system is flawed because soem scientists can’t even agree on some obscure points deep within the myriad of species which presents major problems with the system on a specific minor point?
You claim we ‘can’t even define the terms of Baramins’- that is a flat out misleading falsehood. you said ‘term’ but there are TERMS within Baraminology that use strict scientific critieria to determine KINDS- Many different Criteria which are widely accepted as being factual- so please- enough with the accusation that the whole system is flawed because some dissagree about some entirely obscure points deep within the system which are problems for Phylogony classification placvements as well. Disingeniously putting the onus of perfection on one system that you dissagree with while fully excusing the imperfectiosn of your own system is a dishonest argument for your points.
Again- If you can show Baraminology isn’t valid, that Kinds aren’t a valid terminology, that discontinuity doesn’t happen- fine- otherwise- as I said, I’m not intrerested in anyone’s biased antagonistic, unrealistic comments and requirements used as some hypocritical measuring stick with which to excuse their own problems while expeciting absulte perfection from another system they dissagree with. you make false accusations that carry insinuations that are blatantly miusleadingly untrue- You complain about the actual term Baramin whiuch as you correctly point out isn’t entirely agreed upon as to where it comes from or what the precise meanings are- (knowing full well that the general understanding fits just fine) but you absolutely neglect to point out that the many different classifications that I repeatedly listed are based on solid scientific criteria and show- very nicely that that each species KIND fits within the subcategories. The niggling argument about the differences in the Term is nothign but a hand waving dissmissal of the fact that it isn’t even relevent to the systems whole. The major point of Baraminology is scientifically sound as are manyt of the subpoints of the Phylogentic system. Arguing that it isn’t valid because there are soem minor dissagreements is I’m sorry to say lame.
[[which concludes that there is no current, satisfactory definition of a baramin.]]
Thati s falsely misleading- there are many satisfactory and accepted classifications within Baraminolgy- many of which are used by your own system.
Present hte science showing it isn’t valid or I’ll simply keep reposting htis post when you make the same falsely misleading accusations time and time again, and point out that you are disingeniously putting an unrealistic onus on soemthign you dissagree with while ignoring hte problems of the system you accept where many ALSO dissagree about MOOT points not relevent ot the system as a whole!!!