Talk:Baraminology

From Conservapedia

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Genetic degradation 2 Human evolution 3 Cypam's edit 4 Plants on the ark?

This article is excellent, but I would like to know what sources the author used before I go in and editing. After all, perhaps he has better sources than I do. --Ashens 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

The best reference to date is the review article "Baraminology -- Classification of Created Organisms", by Wayne Frair, Ph.D, Originally published in CRS Quarterly, Vol. 37, Num. 2, Sept. 2000. I have added this reference to the article. Dr. Richard Paley 14:09, 27 February 2007 (EST)

As someone well-trained in biology, I would be interested in more support for this theory, for instance, physical/genetic evidence. Thanks. Palmd001 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Physical/genetic evidence for what exactly? The article is about a classification system. Philip J. Rayment 07:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. DrLib 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't really make sense. The categories are defined along the lines of interfertility; whether or not that is a meaningful basis for making a distinction is a matter of opinion, not something for which you produce evidence. It is, in fact, similar (but not the same) as the distinction for species. Do you want to offer evidence that the species definition is a "meaningful distinction"? Philip J. Rayment 22:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Not exactly. Baraminology makes a claim that these various species are distinct in an important physical sense, that they were created separately. The claim is made that this is scientific. It should therefore be testable. JoshuaZ 10:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Joshua's back! The claim that they were created separately should be testable, or the claim that they are or are not interfertile? The latter is testable, and that is the bit that's claimed to be scientific. And how do you test whether two creatures are the same or different species if one or both are known only from the fossil record? Does that mean that classification of most extinct creatures is not scientific? Philip J. Rayment 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT))

Whether classifications schemes for species are in general scientific is a difficult philosophical question. However, Baraminology unlike standard classification systems claims to be more than a classification system but a reflection of how things were actually created. Thus the lack of falsifiability becomes relevant. In particular, how can one ever tell that two species are definitely not in the same baramin? Answer: One can't. (I think there are also serious Biblical problems with baraminology but thats a separate issue). JoshuaZ 11:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

That sounds more like an objection to Baraminology on the grounds that the supernatural is involved, rather than an objection of any substance. And I don't accept that you can't ever tell that two creatures are definitely not in the same baramin. You probably can't at present, but an improved knowledge of the genetic code might allow us to determine that in the future. And I don't think that there are biblical problems with baraminology. Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If my objections were involvement of the supernatural that would be a serious problem by itself not an objection lacking substance. Once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. However, the problem is more serious than that- even without supernatural intervention, one still cannot say that any two animals are not in the same baramin. (It isn't at all clear how genetics would help matters. And if anything, baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a determinant because it almost certainly would put humans and chimps into the same baramin (citation forthcoming, give me a day or so)). Furthermore, there are serious Biblical problems- Leviticus 19:19 doesn't make much sense if baraminology is correct and moreover might even imply that attempts to interbreed to determine baramins are sinful. JoshuaZ 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It is rubbish to suggest that once the supernatural is involved, experiments are useless. Genetics would help if we can determine the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding. Given that, I fail to see how humans and chimps could possibly be put in the same baramin. As far as Leviticus 19:19 is concerned, see here and here. Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday. As to the matter of determining "the designed mechanism of preventing two different creatures breeding" I have never seen any baraminologist assert that there is a specific mechanism that has been implemented to prevent them from interbreeding (this would raise its own issues. What if for example the mechanism became inoperative due to a mutation). Incidentally, here is one example where baraminologists have rejected using genetics as a test: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html . Continuing on to the matter of Leviticus 19:19, the argument being made by Ross is not quite the same the argument I am making-the issues are 1) The verses even under the intertrepation given by AIG and its splinter group still imply that doing crossbreeding tests of fertility is Biblicaly forbidden 2) The simple meaning of the verse implies that there are groups which are somehow distinct but are able to interbreed. If not, it isn't at all clear to me what under their interpretation the verse is meant to prohibit. JoshuaZ 14:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

"Once the supernatural is involved you have no idea whats going on. For all you know you could have complete omphalism or could have the universe created last thursday.". That's only true if you have no knowledge of what the supernatural being might do. It is not an inherent problem of there being a supernatural being.

Creationists don't propose that God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try; they propose that God designed the creatures in such a way that they could not interbreed. A genetic mechanism would seem the obvious way to do this.

The link you provided does not (as far as I can see) say that baraminologists reject using genetics. I can see where they've found a particular genetic test ineffective, but that's not the same thing.

I didn't link to AiG, and CMI is not a "splinter group". Your reply indicates that you haven't read the links properly, as they specifically raise the possibility of the verse referring to not interbreeding between different breeds within the same baramin. And what you think the verses "imply" may not be what is actually meant. To put it another way, do you think the verses were meant to prohibit crossbreeding tests for the purposes of scientific research, or for other reasons?

Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

First, regarding the issue of supernatural beings, you assert that you might somehow know what the being will do. The whole point of something being supernatural is that you don't know- it doesn't follow laws of reality. One might have faith or such about the nature of such an entity but any question involving it is outside the purview of science. Continuing onwards, I didn't assert that "God steps in to stop two different baramin interbreeding every time they try", however no one has detected any such "genetic mechanism" as you assert and I again wonder what happens if a mutation disables that mechanism. As to the issue of rejection of genetic tests, the tests that were ineffective are the most basic genetic tests possible- it would be likely more accurate to say that the genetics do not support the existence of a separate human baramin (assuming that has any meaning). I'm not sure what you mean when you assert that CMI is nto a splinter group from AIG (what term would you prefer? Breakaway group?). I did read the links, and there response about the verses is less than satisfactory. Among other issues, they state verse uses the word k'layim כִּלְאַיִם rather than (min) מִין and try to argue that the verse is somehow talking about a different category. In fact, k'layim means a mixture, it isn't a parallel word, and then attack Ross for his poor understanding of hebrew. (The whole thing really isn't that suprising when you consider the word "baraminology" anyways). I don't pretend to know why God would make such a commandment, although the Talmud seems to think that this law is to prohibit essentially messing with the natural order as God constructed it. Now, if the natural order as constructed didn't have problematic interbreeding, that doesn't make much sense. JoshuaZ 22:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Although this is an old discussion, I should have replied to it at the time but must have overlooked doing so.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that the "whole point of something being supernatural is that you don't know"? One of the main points of the Bible is precisely to tell us something about the supernatural Being referred to as God.

If God doesn't step in to prevent two different baramin interbreeding every time they try, that suggests that there is a designed mechanism to prevent such. If a mutation disables that mechanism, then I guess it might fail to prevent it, but that's getting rather hypothetical, isn't it? And it is clearly wrong to claim that no one has detected any such genetic mechanism when we already know that there are very real genetic barriers to two different creatures interbreeding. Dogs and cats cannot interbreed, for example, because of just such genetic mechanisms.

If the tests for distinguishing human baramin are the most basic possible, doesn't that merely suggest that more specific tests would do a better job?

CMI is not a splinter or breakaway group from AiG simply because CMI is the older/parent group from which AiG "broke away".

Your response regarding Leviticus 19:19 doesn't make any sense. The link I provided pointed out that the verse is not talking about baramin. Your response doesn't deny that, and goes off on tangents.

And going back to your earlier response about species, I questioned whether species are any more testable, and your reply amounted to saying that baraminology is supposed to be about reality, so should be testable. Are you claiming that species definitions have nothing to do with reality?

Philip J. Rayment 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Genetic degradation

If Adam lived for 930 years, and humans have been around for about 6000 years, and now because of genetic degradation, the average human lifespan is (in the developed world) only between 77 and 81, you could plot some scary lines on a graph! (Top-of-my-head approx calculations: 90% decrease in 6000yrs, in another 6000yrs the average life expectancy would be about 8yrs) I'm sure that this would be to oversimplify things though, because the average lifespan of an ancient Greek was reportedly only 28 and many factors affect the figure, but presuming we're dealing with the upper-boundary of possible ages in Adam's age and current developed-world life expectancy, what is the principle or theory at work here behind the claim of the link between genetic degradation and life expectancy? Orgone 09:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I am guessing you could not read the article being cited. That website is experiencing temporary tech difficulties. Conservative 09:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ill read up on it when the sites back up, i just wondered if it was a speculative hypothesis or if there had been research in to the link aswell. Orgone 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I've replaced the link with a link to the original, and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after Noah's Flood. Philip J. Rayment 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Human evolution

I've removed from the article a comment that Elrond put in. Although in principle similar to a {{fact}} tag, it is not the sort of thing that should be in the article, and would be better discussed here. Below is the sentence from the article with Elrond's insertion bolded:

(This is in contrast to the conclusions of evolutionary theory, which holds that the same process that separated man from beast also separated the human races from one another (reference very much needed here...... it is highly doubtful that any mainstream evolutionary biologist believes this to be the case today)

I could believe that Elrond's point could be correct, hypothetically, but is it in practice? I also quote here a proposed explanation of evolution that Kww put on the evolution talk page[1] (my emphasis):

the prevailing scientific view is that all living organisms are descendants of a single common ancestor, and that all differences between these species are the result of evolution

This seems to be a direct contradiction of Elrond's claim.

Philip J. Rayment 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Cypam's edit

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:

1. Insertion of a claim that not all creationist accept baraminology. His reference supports that not all creationists are Christian (which is not disputed), bot not that not all creationists accept baraminology. And that is a claim that is not explicitly made in the article anyway.
2. Reinstatement of Aengus2's twice-previously-reverted claim of what some critics might claim plus a dogmatic statement that baraminologists are wrong. It has previously been reverted on the grounds of being an "uncited claim which fails to recognise the arguments". It is still uncited, and still misses the point (by being dogmatic), and any editor who reinserts it in this fashion (uncited and dogmatically) will earn themselves a block.
3. An obtuse paragraph that is clearly designed to parody the alleged difficulty of baraminology by being difficult itself. It is making an uncited opinion about baraminology in a way that is deliberately obtuse, and has been reverted three times by two different sysops. Reinstatement of it without approval (which will not be forthcoming without a compelling case being made) will also be grounds for a block.

Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

1. Not sure what your talking about. For example, in Apache myth there is no concept or word for "Noah's arc", therefore the notion of baraminology is not even defined in their logos. This is what is known in logic as "proof by construction," and follows directly with even a rudimentary understanding of language. For example, if you said "creationists believe in purgatory," and I showed that, for example, the Yanomono tribes of South America are characterized as creationists and yet have no judeo-christian suppositions (in particular a word purgatory) in their mythos, then the consequence of that is that not necessarily all creationists believe in purgatory. To publish something saying this is pointless. It would be equivalent to to asking for a reference that states that "not all rocks are trees." Such a statement is a proof by construction, simply using standard definitions.
2. What do you mean by dogmatic? It's possible your right, but based on your "techniques" then every sentence in the article needs to be cited. If you could possible clarify the point? It seems the point of knowledge is to resemble the truth by circumscribing the edges of the known (facts which are reproducible from the natural world) or hypothesized aspects of a problem. If however the only point is to re-assert a certain seemingly inviolable premise, then first off, it is a dictionary and not an encyclopedia, and second there is no need for any language whatsoever, you could just suffice with, "I am correct, you are wrong; because we say so."
3. No, it is rewording a colloquial criticism of baraminology in a way meant to be suggestive of the tendency of baraminologists to conveninetly ignore reality by superimposing a transparent and simplistic collection of terms which are bijective onto already existing terms, but affectively create an illusion of depth. For example, if I rename cooking to lilkhast, and then proceed to define known cookware with words that end in "lilk", this has not effectively accomplished anything but perhaps a sort of re-invention of Babel. Cypam 15:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

1. I didn't realise that you were talking about "traditional" creation stories. In that case, you are technically correct in saying that baraminology doesn't apply to all creationists, but note two things: (1) Believers in those creation stories are not normally what is understood by the term "creationist" (and how many actually believe those stories today anyway?), and (2) I'm yet to be convinced that non-Christian creationists such as Muslim and Jewish creationists don't go along with baraminology. So at best, your statement limiting it to just Christians has yet to be shown to be the case.
2. By "dogmatic", I mean that you were asserting something to be true without anything to substantiate it. Specifically, "incontrovertible evidence for mutations and natural selection at the molecular level". You are making a claim that it is impossible to deny the evidence that is supposedly against baraminology. I also said in my edit comment that your edit "fails to recognise the arguments". The point is, that creationists accept that there are mutations, and accept natural selection (which was first described by a creationist), but reject that the existence of these two mechanisms refute baraminology.
3. Whether it is intended as a parody or to "be suggestive" is splitting hairs. Either way, it is totally unnecessary. Your assertion that baraminologists are using obscure terms to ignore reality is itself an unsubstantiated assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 23:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Plants on the ark?

plants

not included on the ark? survived the flood? comments?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kcarey (talk)

Plants were not mentioned as being on the ark, although there would have been plant material for the purposes of food, and this might have included seeds that could be planted after the flood. Apart from that, plants could have survived in floating mats of vegetation outside the ark. Philip J. Rayment 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)