Changes

:: # 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.   

:# 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.   

:: # 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." 

::# 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.

 

::# 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.

:: # 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. [[User:Cypam|Cypam]] 15:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::# 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.

::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:07, 30 May 2007 (EDT)