Changes

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.  --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

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.  --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 10:40 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:06, 26 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 is not scientific?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 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?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) <small>(Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT))</small>

:::::: 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). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:22, 26 April 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). [[User:JoshuaZ|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.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 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.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 26 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:56, 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Genetic degradation ==

==Genetic degradation ==