Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Baraminology

2008-11-29T23:22:22Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

the hypothesis that some unknown gene is lost and leads to shorter life, is at least possible hypothesis, though it is untested and they gave no good reason to belive it.
I think the telomere degredation in itself is a dead end, as studies with rats overexpressing telomerase (adds base pairs to keep telomers from degrading)just led to cancer. (you would need your telomers not to degrade, but many other things as well?) {{unsigned|Damien}}

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2)
And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

: "''How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point.''": I don't. All science is built on assumptions. How do we prove scientifically that we can trust our senses when we make scientific observations? How do we scientifically prove that our brains are correctly understanding what we observe? How do we scientifically prove that the laws of science have always been the same? Or are always the same throughout the universe? None of these can be scientifically proved. They are all foundational assumptions that we make. Many scientists also make the foundational assumptions that everything can be explained without resorting to invoking the supernatural, but that assumption can't be scientifically proved either. And some have a foundational assumption that the Bible accurately describes history. That also cannot be proved scientifically.
: "''The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text.''": You say that as though a "religious text" is inherently unreliable, but what we are talking about here is claimed to be an account provided by the omniscient and infallible Creator, and if that claim is correct, there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.
: "''There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise).''": See [[biblical accuracy]]. A very large number of the Bible's claims can be tested, and very many of those claims have been shown to be correct.
: "''It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.''": We don't just "pick one" like tossing a coin. As alluded to above, the Bible has withstood a great deal of scrutiny.
: "''In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out''": In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out
: "''(ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point).''": Incorrect. Dating methods are refuted with solid arguments. They are not simply "thrown out".
: "''It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.''": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the ''wrong'' view? And how is it different from evolution in this regard?
: "''Science is not biased like this...''": No, science isn't, but ''scientists'' often are.
: "''...unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view...''": No, I don't.
: "''...and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result...''": No, they interpret data according to their naturalistic worldview.
: "''...but rather to disagree with Christianity...''": Yep, some of them do that[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/].
: "''...and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity...''": Yep, some do that too. See [[Flat Earth]]. Note that I'm still ''not'' claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.
: "''Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...''": Yep, there's evidence of that. See Lewontin quote linked above, for one. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4138/ here] for another.
: "''...or created evolution theory to attack the view of god...''": According to evolutionist Michael Ruse, "...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/].
: "''...our main theories-gravity, evolution etc ...''": Gravity is an example of something that we can observe and test. Microbe-to-man evolution is not observable or testable. They are like chalk and cheese, and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
: "''...deceits are found reasonably quickly.''": But we are not talking about deceit, but about a worldview that excludes God ''a priori''.
: "''However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?)...''": As I said, I don't. That is, I don't believe in a large number of scientists agreeing together to put forward a view that they know to be untrue.
: "''As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians...''": I said modern science generally, not every single field of science.
: "''...most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default''": As I pointed out, that they were Christians was not coincidental, but the reason they started science.
: "''They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc.''": No, they were coming from the ''basis'' (not bias) that God created the world. The idea that the sun revolves around the Earth predated the science (it originated with secular views) and was one of the first things thrown out by those creationary scientists.
: "''That is what is happening today.''": That is what is ''supposed'' to happen with science, but that is not what is happening with evolution.
: "''I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)''": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?
: "''As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories)...''": No, it is not necessary. I also know many Christians who are scientists, and they don't see the need for this.
: "''...while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science).''": Teaching based on events that didn't occur are meaningless (e.g. a teaching of the Bible is that when a man and woman marry, they become one, because they were one originally (i.e. God made Eve from Adam). So if they weren't one originally (Adam and Eve didn't exist), where does that leave the "underlying" teachings?). And biblical faith is trust ''based on evidence'', not without or contrary to the evidence.[http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]
: "''If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...''": That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this. And yet I know of many scientists who ''have'' been convinced of creation ''because of the evidence''. That is, they became Christians for other reasons, but continued, like the scientists you know, to believe in evolution. They changed from evolution-believing Christians to creation-believing Christians ''because of the evidence''. Yes, in most cases they were Christians first, but given that you ''can't'' believe in creation without believing in God, that's not surprising. That is, going from believing in evolution to believing in creation, or believing in no God to believing in God, is a ''big'' change. It's a doubly-large change to do both at once, to it's not surprising that one happens before the other, and they are not going to believe in creation without believing in God, so believing in God comes first. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they then start to believe in creation ''because of the evidence''.
: "''(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am)''": When they are indoctrinated into just one view, and they have that much peer pressure, what else would you expect?
: "''a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree''": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview. If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't ''want'' to believe this. And it is true that most never see the creation science data.
: "''I doubt A,B and C''": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?
: "''by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable.''": What about detecting the results of? For example, concluding that design exists in living things so there must be a designer? You are not directly detecting the supernatural, but you are detecting evidence of His existence.
: "''You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence.''": There is plenty of evidence of God's existence. Are you unaware of it?
: "''In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything...''": And yet you do, as I mentioned. You assume that your brains are capable of correctly understanding the data, and that your senses are accurately observing that data, for starters.
: "''...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly''": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.
: "''If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god.''": No I don't. As explained above, ''all'' views start with ''some'' assumptions. It is unreasonable to ask of me something that you don't ask of yourself. If you wish to assert that scenario 2 is correct, that God is not involved, you first must give ''evidence'' that all things ''can'' be explained without God. Or accept that basic assumptions are involved in any scenario.
: "''I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct ''": Naturalism claims to know what it will show ahead of time—that naturalism is correct. It works both ways.
: "''THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG''": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.
: "''If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)''": Evolutionists think the same way. And for the biblical view, that's actually worked pretty well in the past. Archaeologists used to claim that the Hittites recorded in the Bible never existed. But the Bible was right and the archaeologists were wrong. That example can be multiplied many times over. If something appears to disagree with the Bible, it's probably not the Bible that's wrong, based on past experience.
: "''Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point.''": Agreed. But ''scientists'' do. Why is it that you seem to consider ''secular'' scientists as synonymous with "good science", but not creationary scientists? Please either talk about ''science'', or ''scientists''. Don't conflate the two.
: "'' there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption''": There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful. Observations are that things that are ''designed'' well work well, and things that are ''poorly designed'', or ''not designed'', '''don't''' work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should ''expect'' that they give us poor information.
: "''Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.''": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work ''despite not being designed''. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint ''despite'' the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!
: "''How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...''": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?
: "''(that is why i choose senerio 2) And It is tested to a small degree ''": But that test is of a ''prediction'' made by scenario 3, not scenario 2!
: "''...my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific''": It's just as scientific as the naturalistic view.
: "''...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...''": Just as does naturalism.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your informative responses. I very much value challenging my view points. After all if you can’t challenging them and still believe them you shouldn,t hold them (this we probably agree on, but just come up on the side of opposing views).
My main points perhaps need to be clarified
1) I think the assumption we can trust our senses, is a lesser assumption than we have all the answers in the bible (history , how and when the world was created etc.).
- if the bible was correct our senses would lead us to this conclusion eventually anyways
2)“In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out”
‘Many scientists have a good counter argument to data and do not simply throw it out. If not how do you account for most scientists not excepting this data, and most of the creation science work not being published in secular science journals. That is without resorting to a mass conspiracy as an answer, as it would no longer be a few individuals it would be a large majority of people going to conferences, writing text books, reviewing journals--your everyday go to work scientist who is sent the article to review.
Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.”
“and gullible followers who swallow that.” - I think you underestimate how much , interpreting data, critique and debate is done at any conference or when a peer review is done.
3) As for my use of science vs. scientist I suppose I should be more careful. Let me clarify:
I agree scientific merthods are not biased, and that scientists can be. However so many scientists come from so many different back grounds and different biases, I can’t imagine getting all these scientists to agree to publish something that isn’t convincing data or at least a good starting point . The method of a rigorous peer review will eliminate a lot of this bias(of coarse not all), as the biases will be different (various culture, religions, etc.)- this leads me to belive that in general the literature is heading towards the correct answers in most fileds including evolution, (with some hick ups along the way). And that it isn’t fundamentally flawed in regards to the majority of what gets published in this field. - I guess we disagree

4) “…and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
The assumption of evolution is very fundamental in science in many fields. It speeds up research in many areas
1) DNA regulation
2) figuring out undefined metabolic pathways in an organism
3) identifying how various cellular secretion systems work and what protiens are involved

4) targeting drugs to retroviruses (ex. HIV)
-Most scientist in these fields believe in evoloution, and use it’s assumptions everyday to forward there work faster…. (I realise HIV still has no cure ,but the some drugs and many new novel ideas on how to defeat HIV we have would not be available if it wasn’t for our assumptions of evoltution)

5) “"I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?”

- I appologise for putting words in you mouth. I was in error. This was the view of the people I have talked to who were creationists. It is very possible it is not the view of the majority. I didn’t even realise there was a standard “creationist view” on these things. However this was not part of any main point I was making and not that relevant to the discussion. I have a better understanding o science particularily of molecular biology and evolution, than these side matters and will try to restrain my comments to theses things.

6) "Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...": Yep, there's evidence of that.

Bias may explain on or two people, why do the majority agree I don’t think it’s a hate of god as many scientists believe in one ( even evolutionary ones)

7) If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...": “That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this”
- I believe they are.. Scientists often change their minds on things in the face of good evidance. Some of them may be things they have steaked their careers on. Yet in the face of data had no choice but to change their minds.
I don’t belive the majority to be so unobjective. It wouldn’t be overnight but the popular view would change in the face of the evidance. That’s how all theories come to be accepted. You would want it to be a rigorous process and it is.

8) "...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.

That’s a shame that that happened ( or if frauds are still in texts) but these are hardly the corner stone of evolutionary theory and doesn‘t reflect significantly on the validity of the theory as a whole. There are so many better reasons in countless subjects to believe in evolution .I doubt a majority of these fields basic assumptions ( age of earth, the way we inherit genes, the majority of the fossil record, ) are all mostly frauds. The science community in general would call a fraud a fraud if found out - Unless you think really lowly of most scientist.

9) "THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.

Not true evolutionary theory changes in the face of new evidance, it must change and incorperate new findings to be relevant and fill in more details.
The bible is the bible AS IS, final answer.

10) There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful.

No….If they weren’t designed to give us useful information, they may tell us something useful or may not. These processes do not proclude useful senses, and evolution would infact select for things that are useful. But from a philosophical stand point you are correct in that we can’t know for sure if they are working to give us correct info., and that is why acknowledged it is my base assumption that we can trust our senses.

11) Observations are that things that are designed well work well, and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should expect that they give us poor information.

- Why do you assume only designed things work well? Many things in nature work well. Many scientists would say they are not designed. You say they are designed because you assume a designer. Of course you observe designed things work well and non-designed things don’t work well, when your criteria for differentiating designed from not designed is if it works well. How could you ever find a non-designed object that works well, when you assume all objects that work well are designed (and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well). Good evedance for design would be non-hearsey evidance of a designer.

12a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true - I doubt A,B and C.

“a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview-Again I think it does, we disagree.

“If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't want to believe this.”- I never understood this. Why wouldn’t I want this, unless I was a very imoral person most scientists I know are very moral. I think this wouldn’t likely explain many people .

And it is true that most never see the creation science data . - It would explain some not likely most certainly not all
"I doubt A,B and C": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?”

- D) is just A) added to C) as their world view would be changed unless :Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass ( as there are many scientists who have seen the data) say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true

13) “Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work despite not being designed. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint despite the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!

- Only if we assume non-designed things don’t work well, when our criteria for design is if it works well.. This is a self fulfilling prediction.

"How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?”

- It only supports our senses appear on the surface to work. And this was my only point . Despite the fact my sense work is an assumption, I have decent reason to believe this

14) "It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the wrong view?

-I don’t do this
- I think science should be taught in sceince class ( a section covering evolution in an aproppriate grade so they could understand it properly)

And that religion should be taught in a religion class ( with a section on creation beleifs (and their “science”) of all religions
And I am refering to in public schools for all people. It would promote tolerence.
And would solve the problem of people saying we only expose kids to one world view.

-Damien

Talk:Baraminology

2008-11-29T23:20:40Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

Talk:Baraminology

2008-11-29T23:18:45Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

the hypothesis that some unknown gene is lost and leads to shorter life, is at least possible hypothesis, though it is untested and they gave no good reason to belive it.
I think the telomere degredation in itself is a dead end, as studies with rats overexpressing telomerase (adds base pairs to keep telomers from degrading)just led to cancer. (you would need your telomers not to degrade, but many other things as well?) {{unsigned|Damien}}

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2)
And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

: "''How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point.''": I don't. All science is built on assumptions. How do we prove scientifically that we can trust our senses when we make scientific observations? How do we scientifically prove that our brains are correctly understanding what we observe? How do we scientifically prove that the laws of science have always been the same? Or are always the same throughout the universe? None of these can be scientifically proved. They are all foundational assumptions that we make. Many scientists also make the foundational assumptions that everything can be explained without resorting to invoking the supernatural, but that assumption can't be scientifically proved either. And some have a foundational assumption that the Bible accurately describes history. That also cannot be proved scientifically.
: "''The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text.''": You say that as though a "religious text" is inherently unreliable, but what we are talking about here is claimed to be an account provided by the omniscient and infallible Creator, and if that claim is correct, there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.
: "''There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise).''": See [[biblical accuracy]]. A very large number of the Bible's claims can be tested, and very many of those claims have been shown to be correct.
: "''It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.''": We don't just "pick one" like tossing a coin. As alluded to above, the Bible has withstood a great deal of scrutiny.
: "''In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out''": In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out
: "''(ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point).''": Incorrect. Dating methods are refuted with solid arguments. They are not simply "thrown out".
: "''It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.''": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the ''wrong'' view? And how is it different from evolution in this regard?
: "''Science is not biased like this...''": No, science isn't, but ''scientists'' often are.
: "''...unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view...''": No, I don't.
: "''...and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result...''": No, they interpret data according to their naturalistic worldview.
: "''...but rather to disagree with Christianity...''": Yep, some of them do that[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/].
: "''...and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity...''": Yep, some do that too. See [[Flat Earth]]. Note that I'm still ''not'' claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.
: "''Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...''": Yep, there's evidence of that. See Lewontin quote linked above, for one. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4138/ here] for another.
: "''...or created evolution theory to attack the view of god...''": According to evolutionist Michael Ruse, "...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/].
: "''...our main theories-gravity, evolution etc ...''": Gravity is an example of something that we can observe and test. Microbe-to-man evolution is not observable or testable. They are like chalk and cheese, and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
: "''...deceits are found reasonably quickly.''": But we are not talking about deceit, but about a worldview that excludes God ''a priori''.
: "''However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?)...''": As I said, I don't. That is, I don't believe in a large number of scientists agreeing together to put forward a view that they know to be untrue.
: "''As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians...''": I said modern science generally, not every single field of science.
: "''...most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default''": As I pointed out, that they were Christians was not coincidental, but the reason they started science.
: "''They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc.''": No, they were coming from the ''basis'' (not bias) that God created the world. The idea that the sun revolves around the Earth predated the science (it originated with secular views) and was one of the first things thrown out by those creationary scientists.
: "''That is what is happening today.''": That is what is ''supposed'' to happen with science, but that is not what is happening with evolution.
: "''I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)''": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?
: "''As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories)...''": No, it is not necessary. I also know many Christians who are scientists, and they don't see the need for this.
: "''...while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science).''": Teaching based on events that didn't occur are meaningless (e.g. a teaching of the Bible is that when a man and woman marry, they become one, because they were one originally (i.e. God made Eve from Adam). So if they weren't one originally (Adam and Eve didn't exist), where does that leave the "underlying" teachings?). And biblical faith is trust ''based on evidence'', not without or contrary to the evidence.[http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]
: "''If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...''": That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this. And yet I know of many scientists who ''have'' been convinced of creation ''because of the evidence''. That is, they became Christians for other reasons, but continued, like the scientists you know, to believe in evolution. They changed from evolution-believing Christians to creation-believing Christians ''because of the evidence''. Yes, in most cases they were Christians first, but given that you ''can't'' believe in creation without believing in God, that's not surprising. That is, going from believing in evolution to believing in creation, or believing in no God to believing in God, is a ''big'' change. It's a doubly-large change to do both at once, to it's not surprising that one happens before the other, and they are not going to believe in creation without believing in God, so believing in God comes first. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they then start to believe in creation ''because of the evidence''.
: "''(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am)''": When they are indoctrinated into just one view, and they have that much peer pressure, what else would you expect?
: "''a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree''": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview. If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't ''want'' to believe this. And it is true that most never see the creation science data.
: "''I doubt A,B and C''": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?
: "''by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable.''": What about detecting the results of? For example, concluding that design exists in living things so there must be a designer? You are not directly detecting the supernatural, but you are detecting evidence of His existence.
: "''You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence.''": There is plenty of evidence of God's existence. Are you unaware of it?
: "''In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything...''": And yet you do, as I mentioned. You assume that your brains are capable of correctly understanding the data, and that your senses are accurately observing that data, for starters.
: "''...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly''": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.
: "''If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god.''": No I don't. As explained above, ''all'' views start with ''some'' assumptions. It is unreasonable to ask of me something that you don't ask of yourself. If you wish to assert that scenario 2 is correct, that God is not involved, you first must give ''evidence'' that all things ''can'' be explained without God. Or accept that basic assumptions are involved in any scenario.
: "''I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct ''": Naturalism claims to know what it will show ahead of time—that naturalism is correct. It works both ways.
: "''THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG''": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.
: "''If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)''": Evolutionists think the same way. And for the biblical view, that's actually worked pretty well in the past. Archaeologists used to claim that the Hittites recorded in the Bible never existed. But the Bible was right and the archaeologists were wrong. That example can be multiplied many times over. If something appears to disagree with the Bible, it's probably not the Bible that's wrong, based on past experience.
: "''Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point.''": Agreed. But ''scientists'' do. Why is it that you seem to consider ''secular'' scientists as synonymous with "good science", but not creationary scientists? Please either talk about ''science'', or ''scientists''. Don't conflate the two.
: "'' there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption''": There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful. Observations are that things that are ''designed'' well work well, and things that are ''poorly designed'', or ''not designed'', '''don't''' work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should ''expect'' that they give us poor information.
: "''Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.''": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work ''despite not being designed''. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint ''despite'' the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!
: "''How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...''": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?
: "''(that is why i choose senerio 2) And It is tested to a small degree ''": But that test is of a ''prediction'' made by scenario 3, not scenario 2!
: "''...my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific''": It's just as scientific as the naturalistic view.
: "''...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...''": Just as does naturalism.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your informative responses. I very much value challenging my view points. After all if you can’t challenging them and still believe them you shouldn,t hold them (this we probably agree on, but just come up on the side of opposing views).
My main points perhaps need to be clarified

1) I think the assumption we can trust our senses, is a lesser assumption than we have all the answers in the bible (history , how and when the world was created etc.).
- if the bible was correct our senses would lead us to this conclusion eventually anyways

2)“In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out”
‘
Many scientists have a good counter argument to data and do not simply throw it out. If not how do you account for most scientists not excepting this data, and most of the creation science work not being published in secular science journals. That is without resorting to a mass conspiracy as an answer, as it would no longer be a few individuals it would be a large majority of people going to conferences, writing text books, reviewing journals--your everyday go to work scientist who is sent the article to review.

Note that I'm still not claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.”

“and gullible followers who swallow that.” - I think you underestimate how much , interpreting data, critique and debate is done at any conference or when a peer review is done.

3) As for my use of science vs. scientist I suppose I should be more careful. Let me clarify:
I agree scientific merthods are not biased, and that scientists can be. However so many scientists come from so many different back grounds and different biases, I can’t imagine getting all these scientists to agree to publish something that isn’t convincing data or at least a good starting point . The method of a rigorous peer review will eliminate a lot of this bias (of coarse not all), as the biases will be different (various culture, religions, etc.)- this leads me to belive that in general the literature is heading towards the correct answers in most fileds including evolution, (with some hick ups along the way). And that it isn’t fundamentally flawed in regards to the majority of what gets published in this field. - I guess we disagree

4) “…and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
The assumption of evolution is very fundamental in science in many fields. It speeds up research in many areas
1) DNA regulation
2) figuring out undefined metabolic pathways in an organism
3) identifying how various cellular secretion systems work and what protiens are involved

4) targeting drugs to retroviruses (ex. HIV)
-Most scientist in these fields believe in evoloution, and use it’s assumptions everyday to forward there work faster…. (I realise HIV still has no cure ,but the some drugs and many new novel ideas on how to defeat HIV we have would not be available if it wasn’t for our assumptions of evoltution)

5) “"I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?”

- I appologise for putting words in you mouth. I was in error. This was the view of the people I have talked to who were creationists. It is very possible it is not the view of the majority. I didn’t even realise there was a standard “creationist view” on these things. However this was not part of any main point I was making and not that relevant to the discussion. I have a better understanding o science particularily of molecular biology and evolution, than these side matters and will try to restrain my comments to theses things.

6) "Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...": Yep, there's evidence of that.

Bias may explain on or two people, why do the majority agree I don’t think it’s a hate of god as many scientists believe in one ( even evolutionary ones)

7) If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...": “That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this”
- I believe they are.. Scientists often change their minds on things in the face of good evidance. Some of them may be things they have steaked their careers on. Yet in the face of data had no choice but to change their minds.
I don’t belive the majority to be so unobjective. It wouldn’t be overnight but the popular view would change in the face of the evidance. That’s how all theories come to be accepted. You would want it to be a rigorous process and it is.

8) "...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.

That’s a shame that that happened ( or if frauds are still in texts) but these are hardly the corner stone of evolutionary theory and doesn‘t reflect significantly on the validity of the theory as a whole. There are so many better reasons in countless subjects to believe in evolution .I doubt a majority of these fields basic assumptions ( age of earth, the way we inherit genes, the majority of the fossil record, ) are all mostly frauds. The science community in general would call a fraud a fraud if found out - Unless you think really lowly of most scientist.

9) "THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.

Not true evolutionary theory changes in the face of new evidance, it must change and incorperate new findings to be relevant and fill in more details.
The bible is the bible AS IS, final answer.

10) There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful.

No….If they weren’t designed to give us useful information, they may tell us something useful or may not. These processes do not proclude useful senses, and evolution would infact select for things that are useful. But from a philosophical stand point you are correct in that we can’t know for sure if they are working to give us correct info., and that is why acknowledged it is my base assumption that we can trust our senses.

11) Observations are that things that are designed well work well, and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should expect that they give us poor information.

- Why do you assume only designed things work well? Many things in nature work well. Many scientists would say they are not designed. You say they are designed because you assume a designer. Of course you observe designed things work well and non-designed things don’t work well, when your criteria for differentiating designed from not designed is if it works well. How could you ever find a non-designed object that works well, when you assume all objects that work well are designed (and things that are poorly designed, or not designed, don't work well). Good evedance for design would be non-hearsey evidance of a designer.

12a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true - I doubt A,B and C.

“a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview-Again I think it does, we disagree.

“If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't want to believe this.”- I never understood this. Why wouldn’t I want this, unless I was a very imoral person most scientists I know are very moral. I think this wouldn’t likely explain many people .

And it is true that most never see the creation science data . - It would explain some not likely most certainly not all
"I doubt A,B and C": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?”

- D) is just A) added to C) as their world view would be changed unless :Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass ( as there are many scientists who have seen the data) say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true

13) “Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work despite not being designed. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint despite the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!

- Only if we assume non-designed things don’t work well, when our criteria for design is if it works well.. This is a self fulfilling prediction.

"How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?”

- It only supports our senses appear on the surface to work. And this was my only point . Despite the fact my sense work is an assumption, I have decent reason to believe this

14) "It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the wrong view?

-I don’t do this
- I think science should be taught in sceince class ( a section covering evolution in an aproppriate grade so they could understand it properly)

And that religion should be taught in a religion class ( with a section on creation beleifs (and their “science”) of all religions
And I am refering to in public schools for all people. It would promote tolerence.
And would solve the problem of people saying we only expose kids to one world view.

-Damien

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T21:07:24Z

Damien: /* Genetic degradation */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

the hypothesis that some unknown gene is lost and leads to shorter life, is at least possible hypothesis, though it is untested and they gave no good reason to belive it.
I think the telomere degredation in itself is a dead end, as studies with rats overexpressing telomerase (adds base pairs to keep telomers from degrading)just led to cancer. (you would need your telomers not to degrade, but many other things as well?)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2)
And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:50:48Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2)
And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:44:39Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on their reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-and can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this process in science (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance(that is why i choose senerio 2)
And It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:39:15Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. Ex. If ghosts exist one day we will be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:37:09Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 5 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:32:42Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (and needed to be to convince them)(earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.

As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:26:58Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:25:49Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:24:21Z

Damien: /* response to top section */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.
In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:21:51Z

Damien: /* Plants on the ark? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==response to top section==
A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific (it fits data to a preconcieved picture... it's fine just not science)
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:13:34Z

Damien: /* Genetic degradation */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

__TOC__
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)

:The best reference to date is the review article [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html "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. [[User:Rich P|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.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 11:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

::Physical/genetic evidence that the categories are meaningful distinctions, presumably. [[User:DrLib|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"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[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 creatures is not scientific? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT) (Edit: added 'creatures' to last sentence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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). [[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)
:::::::: 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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3161 here] and [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3419/86/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:JoshuaZ|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?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

For starters I’ll say I, like most people with a minor background in molecular biology believe in evolution. I am not trying to hide that. I’ll agree for the most part species and baramin are both just human invented classifications that have strict definitions. Species (from a phylogenetic point of view) classifies all living organisms by differences in 16/18s rRNA DNA sequence. This also puts them into predicted evolutionary lineages.

Baramin on the other hand simply place them in groups that can inter breed (doesn’t include plants?). This is fine. Where it breaks down is that it claims that each baramin is a form that was created. This (even if creationism is correct) is a hypothesis not a factual observable definition (like difference in DNA sequence or ability to inter breed). To show that this is the case you would need to show these forms are all that ever could breed together and others couldn’t breed with them in the past. This is hard to do and is no longer an observable classification, and not simple like a phylogenetic species, which is based on difference in DNA sequence (observable). This is assuming you have a supernatural creator god that can create these baramin.

This supernatural creator god in itself is unscientific as the supernatural must be assumed not to exist for the scientific method to work. Let’s look at your baramin for example.
You said:

“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,”
In a strict analytical sense you can not tell these situations apart. How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate. (Believe me they do, my bunny mounts my cat when it is in heat). How do you know the creatures were designed incompatible?

Ex. Lets say I’m trying to detect radiation in a room and I have an instrument that can do so. If I believe in the supernatural there is no way to know my results on my instrument are not being interfered with every time, after all this supernatural being is capable of it. This goes for all data all the time if you come from a stand point that, yes the supernatural is a reasonable possibility. All data all the time becomes unreliable, as you will never be able to distinguish when it is being interfered with (after all this being is capable of anything right… that would include altering results and covering its tracks so that this interference could not be detected). Thus supernatural explanations must be excluded from the scientific method. So most creationist’s real problem is with the scientific method despite what they say.

As for Baramins one thing still confuses me. The baramin entry includes the following while speaking of baramin:

“An example would be dogs, which form a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark”
If all baramin come from a single pair of animals rescued by the ark, and all mutations are destructive. (Degrading the perfect form created by god) how are there more than 4 positive functional alleles at a given loci in an animals genome. 4 should be the max number of different alleles at a given genetic loci that lead to a positive phenotypes (if mutations are only destructive and never lead to new positive genetic information). However many animal have many genes where there are more than 4 alleles for a particular gene. How does creation science account for this genetic diversity?

-Damien Rivers

: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I am sorry for asking the same question on 2 boards my computer crashed and I didn't remember wiich discussion I had posted on, came here (As I thought this is where I had posted) and decided to post agian as I thought my original post did not upload.
: Fair enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

A) I meant to say bacteria are not included in Baramin ? As most reproduction is clonal.
B) Was referring to the phylogenetic definition of species it is specific

My main point is that you can’t tell 1 and 3 apart. How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3, to make it a scienetific view point. The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text. There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise). It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith. In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out (ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point). It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific. Science is not biased like this, unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view, and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result, but rather to disagree with Christianity, and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity, then creation science would have a point.( ie. Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god, or created evolution theory to attack the view of god, not because it’s based on good data). I’m not saying the odd scientist has never exaggerated data maybe even to attack god –however larger underlying conclusions accepted in our main theories-gravity, evolution etc .have so many people building on the last persons work errors and deceits are found reasonably quickly. However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?), well I guess In that case you would have a point, and it would be two equally biased systems disagreeing. However I don’t think this is the case. As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians ( most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default). They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc. Slowly as the tested data from a scientific view point came in they needed to change their views, and did, as the evidence was so overwhelming (earth revolves around the sun). The evidence was so good they needed to change their view point. That is what is happening today. I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?). As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories) while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science). If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.) but you don’t see this very often if ever.(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am). The only ways to account for this and for creation science to be correct are

a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if the did would agree
b) scientists in general have terrible analytical minds and simply can’t understand what’s in front of them
c) Simlpy refuse to believe, and in a mass conspiracy say it’s false, but in their hearts know it’s true
- I doubt A,B and C.
As for senerio 2 vs senerio 3: by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable. We may one day be able to detect, qualify and quantify ghosts, but as of right now, I don’t see evidence for them and don’t beleive. That is generally how science works, You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence. In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything (are there monkeys or not- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence monkeys exist then I’ll believe you, how did different species come about, make a hypothesis (ie evolution)- collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence, then I’ll believe (ie evolution.)). Nowadays there is too much data to test it all for yourself so we put it in peer reviewed journals- which I concede we trust (you can however reproduce anything in it if you wanted, there is enough data to do this- in popular subjects frauds are found quickly, if it is in a less significant /popular subject it may take longer to find frauds, as nobody may build on there reseach for awhile .Like it or not frads are not that common, but do occur-but can be found by reproducing the data).God is not exempt from this (that is why at the beginig I ask you to give testable evidence of senerio 3 to make it scientific). Science doesn’t comment on god, as nobody has even given enough evidence for it’s existence.(is there a god or not –collect significant testable, reproduceable evidence- then I’ll believe you). If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god. Then give evidence he would not interfere even though he could (In science we don’t know of god, let alone the personality of god to know he would not behave like in your senerio 1, so you must give evidence).

Assumptions:
Senerio 3 (creation science version) requires the assumption
1) There is a god (not proven assumed)
2) god created the universe (and us)(not proven assumed)
3) he created us so we can trust our senses- he didn’t have to (we assumed he did this because he wanted to- ie create us in his image thinking beings)
4) he created it with rules, rules that we can test for that he can interfere with, but is a nice guy so he won’t—(not proven) 3 on is for literal christian interpretation only

5) he gave us a lteral history in the bible and all data must agree with this
6) If observations appear to disagree with this, there is something we don’t know that we will need to find that will make it fit to this view we just need to look for it (ie.age of the universe is 6000 years- speed of light used to be faster, god created light on the way here,the truth can’t simlpy be what it appears now as it disagrees with the known truth )[I’m not saying there is never more to the story about a given field, I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct .THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG- If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)

--Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point. It just takes look at the data and sees where it points (it may be wrong for awhile - more often in complete, but new data will fill in the picture as it comes )

You said: What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions? Yes I suppose you are correct (though there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption). We may all be a giants dream we may not really exist (your god and any experience you could have with it, the bible, creation science, may be part of this dream and you wouldn’t know either.) We may have been created by god as you said, or we may be thinking computer program, and don’t know it, and all the other first year philosophy questions. This may be true, but then that asks the question: what is reality other than our experience in it? – everyone assumes their experience is reality, Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses. How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense (though agreed not fully scientific-as all this may be an illusion ie. Part of a dream) but if we are all wrong about our senses, that still would have no barring on how things seem in our universe. Science would still help us get by in this dream and do things that seem important in this dream (like cure cancer) by the rules in the dream, and tell us how things appear to be in our reality. If we were wrong we would never know and it wouldn’t matter because in a very real sense (In our experience our eternity our reality) it would be true.
so in the end:
Senerio 2 assumes
1) we can trust our senses-- this is in my opinion the smallest assumption
available to study the universe/existance -It is tested to a small degree

you must also assume we can trust our senses, in a world with god- he could have created us with out this ability, and we would have no way to know.-in a world with god there are just additional assumptions (see above)

One day through this method, we may find testable falsifiable reproducible evidence of some god, at which point I will believe it.
-Damien

==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? [[User:Orgone|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 10:01, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've replaced the link with a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/ link to the original], and it works currently. The drop in lifespans was not a constant thing, but a large drop immediately after [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human evolution ==

I've removed from the article a comment that [[user:Elrond|Elrond]] put in. Although in principle similar to a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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:
{{QuoteBox|(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 [[user:Kww|Kww]] put on the evolution talk page[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=156092&oldid=149042] (my emphasis):
{{QuoteBox|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.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cypam's edit ==

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:# 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."
:# 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)

::# 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.
::# 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)

== Plants on the ark? ==

plants

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

{{unsigned|Kcarey}}

: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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Baraminology

2008-10-18T20:10:35Z

Damien: /* Genetic degradation */

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-09-16T00:32:40Z

Damien: /* races */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)
-Damien Rivers

: Not all mutations destroy information. Many are neutral. That is, they can change genes to a different form that has no new function. Further, there may be some genes that are ''designed'' to vary, such as genes that control the production of antibodies. They wouldn't change so that they do something different than that, but they may change so that they can recognise different infections.
: As far as races are concerned, you are quite correct. Did you actually read the link?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

As for neutral mutations, of course they exist . Neutral mutations include silent mutations where the DNA sequence is changed but the amino acid sequence remains unaltered. Equivelent mutations, where the DNA sequence changes and the amino acid sequence changes as well, where the functional domains and the protein folding remains intact- allowing normal functioning of the protein ( ie. the changed protien conserves size, charge etc. of the amino acid substituted). However this is not what I was refering to. I was asking how creation science accounts for populations with more than four different DNA sequences at a sigle genetic loci, which result in more than four different amino acid sequences. I was specifically refering to cases where these protiens result in different, but positive phenotypes. The maximum number of these different phenotypes (coded from a single gene like discribed above) should not exceed 4 if the entire population descended from two diploid parents (as would be the case for animals from Noahs ark). This is of course only if you assume no mutations result in new positive allels(ie mutations that alter proteins to have a new '''positive''' function).
-Damien

: I think that we are talking about "neutral" and "positive" in different ways, and that is my fault for not being clear what I was referring to. I was using the term in the sense of genetic ''[[information]]''. So when I said that many mutations are neutral, I was meaning that they neither destroy nor create ''information''. Think of a cake recipe. The recipe contains ''information'' on how to make a cake, including a list of ingredients and instructions on how to put them together. Now suppose that someone wants a copy of your cake recipe, so you type out a new copy for them. But in making this copy, you accidentally change some of the information. There are various changes that could hypothetically occur. Let's just pretend that one of these changes adds information on how to ice the case (your recipe didn't include icing). This would be an ''information-gaining'' change (mutation). Of course this could never occur accidentally, yet this is what evolution proposes. Alternatively, let's suppose that you accidentally skipped a bit of the recipe, and left something out. This is a very real possibility, and is what we actually observe in living things: mutations ''destroying'' information.
: But there are a couple of other possible changes/mutations. Perhaps where the recipe called for 2.5 cups of water, you typed it as 2.8 cups. In this case, the change is not neutral the way you used the term (it is a real change), but there is no ''new information'', nor a ''loss of information''. It's merely ''changed'' information. It may even be a beneficial one if the original recipe was a bit dry. The remaining possibility is that the recipe calls for cherry flavouring, and you mistype that as sherry flavouring. So it's not a quantity that has changed in in this case, but a different ingredient. But it's only going to change the flavour; it's not new information like adding the instructions for icing is.
: So your allele change is more like one of the last two. It's not new information, just a change in information, so is neutral as far as information gain or loss is concerned.
: And to forestall what the next question might be, if your mistyped "flour" as "sherry", this is are more substantial change, but the result is that you no longer have a cake, just a mess instead. In this case you have actually ''destroyed'' the cake recipe, so this counts as a ''loss of information''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Before I comment further, I would like to clarify then. Is it correct to assume nobody disputes that there can be changes to protiens where an "old" protein takes on a new function? (ex.1 a kinase protien mutates and gains the ability to phosphorylate a different type of sugar, or gains the ability to also dephosphorylate the sugar as well)(ex.2 only protiens that give rise to thick coarse hair and thin hair exist. Now the DNA that gives rise to thick hair is mutated to give rise to curly hair.. now all three can be found in the population)-- clearly 2 is a hypothetical ( I know nothing about human genetics for all I know these types Of traits are controlled by 12 genes)It's just an example trying to illustrate the type of change I'm referring to.

If these types of changes can occur,Then over time they would accumulate. At some point these simple changes would then cause groups to no longer be able to interbreed, gain the ability to metabolize new food sources, change skin and hair colour, change size etc. Eventually generations later(many many many later) would not resemble what the original parents started out as. I understand that creation science says baramin sometimes can no longer interbreed due to "degeneration of information" or some similar term, but at what point would it no longer be the same type of creature.

I've heard people say that this doesn't happen, but it works at the molecular level (changes like paragraph one of my response), we see it every day in labs. If you accept (again I suppose I don't know that you do) that changes like in paragraph 1 of my response do occur, why would they then not simply accumulate until the offspring of thousands and thousands of years later don't resemble the original generation.
At what point are these changes stopped from occuring/ accumulating? by what are they stopped? and at what point is this evolution?

In regards to new information I guess that depends on your definition of "new" as well. gene duplications occur all the time. These then can have their original functions altered ( see example 1 and 2) now the organism in question has 2 genes with two similar functions that are different and useful, and that can be passes on to subsequent generations. This second gene can be altered further or duplicated itself in subsequent generatons,(of course influenced by it's enviroment; it will not change or loose the only copy of something required in a given environment. Eventually the parent protein no longer resembles the desendent from thousands of years later.

Gene timming is also huge using the same protien in different ways. A promoter ( or operator)..or the proteins that interact with the promoter (or operator) can be altered. Now the gene is "ON" at a new time.At the molecular level situations like this are observed in a labs. Using your cake analogy this would be like taking melted chocolate that goes in with flour for flavor, instead on the cake.Not a "new" information exactly but a new use that would be a different product.Timing body plan genes (hox genes???) can create drastically different looking creatures.( duplicating body plan genes also has a large effect I believe?)

If these change accumulate,the creature looks and acts differently in a new niche, wouldn't it be correct to say this is evolution.

We may not have observed enough accumulated changes to be what you would accept as a complete new species , (It is very unlikely that we could have yet, due to time constraints ie. how long we have been observing) however, we have observed many of the molecular mechanisms. They wouldn't just stop working because over time it could/would lead to evolution.

As for where the first genetic information ever came from.. that is origins of life not evolution, and though there are theories, this is much less experimentally sound science at the moment.( not to mention a whole other discussion)
-Damien

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-09-15T01:16:01Z

Damien: /* races */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)
-Damien Rivers

: Not all mutations destroy information. Many are neutral. That is, they can change genes to a different form that has no new function. Further, there may be some genes that are ''designed'' to vary, such as genes that control the production of antibodies. They wouldn't change so that they do something different than that, but they may change so that they can recognise different infections.
: As far as races are concerned, you are quite correct. Did you actually read the link?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

As for neutral mutations, of course they exist . Neutral mutations include silent mutations where the DNA sequence is changed but the amino acid sequence remains unaltered. Equivelent mutations, where the DNA sequence changes and the amino acid sequence changes as well, where the functional domains and the protein folding remains intact- allowing normal functioning of the protein ( ie. the changed protien conserves size, charge etc. of the amino acid substituted). However this is not what I was refering to. I was asking how creation science accounts for populations with more than four different DNA sequences at a sigle genetic loci, which result in more than four different amino acid sequences. I was specifically refering to cases where these protiens result in different, but positive phenotypes. The maximum number of these different phenotypes (coded from a single gene like discribed above) should not exceed 4 if the entire population descended from two diploid parents (as would be the case for animals from Noahs ark). This is of course only if you assume no mutations result in new positive allels(ie mutations that alter proteins to have a new '''positive''' function).
-Damien

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

Talk:Baraminology

2008-09-14T23:38:16Z

Damien: /* Genetic degradation */

Talk:Baraminology

2008-09-13T23:22:38Z

Damien: /* Genetic degradation */

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-09-13T20:50:35Z

Damien: /* What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]] 



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but I'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leaves off the tress but never grass for example.)
-Damien Rivers

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2008-09-13T20:48:53Z

Damien: /* What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants */

[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1]]|
[[Talk:Dinosaur/Archive2]] 



==Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?==

The article states, "Young Earth Creationists believe...that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of the creation week". I wonder if the article could explain the theories suggested for the actual mechanism of Dinosaur creation? The evidence seems to suggest that there were a lot of dinsosaurs, of many different types, and in many different places on the planet - I don't think YEC's dispute that, although I could be wrong. Did God 'wave a wand' and the creatures (like us) 'pop into existence', or is there a suggestion that God evolved them very rapidly, within the same day? Did they come into existence fully formed, in multiple locations over the planet, or did they distribute themselves rapidly? What, basically, was the sequence of events on Day 6 of The Creation? I wonder what the theories suggest might have happened? [[User:50something|50something]] 20:33, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible doesn't explain much at all about that, and creationists have speculated very little on it.
:There is no suggestion at all that there was rapid evolution. The basic information is that God spoke them into existence. But apart from there being different "[[baramin|kinds]]", how many there were and how widespread they were is not indicated.
:The only clue that might be gleaned is from the more-detailed description of the creation of man, yet even there, there is a hint that man was not created in the same way as the animals, fish, and birds.
:One thing can be deduced, however, and that is that they were created as fish, birds, and animals, not as eggs and embryos (so which came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken), and presumably mature ones at that, consistent with Adam and Eve who were created in a mature state.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's really interesting Philip. I'm glad you responded. But it makes me wonder? Like, for example, why haven't creationists speculated more about this? And what is the actual mechanism of being spoken into existence'? It seems kind of important to know about that, no? And another thing - if they were created as mature creatures, how would they have learned how to eat, walk, breathe or anything else - since instinct is presumably inherited, and if they had no parents, there would have been no creatures to inherit traits from? [[User:50something|50something]] 03:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::Why haven't they speculated more? In the case of the method of creation, perhaps because there is so little to go on. In the case of the distribution, I suspect because the changes wrought by the flood would have wiped out any evidence of their original distribution, so such speculation would be fairly pointless.
::Another thing to keep in mind is that creationists, for all intents and purposes, get no government and very little private funding, and there is simply far more important things to research with the meagre resources available. Perhaps one day there will be some research or at least speculation into these matters.
::If instinct is indeed inherited, that means that it's in the genes, which God would have built them with, so parents would not be necessary. But a more general answer is simply that God created them already knowing those things, just as clearly must have been the case with Adam and language; from pretty well the moment that Adam was created, God was talking with him. Who taught Adam language? Clearly God created him with that ability.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if birds - even dinosaur birds - were created in mid-air, flying? It seems hard to believe they were spoken into existence on the ground, and then took off, never having flown before? It's such a big change of state for them. And now that I think about it, I wonder is there any evidence of baramins that were created in the wrong location? Did God make mistakes? - probably not, but if he was speaking trillions of creatures into existence over an entire planet in a matter of minutes or seconds, it would be unbelievable that there wouldn't be one or two errors? Could this, for example, be any explanation of penguins, i.e. underwater birds?

I find this whole subject fascinating, and Conservapedia is the best resource on these subjects I've found yet. [[User:50something|50something]] 12:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I've heard this theory before - that penguins actually came into existence underwater by accident, and that's why they are birds that can't fly but swim. I think you're right about instinct PJR - if the animals were spoken into existence while flying, it would mean they would immediately naturally acquire the ability to fly. Anyway, I think some of these theories should go into the article, no? Do we have any links or anything? [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 18:50, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't find it hard to believe that they took off from the ground, never having flown before, but at the moment I can't think of a really good reason why they couldn't have been created in flight.
:God doesn't make mistakes, and God is not bound by time, because He doesn't exist in time; it is something that He created. So it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him.
:As far as penguins go, I'd suggest that they are simply one example (of many) of creatures that don't fit the idea of an evolutionary tree, but fit the idea of God creating creatures in more of a "table" arrangement than a "tree" arrangement, whereby some creatures have features that are otherwise found in completely separate branches of the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists call this [[types of evolution#convergent evolution|convergence]], but convergence has been described as simply a term to explain things that don't fit the evolutionary explanation.
:I'm not sure what any of this has to do with ''this'' article, and I wouldn't want to put it in any article without some evidence that creationary scientists have been discussing these sorts of thing.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:You said "it is incorrect to say that He did all this in a matter of minutes or seconds in the sense that that is some sort of constraint for him", which is fair enough, I completely agree. But just to be clear - this did all happen in 24 hours on Day 6, yes? That's what the article says, anyway. [[User:Feichineejits|Feichineejits]] 23:19, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::The key point is, "in the sense that it is some sort of constraint for him". He did do it all within a few 24-hour days ''as would be measured on Earth''. Birds and fish (or probably more accurately, creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea) were created on day 5, with land animals on day 6. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

But if birds and fish were created on Day 5, what about the sea-living dinosaurs or flying dinosaurs like Pterodactyls? Were they created on Day 5, not Day 6? I'm confused! [[User:50something|50something]] 23:53, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Note that I said "creatures that fly and creatures that swim in the sea", rather than "birds and fish". This would indicate that [[plesiosaur]]s and the like, and [[pterodactyl]]s and the like were created on day 5, not six. And although they tend to get lumped in with dinosaurs, they are not strictly classified as dinosaurs. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:40, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:Point of information. There weren't any marine dinosaurs, nor were pterodactyls dinosaurs. See the TolWeb page for [http://tolweb.org/Archosauria/14900 archosauria]. You can see that dinosauria and pterosauria share a common ancestor, but neither group contains the other. Trace the ancestors back to diapsida, and you can see that icthyosaurs and sauropterygia (including plesiosaurs) apparently branched off even earlier than the dino/ptero split. Once the dinosaurs got onto dry land, they stayed there, at least until they learned to fly.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 05:12, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

All Fish Welcome - the point of CP is to fight for the underfunded and underepresented views of The Creation, which are suppressed by the MSM and scientists. Your suggestions are based on the presumption that 'branching' from common ancestors occurred - and that's what we disagree with here. PJR - do you have any evidence to refute the evolutionist viewpoint above? And does no-one here have any more information on the Creation mechanisms? I'm really interested in seeing if we can really be detailed in this (and other articles) - at present it seems like this article dances around these events, wihtout really explaining, or attempting to explain, what may have happened on these Creation Days. [[User:50something|50something]] 18:55, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:All Fish Welcome was making the same point that I was making, that sea-dwelling and flying "dinosaurs" are not actually categorised as dinosaurs. He illustrated his point with evolutionary assumptions, but the point itself is valid.
:I've already indicated that I don't think we know enough to write anything more about what actually happened on the creation days.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:01, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

::But if we don't know anything about them, how can we put it in an encyclopedia? Don't you think it's exactly the trap the evolutionists want to find us in - for us to make a claim and not be able back it up? Surely the point was to show not just the what, but the how of our beliefs? That's what I understood anyway. [[User:50something|50something]] 22:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::: We are not putting them in an encyclopedia; that's been my point. That is, we are not putting anything about the creation ''mechanisms'' in Conservapedia. But that doesn't mean that we can't put anything at all about creation in. Since when do we have to be able to explain every last detail before we can include anything? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, of course not, no, you're right! But where CAN I find out about this topic? I had thought that CP would have been the perfect place to learn (and teach others) about these things, having had my interest sparked by all the articles here on CP that talk about it. Do you know anywhere I can learn about the subject? Is there a resource on the internet that describes what is actually being proposed? [[User:50something|50something]] 04:03, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I suggest that you try Creation Ministries International[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4094/101/]. If there has been any research into these things, they would be among the most likely to know about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::PFR - Well, this is proving tricky. I searched and searched through CMI's site, and while there's plenty of interesting research there, it seems there's nothing at all about 'What Actually Happened'. I mean, there's lots and lots of articles that debunk ToE theories and they're all excellent, but there doesn't seem to be a single article that actually lays out the Creation Events - this happened, then this happened, etc. (Or, 'it is propsed that this happened, then this may have happened' - I suppose we can never know exactly). They do explain that the days were in fact 24 hour days. And there's a good article about how creationism is the most likely mechanism behind proteins, etc, but even that article says that proteins and higher life forms aare enormously complex and take a long, long time to build. But if that's the case, how could trillions of complex creatures have been created in billions of locations all around the planet, within 24 hours? I'm even more confused now! Anyone who has any links, please post them for me, I'm a woman on an educational misison now! God bless, [[User:50something|50something]] 14:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't expect you to find anything on their site. The link was to the page where you can ask them questions; I thought that was your best chance of finding an answer. Proteins only take a long time to build if they are occurring naturally, not if they are created supernaturally. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants ==

Can someone please explain the root of the "All Dinosaurs were vegetarians" opinion that many creationists hold? As far as I know is the only evidence of what they ate are the shape of teeth and what appears to be remains of animals found in stomachs, and since there are many large meat eating animals today, aswell as many meat eating reptiles, there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason why it shouldn't be possible.

I'm not looking for a debate, it's just that it's always confused me and when I've asked before all I got was "someone else told me". --[[User:Ned|Ned]] 07:19, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I found this in the [[Tyrannosaurus rex]] article:
{{cquote|T-rex had forward-facing eyes, which gave it binocular vision. Binocular vision is usually present in carnivores, as it gives them better depth perception and helps them catch their prey, therefore it is very likely that Tyrannosaurus was a carnivore. Young earth creationists believe that the Tyrannosaurus, along with all other carnivores, was herbivorous in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, but afterwards it adapted to be carnivorous.}}
:That might point you in the right way... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 07:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:As Jenkins indicates, creationists believe that dinosaurs, along with all other creatures, were vegetarian, on the basis of the historical account (i.e. the Bible). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::They adapted, eh? I don't know what scientific theory that sounds like....--[[User:hmuckabee|hmuckabee]]
::: They adapted but remained Dinosaurs. So sounds to me like Young-Earth creationism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:28, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::The bible is not a reference. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 19:42, 14 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Is that supposed to be a reply to my previous post? If so, I don't get the connection. But why can't the Bible be a reference (for anything?)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:50, 14 January 2008 (EST)!
:::::: Well, just in general it really can't, unless you're quoting scripture. With regards to hmuckabee, he/she wanted to know what reference supports the supposed vegetarian diet of the dinosaurs according to some creationist beliefs. You didn't actually provide one, you merely indicated that it was a YEC belief - which coincides with those who read the bible in a literal manner. That wouldn't be the proper reference to use - it would be a secondary source from a creation scientist of some sort. That's all I meant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::: "Quoting" is (roughly) the same as "citing". "The Bible" is "scripture", so citing the Bible as a reference ''is'' (effectively) "quoting scripture". But what's wrong with that? To support an argument about history, we often quote historical documents. That's exactly what the Bible is. So it ''can'' be used as a reference.
::::::: I disagree about hmuckabee. He was insinuating that adaptation (which I implied creationists believe in) was an ''evolutionary'' concept, implying that creationists actually believe in a form of evolution. My response was a roundabout way of saying that just because adaptation is a process in evolution doesn't mean that it's exclusive to evolution. Adaptation is also a process in the creationary model. Therefore his insinuation was baseless.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: The Bible is a historical account of the earth? Does that mean YECs read Revelations in a straightforward manner? [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 10:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Yes, and Revelation is not narrative like Genesis. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:32, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Let me say 1st off like most peolple with any basic background in molecular biology, I beleive in evolution. I'm not trying to hide my view point, but i'm not trying to cause arguments for the sake of it either . I'm just curious on this view point, is there any scientific evidance (even speculative evidance ie. based on tooth shape etc.) to support the view point that all Dinosaurs were herbavoirs, or is it just that the bible indirectlty implies it ( all animals came to be about the same time and there was no death before sin, therefore dinosaurs only ate plants? I'm I correct that this is the reasoning? Though not to be too technical, plants and bacteria are alive too. If they ate these there would be death too (unless they ate only from larger plants ie. only the leave off the tress but never say grass.)
-Damien Rivers

==Evaluating the stature of resources==

Much as I respect the fervor of Jack Chick's fundamentalism, there is a question whether we -- as an encyclopedia -- want to endorse his scholarship as a primary source.

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=319463&oldid=319380&rcid=345294

Surely his good ideas are not unique, so we ought to be able to find other sources which say substantially the same thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:In general he only presents ideas which are already out there, so I'm sure it's possible, but I certainly wouldn't know where to look. Chick tracts are written for the purpose of spiritual guidance, not facts, so, while the facts might be true, they don't need to be most of the time to prove his point. This is why I removed the reference. As the final nail in the coffin, the claim itself seemed rather... large to be presented with no explanation (heh, no pun intended). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
::I've been studying the issue for over 30 years, and I don't recall ever reading a claim that the dinosaurs died out due to a lack of oxygen. The idea is likely related to the "canopy theory" that the tract also endorses, which theory has been rejected by most leading creationists anyway. Besides, the tract's story of a dinosaur trying to hide in the cloud is ridiculous anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I know very little about the issue and didn't want to say something was wrong when I really didn't know. Also I didn't actually read the tract, so I didn't see the dino in the clouds thing :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:48, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Search window ==

This little window in the Main page is too down at present. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Chicago University incorrect reference ==

The article refers to Chicago University which does not exist. Is this a reference to some specific university located in Chicago? If so, which one? Clarification needed. {{unsigned|Star}}
:The referenced source mentions the "University of Chicago", and a Google search shows that there is one of them, so I've changed the article. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:05, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Remove Soft Tissue Claim ==

I would do it myself but I know it would be reverted so perhaps a syop could remove the claim that the tissue find throws doubt on the age of dinosaurs. If it were true that would mean that all dinosaur remains would contain soft tissue which they do not.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
:There are ways younger dinosaurs can lose tissue. The important part is that some have it.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)

: You are correct, MetcalfeM: if you removed it, it would be reverted. And the reason is, because the claim is accurate and relevant. The claim is "Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times...The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.". Creationists ''do'' claim this (there is a reference provided), so the comment in the article is accurate ''even if the creationists are wrong''. Secondly, as RobertK indicates, it is an error of logic to claim that because soft tissue shows dinosaurs are young, therefore all dinosaur remains will contain soft tissue. That simply doesn't follow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I think it is important to note that A)of all dinosaur remains found there has never been tissue discovered - if this was proof that dinosaurs were alive recently then we'd find more of it and B) "soft tissue" does not mean it was soft. It means it was fossilised soft tissue. Like a fossiled ear for arguements sake. It wouldnt be soft but it is soft tissue.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: The soft tissue that was found was only found because a large T-rex bone had to be broken in two for helicopter transport. Researchers are now wondering if there is more soft tissue to be found in other bones. But until recently, nobody's looked.
: And you are incorrect. It was actual soft tissue, it was able to be stretched and it snapped back into place. Perhaps you should try reading the reference.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:03, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>deep sigh*
::have a look at answersincreation.org
::[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

Metcalfe, you keep making a mistake in saying that "if this, then all similar situations must be true." Evidence doesn't have to be complete, just interesting, relevant, and true. Time will tell.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:21, 22 January 2008 (EST)

sigh.....Found these showing it was not "Soft and stretchy..
I found this on National Geographic news (not a dubious creation site which your ref comes from) "First the dinosaur body had to escape predators, scavengers, and degradation by weather and water. Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it. And finally, the remains had to survive millions of years undamaged."
It was not soft an stetchy. It was mineralised. And this from Washingtonpost
"It's a dinosaur that was turned into stone, essentially," said Lyson, 24, now a graduate student in paleontology at Yale University."
NOT soft and stretchy
So why is this not included in the article?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

"had to survive millions of years"---that's an unwarranted assumption.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

But thats not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out that the claim of "Soft tissue" does not mean "soft" as shown by 2 credible resources above. I can find more with ease so why does no-one revert this soft tissue claim?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]

:: deeper sigh
:: The [http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/D612_creation_science.htm AnswersInCreation response] is terribly lightweight and answers nothing.
:: Their objections have already been answered [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3427/ here].
:: To briefly answer AnswersInCreation's four points:
::# That it was portrayed that way is rejected, is a matter of opinion anyway, and does not address the actual claims.
::# That soft tissue could survive is nothing more than an unsupported ''ad hoc'' explanation: ''It is that old so it must have been able to survive somehow''. Actual scientific evidence on the survivability of biological material refutes this argument.
::# That more would contain soft tissue has not yet been investigated to any extent, as mentioned above. This is an argument from silence, and thus invalid.
::# This is not a criticism of the claim, but a counter-claim.
:: So in summary, there's actually nothing of substance there in the way of a rebuttal!
:: Your claim that the creation site is dubious is nothing more than you showing your anti-creationist bigotry.
:: The soft tissue was contained in a mineralised matrix, which had to be dissolved. But it's simply not true that something hard was made soft and stretchy by the demineralisation process. You can't make rock soft and stretchy.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::Except magma is soft and stretchy, but anything in it that isn't rock probably isn't going to do so good.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 21:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Soft, yes, but I wouldn't think that magma is stretchy in the sense of being able to stretch it and having it snap back. But then I've never tried it! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

From a USgov website - "The tissue was once elastic and stretchy, and had the capacity to be dehydrated and rehydrated many times without losing this characteristic. “Although the preservation of soft tissue such as this is not unique in the geologic record, this occurrence goes well beyond what has been observed in the past for dinosaurs, and reinforces the evolutionary link of dinosaurs to birds,” said Barrera." And rock of course cannot be demineralised in this sense becuase, well, it never was organic in the first place.
But nevermind. National Geo and other well known academia are obviously rubbish compared to a creation site or sites. Forget it then.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I'm not sure exactly what your quote from the unnamed US government website is getting at, but it does indicate that the ability to be stretchy was still there. And the connection with birds seems to be a leap into the dark; how on Earth does it show that? A normal fossil has the tissue (whether soft tissue or hard tissue such as bone) ''replaced'' by rock (minerals). There is no way that it can then still be soft and stretchy, or again made to be soft and stretchy. The only way the material can be soft and stretchy is if it is still the original (perhaps a little deteriorated) biological material, and ''not'' mineralised. And that's the point: It was not mineralised, but still (after removing the mineralisation around the material) ''soft and stretchy''. Yet test show that such material could not survive for anything even remotely approaching 65 million years, meaning either that (a) the preservation is exceedingly exceptional to have survived for 65 million years, despite tests showing otherwise, or (b) it is not 65 million years old. Evolutionists opt for (a), whilst creationists quite legitimately opt for (b). One item of evidence does not prove (or even disprove) an entire theory, but it is nevertheless totally valid for creationists to use this as one bit of evidence supporting their point of view.
: National Geographic is no less biased than academic creationist groups. And remember that the creationists are quoting the evolutionary researchers who made the discoveries; they're not making this stuff up. The creationists have produced arguments to defend their point of view. You, on the other hand, are trying to belittle them rather than answer their arguments. Yes, you have produced some counter views, but you have not actually pointed out the flaws in the creationist arguments that I linked to. It's like your attitude is "ignore what the creationists say and just quote what someone from the other side says, without even checking whether it really answers what the creationists are saying".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Adaptation and evolution ==
(Rather than allow the sections to grow indefinitely, I've moved these latest posts out of the "Day 6 Creation Mechanisms?" section. The last post in that section was many months ago, and the first new post did not follow directly from the last one there. However, I invite the poster (Entheogenicorder) to add an introduction to his 16:35, 31 January post referencing what in that earlier section he is replying to, if he wishes.)

Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing - you can't claim that 'something adapted (because of changes to it's environment)' and then deny the validity of the Theory of Evolution. That is using a slight varient in words to suit your needs, not presenting facts to prove or disprove anything.
I was brought up with proper Christian morals, not concerned with politics, but the real Christian morals of caring for others out of kindness and treating every person as the same; the morals as taught by Christ. I am not a true Christian, in the Creationist, Church going sense, as I feel spiritual discovery is too subjective to be institutionalized, but the value of the lessons of the Bible are not lost on me and I will seek out my own spiritual awakening. That does not mean that I deny the idea of God. The further you delve into molecular and astrological science, the more you realise that we are part of a greater plan, a bigger scheme, but that we in no way comprehend what it is yet. We are just learning, moving forward and we are finding answers. If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything. IT IS NO MISTAKE. But do not preach false truths of simplified realities, because to me, it is just sinful and wicked. If there is a God, he will want us to fully understand the beauty of his creation, not deny it.

I believe that most of the 'Christians' on this website cannot truthfully call themselves that. They are the opposite, Devils sent here to guide us towards the temptation of accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my heart of hearts, I feel right. Let you not be the judge, for the Great Spirit, God, whatever name you give, he will be the judge. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:35, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:Haha. Very passionate, but, in any case, wrong. Adaptation does not equal evolution. Adaptation can be found in the science of microevolution, a scientific fact many ''real'' Christians agree with. Also, I don't know how you equate macroevolution with "scientific proof". Not even the most-learned, ''intelligent'' scientist would make any assumption that presumes that the Theory of Evolution is any more than that - a ''theory''. Notice I said intelligent; there are some "scientists" who would like to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I enjoyed your little rant, but let's try to focus on the facts, ok? Thanks. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::Haha. Where's your passion in what you believe? In the instance I was refering to (apologies for not citing it here), which I believe can be seen earlier in this discussion, was that Dinosaurs adapted to become carnivores after leaving The Garden of Eden, where they were herbivores. This requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today. It would be a biological change, as a result of changing the environment/circumstance, which could be looked upon as evoulution... I don't believe the 'Theory of Evolution' is anything more than a theory, but probable evidence of it can be seen in the massive variety of plant and animal life around the world; especially in instances where secularized sub-species have evolved massively from their more common brothers, e.g. on secluded Islands. My main point was that if God created the Big Bang, foresaw evolution and guided the Earth in its history, isn't that the most brilliant thing? Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour? I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks! :-D [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 18:15, 31 January 2008 (BWT)

:::I have enough passion in what I believe. I just don't let it adversely affect my thinking. So you are telling me that you cannot conclusively prove what you say is true? Well, I commend your honesty. I ''do'' in fact believe that removing God from any part of Creation is blasphemy. If the Bible said that God created the "Big Bang" and people were trying to tell me that he created each species in the beginning, then I would have to say what they spoke was a form of blasphemy. However, I also believe saying God did something, when the Bible says He did something else would be blasphemous as well. Wouldn't you agree? --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 14:54, 31 January 2008 (EST)

I'm going to have to disagree with DavidR on a couple of his points, but then I will address the more substantial problems with Entheogenicorder's posts.

Leading creationists recommend that we ''don't'' talk about micro- vs. macro-evolution, as it obscures what the real problem is. The real problem is the ''type'' (or ''direction'') of change, not the ''size'' of the change.

Secondly, evolutionary scientists do in fact claim evolution to be a ''fact''. In science, the word "theory" does ''not'' imply something uncertain.

Now on to Entheogenicorder's posts:

"''Adaptation and Evolution are the same thing''": As DavidR has pointed out, this is simply not true, although it does depend on how one [[Definitions of evolution|defines evolution]] (read that). Adaptation can have a few mechanisms, but microbe-to-man evolution is not the same as adaptation.

"''If you believe in God, do him justice, DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything.''", "''Wouldn't it be blasphemous to deny him of this splendour?''": I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He [[creation Week|''clearly'' told us that He created the world in six days]] (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said.

"''...accepting the easy, second-grade theories over scientific proof.''": No, we are accepting what God has clearly said about the ''history'' of this world over ''man-made'' theories by ''scientists'' trying to give us an alternative ''history''. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about ''history'').

"''[The change from herbivory to carnivory] requires a large amount of adaptation to the digestive make-up of the dinosaur, as can be seen by the differences between herbivores and carnivores today''": First, the Bible specifically says that God made some changes at the time of the fall. He doesn't specifically mention carnivory, and I'm not putting that forward as ''the'' explanation, but it is a ''possible'' explanation. Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on a herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores. Fourth, there are examples where two closely-related species have one being carnivorous and one being herbivorous—there's not necessarily large amounts of adaptation involved at all.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/279/] Sixth, some creatures classified on the basis of their morphology as carnivorous are herbivorous (e.g. fruit bat, same reference).

"''I enjoyed my little rant, and would love to focus on the facts, if there were any that could be conclusively proved, thanks!''": So you are rejecting what God has clearly said on the basis of something that cannot be conclusively proved? I think you have your priorities a bit wrong.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:If that is your take of things, I don't see why you have any problem with what I said. You may have misread my post, but I did not say anything about the ''size'' of an evolutionary change. Furthermore, I do not think microevolution takes size into consideration, rather it is influenced by type, as you stated. If you think that microevolution is change ''within'' a species, I cannot disagree. Also, you assume I think scientists who interpret the Theory of Evolution as scientific law are thinking clearly; I don't. In addition, a theory ''may'' not be something un''certain'', but it is certainly something un''proven''. That is all. I hope I cleared things up. :\ --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 22:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

::I don't think you understand what a theory is-- It's not an unfounded guess. It's the closest you get to "THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY TRUE" in science. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:24, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:: DavidR, I apologise for not being careful enough in my post. It's not that you said anything explicit about the size of the change, but size is what is implied in talking about ''micro''evolution vs. ''macro''evolution. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's what people will likely understand from the user of those terms. It's not a matter of what I think microevolution is. The term is imprecise.
:: Nothing in science is considered ''proven'', so prepending "theory" to it does not downgrade it at all.
:: In case ''I'' need to clear anything up, I was disagreeing with you on those two points only; overall, I agreed with you.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this.

:::“''I don't believe at all that creationists are doing that. But I would add, as DavidR has mentioned, DO NOT reject the clear things that God has told us. He clearly told us that He created the world in six days (among other things that He said that contradict evolution). How about "doing Him justice" by taking Him at His Word? It would be blasphemy to deny what He clearly said''” God has not clearly said anything to me, has He told you in person? What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old and has been endlessly translated from one language to another. It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations. For example, it is widely accepted that Roman historical records prove the existence of Jesus at roughly the same time as we base our calendar around. Therefore, from studying similar Roman records from a later date, it should be considered that some time later, as is historically recorded, Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held. Therefore – for me – it is very difficult to be sure exactly what God told us. Please also see below.

:::“''We are accepting what God has clearly said about the history of this world over man-made theories by scientists trying to give us an alternative history. They are not only therefore fallible men contradicting God, but they are speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g. biologists talking about history).” '' I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said, not what God has directly said to you (unless he has?). The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes, especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’. In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical, not a popular view here I imagine but that is my understanding of it. For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years, representing levels of development and culminating in our evolution. With regards to your second point, because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields? You may argue that Religion covers all aspects of life, but a Physicist will probable tell you that so does Physics, and I would argue that so does Philosophy.

:::If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible, I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc, if it had also to be filled with dinosaurs. I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all for 40 days and 40 nights, especially if you take into account that the animals would have needed fresh food, fresh water, fresh hay to sleep on and of course, room to exercise.

:::“''Second, many supposed carnivores survive quite well on an herbivorous diet. There's not that much difference. Third, herbivores, such as sheep and cows, have been seen acting as carnivores.”'' The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge. In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’. Carnivores have no mechanism for this. I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!

:::On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before any human – or mammal – remains have been found. This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong. I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 16:23, 1 February 2008 (BWT)

:::: I see that you've been doing what Andy refers to as [[liberal deceit]]. You make out that you believe at least some of the Bible ("I was brought up with ... the morals as taught by Christ", and "DO NOT simplify the beauty of what he has created, the intrinsic, interconnected nature of everything"), now show your true colours, in that you don't think the Bible is reliable enough to take any notice of!
:::: "''God has not clearly said anything to me...''": He has, in the Bible, whether you choose to accept that or not.
:::: "''What is in the Bible is many thousands of years old ...''": Which is consistent with it being written at the time the events happened, which makes it more reliable than something written much later. So that's a ''good'' thing. Strike 1.
:::: "''...and has been endlessly translated from one language to another''": Incorrect, in the sense that you are implying. Modern English translations of the Bible have been translated ''directly'' from the original languages. Again, that supports the idea that it is accurate. Strike 2.
:::: "''It is quite conceivable that much of the original meaning is lost in these translations.''": You can "conceive" anything you want with a vivid enough imagination, but the ''evidence'' is that the manuscripts have been handed down ''accurately''. Strike 3; you're out.
:::: "''...Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible to make it more compatible with the Pagan beliefs that many of their subjects held''": There's your imagination running away again. The evidence is otherwise.
:::: "''I’m sorry but that is accepting what other Men have interpreted God as having said...''": Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?
:::: "''The Bible is apparently divided between the literal and metaphorical. I find it very difficult to differentiate between the two sometimes...''": Perhaps your difficulty stems from trying to read the literal as metaphorical. Or else you simply know little about making such distinctions. But your inability to do this does not give you ''carte blanche'' to pick and choose what to believe. The experts agree, for example, that the creation account was meant to be understood literally. The language is not that of metaphor. An example of metaphor is elsewhere in the Old Testament where is says that the trees clapped their hands.
:::: "''...especially when some manipulate these religious texts so that they can only mean one thing, and then deny that another part of the same text implies something else because 'it is not the literal meaning’.''": Examples please?
:::: "''In this case, I have always thought the story of creation was metaphorical...For me that means the six days of creation could represent anything from a literal six-day working week to a massive time scale over billions of years.''": Well, you are wrong, as mentioned above, and as the link to [[Creation Week]] above explains. Did you read that?
:::: "''...because you’re religious, does that qualify you over a scientist to discuss multiple fields?''": Oh dear, another lack of comprehension. I wasn't talking about ''discussing'' multiple fields, but speaking ''authoritatively'' about them. Those scientists can discuss ''history'' as much as they like, but they have no more ''authority'' on the subject than me, and I'm not claiming any. I'm quoting other authorities and offering evidence, not claiming that I'm an authority. You can quote other scientists' arguments as much as you like, but the case stands or falls on the strength of their arguments, not their authority, because when it comes to ''history'', they have none.
:::: "''If you believe in a complete and literal translation of the Bible...''": I don't. I accept that there are parables, metaphors, etc. in the Bible. But the Flood account is history, so...
:::: "''I would like to know the proposed size of Noah’s arc...''": ''Proposed'' size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?
:::: "''I believe that even if you took one of each of the animals alive today, discounting dinosaurs, there would have been no way of building a boat large enough to safely transport and accommodate them all...''": Hey! Terrific argument! You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough! I must stand in awe of your immense intelligence! (Sorry for the sarcasm, but you asked for it.)
:::: "''...for 40 days and 40 nights...''": Showing your ignorance again? The Bible records that they were on the ark for just over a year.
:::: "''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.''": Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary.
:::: "''In order to break down the complex cellulose in leaves, herbivores use either ‘symbiotic bacteria or protozoa’ in the gut, or ‘grind the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells’''": What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat. Which means that a carnivore would have problems eating vegetable matter, but a herbivore would not have the same problems eating meat. Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.
:::: "''Carnivores have no mechanism for this''": Yet some carnivores survive quite satisfactorily on a herbivorous diet.
:::: "''I have never seen a sheep or cow eat meat personally, but I don’t deny that they may have at some point in history!''": There's been recent accounts of them doing so.
:::: "''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago...''": No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence.
:::: "''This idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.''": No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.
:::: "''I’d like to know the scientific background to this bold claim and would like to see and understand the scientific theory that attempts to explain the actual age of the earth.''": See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/ here]. I wouldn't normally direct you to an entire web-site for an answer to a specific question, but in your case, you are trying to argue against ideas (creationism, the accuracy of the Bible, etc.) that you know next to nothing about, and the right and proper thing is to actually do some study and learn about the subject before you go around criticising it. Okay? I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Admittedly I thought I was clearer at the start in saying that despite being brought up as a Christian, I do not follow the Religion in any institutionalized sense. I would like to point out that it was not a case of me consciously practising [[liberal deceit]]. I was brought up a Christian and I do believe that to deny the true nature of the universe is to take something away from the idea of God. I do believe in what the Bible has to say about loving your brother, equality among all men and many of the other important lessons which are put together into stories. My point here was to ask you to examine your own beliefs and for me to examine my own. As [[Socrates]] once said ‘a life unexamined is a life not worth living.’

:::::From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis, and for a large part it depends on their religious orientation. Many understand the main creation story literally, but others don’t. A small group of Christians, apparently known as '[[Progressive Creationists]]' have spoken to me about the 6-days of creation existing in a metaphorical sense, and this is where much of my confusion arises; if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page. What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities! I can understand the points in the [[Creation Week]] link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God, but my point is about the writing down of the Bible; it may be just my curious nature to question everything, but I would question; would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being? Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do? With regards to the reference to morning and evening; if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference? And even though it is partially covered in the [[Creation Week]] link, could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules and often with revelatory texts, seeks to break with tradition.

:::::You may believe that God spoke to you through The Bible and I may believe that he has, but I may also believe that Buddha has passed on some of his enlightened wisdom in his texts when he says; ‘do not believe on the faith of Sages of the past’. My point was that Moses (and others) traditionally wrote much of the Old Testament, and Moses was a man. Men often create or imagine figures of God or ideas of Spirituality in order to persuade themselves that they are inspired by a higher power. They also create ideas in order to manipulate groups of people into abiding by their will. Men are also often wrong. Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God, even if you believe that the Bible is exactly what Moses (etc.) said and wrote. As you well know, the first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Pentateuch". Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5. I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.

:::::My small point about translation (your Strike 1, 2 & 3) was questioning – as you point out the language is quite loose; ‘isn’t it conceivable that…over thousands of years’ etc. If you read the King James Version, it is most likely that you have as accurate version as possible. As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past, we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is. To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian, scientist, philosopher or anything, so even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.

:::::''Nonsense. If you want to argue that when God said that He created the world in six days, that that is just an interpretation of what He said, then you are basically claiming that words have no meaning and language is useless. In which case I can claim that you're not really saying that "Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible"; rather that is just my interpretation of what you said. See how the argument is nonsense?'' Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. I wrote, directly from me, that ‘Roman scholars may well have changed the Bible.’ You could only use this argument if I had said it to another person, who had then written it down and conveyed it to you. As I am saying it directly to you, there is less scope for my meaning to be lost. If I said it to an acquaintance of mine, who then thought about it and then passed it on to you, he may not convey my entire message. He may give you the gist of it, but not all of the intricate details, he may wish to elaborate on it, or even change some of the ideas if he couldn’t understand them, or he may even include his own ideas. So you see the difference I’m trying to establish; if God spoke to you in the same way he did Moses, then you would know that what he had said to you was the authentic Word of God, although there’s a fair chance you’d be called a maniac for preaching it. If God says something to Moses, who then writes it into stories and commentaries, or passes them on through generations of oral story telling as is argued by some scholars, then some of His meaning might be lost, confused, misinterpreted etc.

:::::''The differences between carnivores and herbivores are huge.” Another assertion ignoring the evidence I offered to the contrary… What you are hinting at is that it's harder to eat vegetable matter than meat… …Which means that the biblical account of going from herbivory to carnivory does not present any great problems, although the contrary change would.”'' Firstly, it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence. I provided a brief summation of characteristics usually associated with herbivores, I didn’t mean to over-generalize because obviously there are some exceptions, but many dinosaur fossils found display the same attributes, for example, as elephants do, for grinding the plant's digestible protoplasm out of its cellulose-walled cells. There are also obvious examples of dinosaurs whose physiology is generally geared towards hunting. Secondly, theoretically this is so, but moreover I was trying to examine the differences there can be between herbivores and carnivores. I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.

:::::''On the basis of scientific evidence, dinosaurs existed millions of years ago…” : No, that's on the basis of the evolutionary theory, not the scientific evidence…” …this idea is rejected by Creationists, who claim the science is wrong.: No, they claim that the philosophy underlying evolution is wrong, not the science.”'' I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods. If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating, which have been used to accurately measure the ages of various buildings and relics around the world then please, let me know, but don’t try and discredit what I’m saying by using the evolutionary theory argument, because that is not relevant here. Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen [http://www.s8int.com/edom.html here], however when it is used to prove the age of the dinosaurs is millions of years, it is repudiated, often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’ or ‘the methods are inaccurate’, though most leading scientists maintain that these claims are [http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html unfounded]. Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know. It is the dating techniques using ‘rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years’ to which I am referring.

::::: ''Proposed size? Are you so ignorant of the idea that you dismiss so readily that you are not even aware that the Bible records the size of the ark?'' No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better. 300 x 50 x 30 cubits could have meant anything to me; I thought maybe you could provide me with a useful answer of how big that would be in terms of commonly used measurements today, rather than attack the wording and theory of my question. Please also do not accuse me of readily dismissing anything; it is with some consideration and a desire for truth that I look beyond what I have been taught. Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!

:::::''You don't know how big the ark was, you haven't got any figures on how many animals would need to have been on it, yet you can conclude that it's not big enough...'' Being English I love a good bit of sarcasm and that was pretty tasty! It was a sweeping generalization admittedly, but the reason for the ambiguity in figures is that as you can see above, I had no idea how big the stated size of the ark actually meant it was, and also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation, or a more general division.

:::::''I trust that you won't return here with more arguments until you have actually learnt a reasonable amount about the subject.'' Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view. I can accept that some of the things I have written are probably wrong, and others have been phrased badly. I hope you can as well. My original post here had no real agenda, and this has now developed very much into a two person discusion of providing counter-arguments for each other without getting far. Whilst I have found it useful and also very interesting, I had hoped to find more of a discussion with a lot more theoretical and philosophical musings. I find it very frustrating that we, as humans, unconditionally rely on unproven science and theoretical history to prove our own points, whilst dismissing other science because it is only theoretical. That is the very point of science, and the very nature of it since Aristotle first set out a logical way of thinking. You observe, predict, then experiment and adjust; it is an ongoing process of refining and defining. Once you have created a theory, as a scientist the very first thing you should do is to examine it under the conditions it is most likely to be proved false. That is science; it doesn’t claim to know the ultimate answers, just guide you towards what’s right. While this is completely off-topic again, I found it very [http://members.aol.com/projbin/plerdyn.htm interesting]. I hope you don't find my points or arguments offensive because they aren't meant to be. As I have said before, my purpose here is understanding, hoping both to be understood and to understand. [[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:57, 5 February 2008 (BWT)

::::::"''From what I have read, ‘the experts’ generally agree very little on the true nature of Genesis''": It depends on what "experts" you are referring to. There are many who claim to know what it means, but have little claim to the title "expert". The experts I was referring to were the ones mentioned in the Barr quote in [[Creation Week]]: professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at world-class universities. According to Barr, they are all agree on the meaning of the text, that it was six ordinary days.
::::::"''...for a large part it depends on their religious orientation.''": For many of the so-called "experts", probably true. But the experts that Barr was quoting would not, for the most part, believe the account to be literally true. Barr himself is theologically liberal, I believe, but he is explaining what the text is saying, even though he doesn't believe that to be a true and accurate account.
::::::"''...if one group of Christians says it means one thing and then another tells me that without doubt it means another, then I’m confused before I get to reading the first page''": In that sense, your confusion is understandable. But you need to go beyond just noting that different groups have different beliefs and see how good their arguments are.
::::::"''What I can gather is that to some it is a literal text peppered with metaphors and parables; just to cover all eventualities!''": That's being unkind (ascribing to them the motive of beleiving what suits them). Most non-fiction texts are literal peppered with metaphors. Take a newspaper, for example. You are meant to understand the news as literal events, but even that newspaper will include metaphors in the text, as metaphors are a normal everyday part of language. So there's nothing odd about the Bible being that way. Also, metaphors are discernable by the context. If the newspaper said that so-and-so had passed away after a heart attack, you know that "passed away" is a metaphor for "died", and you have no reason to wonder if "heart attack" is literal or metaphorical. Acknowledging that the Bible contains metaphor is not an argument of convenience, but a simple recognition of the nature of the text.
::::::"''I can understand the points in the Creation Week link, as long as you take what is written in the Bible as the perfect word of God...''": You don't need to do that, for most of them at least. The points are mostly to do with understanding the language.
::::::"''...would Moses understand anything conveyed to him by a perfect and omnipotent being?''": Surely a perfect and omnipotent (and omniscient) being would have the capability of describing things in a way that Moses could understand?
::::::"''...Would God have had the same concept of a day as we do?''": Wouldn't God use language that Moses understood? Besides, from what we understand of God, He doesn't experience day and night: That is something that He created as part of His creation, so He would ''have to be'' talking about earthly days, not any other ones.
::::::"''...if Moses understood the days as God told him to be 24 hours, did he try to clarify this to the next reader by adding the reference?''": Why? Why explain the meaning of words to people who already understand the language?
::::::"''...could it not still have been poetic? After all, much contemporary poetry does not follow implicit rules ...''": In order for something to be called "poetry", it has to follow ''some'' rules, else you could call any text poetry. Sure, the rules might differ in different cultures and at different times in history, but there's still got to be rules. There's no point proposing that a text is poetry without having some reason for doing so, and I don't consider a desire to not take the text literally to be such a reason.
::::::"'''Therefore, my point is that you cannot be sure that what Moses said and wrote is the word of God...''": I can be sure. That is, I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence of God's ultimate authorship of it to be convinced of that. You, of course, may not be so convinced. Some will never be convinced, because they will refuse to believe no matter what. But this is not the place to get into the evidence for that.
::::::"''Tradition states these books to have been written by Moses. This is improbable, since these books speak of Moses in the third person throughout and also more conclusively, they tell of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34:5.''": I would not be the first nor the last time that someone has written of themselves in the third person. And it's more than tradition that it was written by Moses, including Jesus Himself testifying to that. Of course that doesn't mean that a later person (e.g. Joshua) didn't append an epilogue to it to record Moses' death, so that fact is not reason to reject Moses' authorship.
::::::"''I find that while many Christians are quick to accept archaeological data that verifies a piece of Biblical history, and are quick to accept scholars' conclusions on the questionable nature of scriptures of other religions, they downplay a critical study of their own scripture, the Bible.''": I also find Christians to be somewhat inconsistent like that, but I also find many sceptics, such as yourself, using loaded language, such as referring to people who believe the Bible as "Christians" and those who question it as "scholars". It is nonsense like this, along with many stupid and inconsistent arguments against the Bible, that causes sceptics to have little credibility even with Christians who are more open to examining critical views. A classic example is Thomas Paine using the very point that you used about Deuteronomy recording Moses' death meaning that Moses could not have written the book, yet he acknowledged in his own book that a previous edition ''contained something that he had not himself written''! Did he therefore reject his own authorship of his book? Or acknowledge that he was inconsistent in denying Mosaic authorship? Of course not. When it comes to criticising the Bible, very often anything goes, including inconsistency.
::::::"''As historians (or part-time historians), we cannot know what has happened in the past...''": So I guess you don't know when you were born?
::::::"''...we can only critically examine the evidence we have to create an idea of what has or might have happened, that is what history is''": We can "know" what happened about as well as we can know anything. How do I know that man has been to the moon (which happened in my lifetime)? Because I saw evidence and heard that it happened from people I considered to be reliable. How do I know what happened during World War II (which happened before I was born)? The same answer. How do I know what happened 2000 years ago? The same answer. Sure, for much of history the evidence is quite scant, and so we can't be sure, but that's not true all the time, so in many cases we can be as sure of it as we can be of almost anything.
::::::"''To claim that anything in the past is definite is to speak outside of your authority whether you are a historian...''": Not true. If the evidence is scant, a historian may not have much to go on, but it ''is'' his area of authority.
::::::"''...even one translation to English could have been changed in some ways.''": Because words in two different languages don't have a one-to-one correspondence, this is inevitable in a sense. But given the number of different experts (translators, etc.) who have studied this, the worst that can be said is that the English translations don't 100% convey every subtlety of the original languages. But that's a whole lot different to claiming that there is any substantial change that has occurred, and to therefore questioning the veracity of the Bible.
::::::"''Please let me demonstrate how my argument was fairly sound, but yours is a logical fallacy. (rest snipped)''": The problem with your rebuttal is that it is a straw-man argument. If you wrote something down and gave it to your friend, and your friend carefully rewrote it verbatim and passed it on to me, there is no more chance of misunderstanding arising than if you had written it and given it directly to me. So my argument was not logically flawed. What you probably assumed before but have now stated explicitly is that the Bible was passed down by oral tradition. There's two problems with this. One is that the people at the time were quite practiced at accurately passing things on orally, as that was a common way of passing on information. The second problem is that I know of no reason why the Bible was ever passed on orally, and believe that it was always written down.
::::::"''...it isn’t an assertion because I offered some evidence.''": If you didn't offer evidence, it would have been an ''unsubstantiated assertion'', but providing evidence doesn't mean that it wasn't an assertion.
::::::"''I don’t think a dinosaur with flat, blunt teeth, a long neck and weak jaws would have been very good at hunting, so it would have had to have changed in order to suit a carnivorous diet.''": I don't see your point. I'm not claiming that all dinosaurs were carnivorous. God created creatures herbivorous. Some time later, some started eating meat (which, because of the reduced digestive requirements, should not pose any problems). As far as catching the meat is concerned, some creatures would be better at that than other creatures, specifically those that already had sharper teeth, for example. Furthermore, creationists claim that God provided a fair amount of built-in variability in the genes, so possibly there was already the capability of, for example, a variety of teeth forms so that some creatures might develop teeth better suited for carnivory, and natural selection then favours those creatures. You might think that this is evolution, but the distinction is that the "better" teeth required nothing new, as the genetic information already existed.
::::::"''I’m sorry but that is pure ignorance. It is not proved or disproved on the basis of the evolutionary theory; it is on the basis of fossil evidence and dating methods.''": The dating methods are based on evolutionary theory (or naturalism, to be more precise) and the fossils do not show evolution.
::::::"''If you can give me your scientific opposition to the various methods of dating...''": See [[radiometric dating]].
::::::"''Christians often use carbon or radiometric dating as evidence that events occurred at a time in-keeping with that in the Bible, as seen here...''": Carbon dating, yes, but rarely if ever other forms. Carbon dating is able to be calibrated with artefacts of known age for the last few thousand years, so creationists don't take issue with those dates, but get beyond a few thousand years and the methods can't be calibrated.
::::::"''...often citing that dinosaur bones are ‘too old to be accurately dated’...''": I don't recall ''ever'' seeing that particular claim.
::::::"''Please don’t say tell me that carbon dating cannot date anything beyond 70,000 years, because I know.''": Well, that puts you ahead of many of the evolutionists who argue with me!
::::::"''No I’m not that ignorant, to be honest I didn’t really know what a ‘cubit’ was and I admit I could have phrased the question better.''": Modern translations have it in modern measurements, in footnotes if not the actual text. And it's really not that hard to find out what a cubit was anyway, and not my job to tell you something that you could so easily find for yourself.
::::::"''Having researched it further it seems that, contrary to my earlier claim, that Noah’s ark may well have been of the size required to carry all of the kinds of creatures, not species, that are on the earth today. That is, as long as such a large vessel could have been constructed (one would not have been seen again until the 19th Century). And of course as long as there weren’t hundreds of 50ft lizards marauding through the corridors!''": Not only those alive today, but those that have gone extinct as well. The average size of a dinosaur was about that of a chicken, if I recall correctly. Only relatively few were really large creatures, and it would have been better (for reproduction after the flood) to take young dinosaurs onto the ark, not fully grown ones. But I'm glad to see that you have learnt something! I don't think you're totally correct about the size of ancient boats, though.
::::::"''...also because there is often confusion as to whether the reference to ‘each kind’ in the Bible is referring to each individual species to the smallest variation...''": If you read what the leading young-Earth creationists claim, instead of their critics and people who haven't really studied it, there would have been no reason for your confusion.
::::::"''Please don't accuse me of knowing next to nothing about a subject you only understand from one point of view.''": What makes you think I only know it from one point of view? I get evolution thrust at me in the media, on the Internet, in endless debates with sceptics, in science journals and magazines, and books. I know quite a bit about both sides of the issue. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have relatively little knowledge of the creationist side of the issue. Hence my comment was justified. How much reading of the creationist view ''have'' you done?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:54, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== Dinosaurs are not Reptiles ==

Please remove that. >_< [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
:Why aren't they reptiles? I can find a number of sources that say that they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:16, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, reptiles are cold-blooded. The size and location of dinosaur remains, as well as their internal bone structures, have resulted in the discovery that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 08:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Unless this is [[common knowledge]], we'll need a reference or source for it. The article's not protected. --JJJ {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}
::: It's not common knowledge, because, as I said, I can find a number of sources that say that dinosaurs are reptiles. So I agree a source is needed. And I have two questions. 1) Is cold-bloodedness (still) considered a defining characteristic of reptiles (as distinct from a typical characteristic)? That is, does finding that dinosaurs are warm-blooded mean that they are not reptiles, or does it mean that cold-bloodedness is no longer considered an absolute requirement of reptilianness? 2) Have all dinosaurs been found to be warm-blooded, or just some? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is my understanding that some dinosaurs were found to be warm-blooded. I am not aware of any reclassification away from Reptilian. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why does this page and these thoeries ignore Megafauna? ==

Do you guys even know about megafauna? Why do you automaticlly assume that if antiquity mentions large animals, they are mentioning dinosaurs?

What about the megalania? Or the giant sharks, turtles and crocs of 30,000 years ago? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
: I know about megafauna, but what I don't know is what relevance they have to this article. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)

==Loch Ness Should Be Removed==

I dont want to get in to the debate of whether or not dino's were around with people or not but I think the Loch Ness section should be removed. Numerous reseachers have scoured the Loch and found nothing, no concrete evidence has been found and the famous "Surgeons picture" was admitted as fake by the surgeon on his deathbed. I may not agree with the premise of this article however I do believe it should a least remain *credible*.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 19:29, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: I'm not an expert on the Loch Ness monster, but I would have thought that there were a number of other claimed sightings that a particular picture being faked doesn't change a lot. The entry is already there in a qualified way rather than a definite way, so I don't think it matters a lot, and is (as far as I know) accurate in that people who believe it exists think that it could be a plesiosaur. But removing it wouldn't bother me too much. Anyway, I've unlocked the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'll take it out. Also, if there was a pleisour there it would have to be very old and there is not enough food to support a large carnivore such as a dinosaur. Thanks.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:Maybe we can classify Nessie as "reported" - pending a really clear photo or some bones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Name==
The Greek translation of the name "dinosaur" is to be included; it is part of the history of the subject. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

==Source for claim needed==
The section regarding human and dinosaur fossils states that "It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren't found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn't live together." We should consider providing a citation that shows a prominent evolutionist making such an assertion. The current citation is unfortunately inadequate as it also fails to give an example. I fear that without such backing, this comes off sounding like a straw man argument. Any thoughts? Does anyone know where we can find something like this? [[User:Jdisciple|Jdisciple]] 11:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: The article doesn't claim that "prominent evolutionists" say this. I've added a reference to TalkOrigins saying effectively what this article refers to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Error ==

There's an error about halfway through the article, inthe part about Dinosaurs possibly still living. it reads:
*
o Cite error: Invalid <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag;

refs with no content must have a name

I thought the page might have loaded badly but refreshing the page doesn't change it. [[User:Bryankershaw|Bryankershaw]] 20:42, 30 July 2008)

: should be fixed now. thanks for pointing that out -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 10:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-09-13T19:51:12Z

Damien: /* races */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)
-Damien Rivers

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-09-13T19:50:49Z

Damien: /* races */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.