Talk:Baraminology

!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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.

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. 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? Orgone 09:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cypam's edit

Cypam's last edit comprises three components:

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

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

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

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

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

Plants on the ark?

plants

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

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

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

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