Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? This is the Religion forum. You're in the wrong place if you're expecting a discussion of DNA without religious bias. You're reading posts from people who think the Bible is a science book. In the real world....science books are science books.
Were this the Science forum most of the people posting on these threads (DNA, evolution, etc.) would get blown out of the water.
I am using the term to distinguish between evolution within a Kind and evolution ultimately leading to a new Kind. This is kinds the claim Darwinian Evolution postulates for the Evolution of the whale for example. Or Ape to man.
You’re simply follow Baraminolgy, which is not acknowledged by anyone outside of the creation camp. It's creation pseudoscience at it's finest.
Baraminology is a creationist system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another. Creation science has been criticized for its pseudoscientific characteristics by the US National Academy of Science and numerous other scientific and scholarly organizations.
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research, nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.
In contrast, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific theory. However, both cladistics (the field devoted to classifying living things according to the ancestral relationships between them) and the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by baraminologists.
Some techniques employed in Baraminology have been used to demonstrate evolution, thereby calling baraminological conclusions into question.
The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The combination is not meaningful in Hebrew. It is intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible, and especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.
Baraminology borrowed its key terminology, and much of its methodology from the field of Discontinuity Systematics founded by Walter ReMine in 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Not confused at all, it just poses a problem for Darwinian Evolution because it is observable, reproducible
What exactly poses a problem for Darwin Evolution? What is this "it" that you are claiming here to be observable and reproducible?
Please share the evidence with us? I can’t wait to see it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
and the Darwinian Evolution theory is not observable or reproducible.
Sorry to wake the sleeping Giant who is late to the party. Evolution is observable and reproducible. It’s old news now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Can't handle reality and must accept blindly that Evolution leading to new Kinds occurred even though no proof exists. None. True blind faith.
I agree! Creationists cannot handle reality and they all follow True Blind Faith.
Now what was that you were saying about Speciation not having any “proofs”?
False argument when speaking to me or anyone using the Bible as the word "Kind" is as a group that reproduces within itself. That is it. I posted the scriptures.
This is a False Claim. If not a False Claim, then it should be very simple for you to provide evidence for the claim that “"Kind" is as a group that reproduces within itself”.
A credible link for this claim would certainly help your credibility in stating such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Biology uses the terms it likes and mainly to promote the theory of Evolution with no real basis in observable or reproducible evidence.
What terms are you talking about…this makes no sense unless you provide examples of what you mean.
List one word that Biology uses mainly to promote the Theory of Evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
They have only shown buy observation and have only reproduced changes within a Kind as I have shown repeatedly.
What evidence have you shown repeatedly? There’s been NONE that I or anyone else has seen. Please show us your evidence.
Not to mention even a single cell is incredibly complex, way beyond what early scientists knew, so they started making the single cell claim and now are faced with real problems.
Exactly what real problem are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Note: Most who say "you do not understand evolution" are the ones who don’t.
*Note*: All creationists and literalist's who claim “I understand Evolution” are the ones who don’t.
Thank you for your contribution in proving my point.
Or better yet just sit there and shrug your shoulders without any explanation other than "golly jeepers I guess our intelligent designer must have made it that way". Epic FAIL. :
This is one of many reasons the creationists lost the Dover trial. They could not explain away this evidence. LOL
Not to mention even a single cell is incredibly complex, way beyond what early scientists knew, so they started making the single cell claim and now are faced with real problems.
Oh I don't know. They look pretty simple to me. Well, one could say they are fairly complex but nothing like a complex organism.
Life is a helluva lot simpler than what you think. You could say that life is inevitable. If it is in the slightest way possible for life to exist, it will exist. Did you know that there are organisms that eat iron? Google the Titanic. It's being eaten.
That is not possible The odds of that forming naturally are one in ten billion (I worked it out so I know it is correct). Just because it actually happened doesn't mean it is possible or can or did happen. You know the 'logic'.
It would be just as problematic if I just went over to the Space forum and began making bizarre claims about the Universe and Black Holes.
Black holes do not exist. They can not be observed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This Picture Has Creationists Terrified
Epic FAIL. :
