Joined: Dec. 2006
|Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 26 2010,11:07)|
|Quote (ppb @ Feb. 26 2010,09:47)|
|Which, so far, is more than I have seen from you concerning baraminology. Who is doing research in this area? Where is the data that supports it? I haven't seen anything from you or from anyone.|
The reason Joe/tough guy won't link to it is that it is even more ridiculous than he is, and he wants to remain king of this molehill.
But the Creation Science Quarterly is good for lulz. Here's a recent article by the inimitable Jerry Bergman on "Why the inverted retina of the human eye is a good design"!
Thanks for the link Albie. That's more information than I ever got out of Joey boy.
I found this article on the current state of Baraminology to be pretty enlightening. As far as I can tell, they use various arbitrary methods to lump things together to try and guess what the original "kinds" were. I didn't see any attempt to understand what sort of barrier would prevent one "kind" from evolving into another "kind", which is what I would really like from Joe. So far all I see is a lot of guess work, grounded on the belief in the Genesis creation account(s). As we like to say, all science so far!
Is that really the current state of Baraminology? Pretty pitiful.
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman