I Think that my Previous Post (That is the One Just below this one) is One of my Absolute Favorites, yet it is Time to Move on.
In an Earlier Post, I Left this Link in Relation to the Change in the Definition of Species. Actually, the Conservapedia (Species) says something Similar. Let me Quote some of it for you. The Bold Emphasis in all of the Below Quotes is Mine.
"Linnaeus, who introduced the classification system in the 18th century, originally intended 'species' to refer to the biblical creation 'kinds', but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds. Despite this, many people, both Christians and evolutionists, believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible. However, creationary scientists accept that 'speciation' has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists."
I Found a rather Interesting Statement in the Wikipedia, Under the Heading, Biological Classification (Wikipedia). Here is the Quote...
"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."
Don't you see? That's just the Problem. When ever the System and/or the Definitions are Revised, it is to Improve Consistency with Darwinism, not with the Idea of Evolutionary Limits Between Kinds. The Whole Idea of Evolutionary Limits just Keeps being Pushed Aside, Mostly because that is not what the Atheists want to Believe. The Definitions are just as Biased as the Science.
This is Why the Creationists have Created their Own Classification System Known as Baraminology. The Word Baramin comes from Two Hebrew Words; Bara - Created and Min - Kind.
These Words in the Strong's Concordance are Spelled just a Little Differently, but they are the Same Words. Min is Actually Spelled Miyn; Same Word; They just Simplified the Spelling. The Literal Hebrew Meaning, from the Strong's Concordance is "to Portion Out, a Sort or Kind"
This Word is Found in Genesis 1:24, "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (Miyn), cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind (Miyn), and it was so.'" (KJV)
Bara is Actually Spelled Bara' and it Corresponds to the Word in the Very First Verse in the Bible.
Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created (Bara') the heaven and the earth."
So there you have it Bara' Miyn; Created Kinds. See the Conservapedia (Baraminology) for a More Detailed Definition. I'd Like to Quote Part of it for you, though.
"Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e. descended from) the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind."
The Word Degenerative (Mutations) is Key, for Darwinists Assume that Mutations Create Something New, yet they do not. As Radar was Explaining, in Breeding, Genetic Information is not Progressive. When we Breed a Certain Pure Breed Dog, we Loose Information, we do not Gain it. In the Breeding of Samoyed's, for Example, all Genetic Information is Lost, Except for Long Hair, White and the other Characteristics of the Breed. The Only Way to Get the Lost Information Back, is to Breed the Samoyed with some other Breed of Dog, yet even this is not the Adding of New Information, cause all the Genetic Information that is Present is Still Related to Dogs and there is Nothing New Added that will Move the Dog Information in the Direction of Cat, instead of Dog. No New Information is Ever Added and this is why Evolution between Kinds is not Possible.
There is One More Word that I want to Define here and that is Macro-Evolution. The Conservapedia (Macroevolution), Acknowledges that the Idea is just a Theory and Here's more of it Quoted Below...
"Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection, mutations, and genetic drift can, given enough time, lead to the creation of new clades, which are groups of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor."
Evolutionists will Call Something as Small as Speciation (in Accordance with their Biased Definition of Species) Macro-Evolution, yet what they are Actually Hoping to Prove is so Very Much Bigger than that, since they Believe that all Organisms Descended from the Same Ancestor, the Original being the Simplest Form of Bacteria. This, however, is not what the Bible Says and the Biblical Explanation has in no Way been Disproved, for The Actual Natural Selection and Evolution between Biblical Kinds has Never been Observed.
When I Shared at Least some of this on a Comment Thread on Radar's Blog, One of the Commenters Mentioned that the Conservapedia is Biased, yet I get such a Kick Out of it when Liberals call what is Conservative Biased, but will not Acknowledge that their Sources are Biased as well. The Wikipedia is no Less Biased than the Conservapedia. The First Leans Liberal and the Second is more Conservative. Besides, since Baraminology is a Conservative Idea, I thought it much Better to use a source that was Conservative, rather than a source that was Biased against the Idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Conservapedia?
I'm slightly upset with that place. Their definition of conservative
trait: individual responsibility..
Their definition of liberal trait:
arrogance, bias, bigotry bullying, class warfare, deceit, denial, hypocracy, race-baiting, stupidity, style, uncharitable and whining.
....not to whine, but hey,
I got style!
She Chuckles,
I'm going to have to Get Back to you on that One, BB. That doesn't seem so Subtle, does it?
Hi BB,
I Must Admit that your Comment Discouraged me a Little. They should not have been Quite so Obvious in their Bias. What is Interesting, though, is Comparing the Wikipedia's Description of the Conservapedia and the Conservapedia's Description of the Wikipedia. I Chuckle as I Read how they both Accuse Each Other of Bias.
Here's the Thing, though, say you were to Read the Conservapedia's Description of Same Sex Marriage and the Wikipedia's Description of the Same. Which Ever One does not Match your Own Way of Thinking is the One that you will Find to be Biased, but the One that does Match your Way of Thinking will Simply Seem True to you. We are all Basically Blind to our Own Bias and Think that Everyone Else Contains Bias, but Certainly not Ourselves.
As to the Above, though, since Baraminology is a Conservative Idea, I Felt that the Conservatives have the Right to Define their Own Concepts in the Way in which they Choose to.
I Think it is Interesting too that those who Believe in Baraminology have Accepted the Idea of Speciation. I Guess for Awhile, they were Debating the Definition of Species, but Eventually they Abandoned that and have Come Up with a Different Word, "Kind", that Fits Better with the Creationist Theory.
I've just Found this Subject Interesting and rather those who Read it Believe in Creationism or not, the Main Point is that Evolution Between "Kinds" has Still not ever been Observed.
I have not had as Many Comments since I've been Interested in the Subject of YEC (Young Earth Creationism). I didn't Mean to Scare Everyone Off. I'm Still the Same Person. Honest?
Lista,
When you discuss Darwinism you are discussing religion. I grew up hearing people say things like "just don't talk about religion or politics and we'll get along just fine." I fear that was the philosophy of my parent's generation and it kicked them in the butt because my generation has done so much damage.
Baby Boomers have led the charge to change America to some kind of pagan-socialist dictatorship with the nobility being the likes of George Soros and Nancy Pelosi.
Boomers have also decided to dump Jesus in the trash can or else give Him a rainbow headband and a guitar and have Him lead us in "Kumbaya" while we go pick up trash from the side of the road and recycle it to help the planet.
Your very wonderful post about Baraminology is to the point and helpful and accurate. This whole subject of origins is terribly complicated because of the masses of propagandized people who blindly accept Darwinism and the association of various groups who promote it for the sake of keeping God away from the science table in hopes He will starve to death.
I will put my nickel on Jesus Christ to win in the end. I will continue to believe in and proclaim truth no matter how uncomfortable. Your comments on my blog have cheered me immensely and I do thank you so much!
Radar
Thanks so Much for your Comment, Radar, and to be Honest with you, I Find your Blog and all the Evolutionists Commenters on it Quite Tiring. How Ever do you do it?
My most Frequent Commenter, BB-Idaho, is a Liberal and an Atheist, but also a Friend. He is Very Smart, Quite Polite and Probably doesn't Tell me Everything that he is Thinking. I'm sure he Privately Thinks that I'm Quite Full of it, but Holds Back for the Sake of Friendship. I Could be Wrong, but that's what I see.
I don't Know what Happened to Satyavati. She's a Socialist and Believes in Reincarnation. I think we both get Frustrated with each other at Times.
You See, I Wonder at Times if Debate is Really the Way to Reach People. We are all so Set in Our Ways. That is Probably Why I Get so Tongue Tied on my Own Blog and just don't Know what I should Say Next.
Z-Man's Blog, Stranded in Civilization, on the Right, is the One that has a lot of the Same Commenters on it that have at Times Commented on my Blog. At least some of them, though, are Probably more Interested in Politics, than in Science, so I may have Lost their Interest with my Change in Direction.
Thanks again for your Comment, Please do Keep Dropping by.
You might be interested in a recent discovery
which is being studied and argued about by paleoantrhopologists.
Since conservapedia listed
the Java Ape Man as a hoax
(it was originally classified as pithecanthropus erectus over a hundred years ago and is now thought to be
one of those hominids like
h. erectus, h. heilelbergensis, h. habilis
although the arguments go on). Indeed, some think the h. floresiensis was related; isolated on a small island, like the other fauna there, it gradually became miniaturized. Since that
science is still much up in the air, I checked
conservapedia and it only had one sentence for the
'species' h. floresiensis.
Accurate as far as that goes. But creation science wise, surely there must be an explanation?
(color me confused, I recall no pair of hobbits
on the ark!) :)
Interesting Comment, BB. Like Usual, I'll Get Back to you, since Research may be Required.
There Appears to be Quite a Bit that is not Known about the Homo Floresiensis, BB, also Nicknamed Hobbits. Their Ancestry is Unknown, as well as their Origins, Transformations and Migrations and who ever Heard of "Reverse Evolution"? They are Calling this the "Black Swan of Paleontology" and it has Stimulated Heated Debate, as well as Indecision among the Scientists.
This Almost Sounds like Evidence Against Evolution, if you Ask me, BB, for there is much more Confusion there, then Agreement about anything. If this were Strong Evidence of "a New Species", there would not be so much Confusion and Lack of Agreement, at Least not Among Conventional Scientists that have Accepted the Evolutionary Idea.
Also, Once Again I Ran Across Words such as "Might have", which do not Carry with them a Lot of Conviction and Certainty and the Closing Conclusion is no more than "Wait and See".
And what's more, let's not Forget that the Disease/Developmental Disorder Idea has not been Ruled Out. I Imagine that that is Probably the Most Likely Creationist Answer.
It is an interesting find.
The arguments about pathological diminuation continue controversial, as
no known diseases could lead to not only dwarfism, but smaller brain capacity.
Since remains of dwarf elephants have also been found there, I'm tempted to
think that well known 'insular dwarfism', a
type of allopatric speciation, may have operated on very early hominids like h. habilis.
On the other hand, that island in the past was home to giant rodents and komodo dragons (as well as the aforementioned itty-bitty elephants. Additionally, these litte
folk possessed the familiar old Oldowan tool kit (they chipped their own flint axes (presumably
lil things as well). In addition to Genesis, we may need to check out JRR
Tolkein's 'The Hobbit'.
Since the material is new, and there is much conjecture, this study is
becoming hobbit-forming. :)
If you prefer baraminological biology,
this is the place
for you.
Thanks for the Comments, BB, and for the Links. I may not always give an Immediate Response, but I'll Get to you. I Promise. Maybe someone else will Respond in the Mean Time.
Looks like you are Going to Keep me Busy Reading Evolutionist's Materials, as well as Looking Up Words such as "Diminuation". Oophs! Misspelled; do you Mean Diminution? Yes, "made Small" by Disease. That Fits. Perhaps I should not have Accused you of "Holding Back". lol. :)
After Reading the First of your Links, BB, One Guess is that the Dwarfism was Caused by "Island Dwarfing" (Page 2) and the Smaller Brain by Something Else. If we Remove the Requirement that the Dwarfing and the Brain Size Absolutely have to be Caused by the Same Cause, then that Leaves us Open to more Options.
What those who are more Educated are Saying is that these were "Modern Human Dwarfs afflicted with Genetic or Pathological Disorders." (Page 1)
On Page One, the Proponents of this Idea are just Described as Critics. On Page 3, Robert B Eckhardt, of Penn State University, says that it is a modern human stricken with Macrocephaly or a similar developmental disorder that shrinks the head and brain.
If no such Pathological Cause is Know, BB, then why was this Guy able to Name One? And what's more, the link that I got from this Page that is also in the Above Paragraph Indicates that there are Several Causes of Microcephaly...
"Conditions that affect brain growth can cause microcephaly. These include infections, genetic disorders, and severe malnutrition."
I'm Leaning Towards the Third One, due to Lack of Food on the Island and this Actually Makes me Smile, cause it sort of Makes a Mockery of the Claim in the First of your Articles that such "dwarfing reduces stature, but not brain size." (Page 2). If this is True, how is it that Malnutrition in an Island Setting does not Result in Microcephaly, especially while in the Womb? Seems to me that that if they Only had Enough Food to Barely Survive, this could Effect every Dwarf on the Island, Once the First Generation has Passed.
I Imagine that Allopatric Speciation is what they say has Resulted in Things such as Lions and Tigers, which were Both Descended from the Same Kind. The Baramologists that are Described in the Above Post are not Impressed with this, because this is Still no Evidence of Evolution between Kinds.
There is also no Way to Establish this Among that which is Extinct, because there is no Way to Establish what can Mate with what and Allopatric Speciation has not Been Observed within Humans. I Don't Know of any Two Nationalities of Humans that can't Breed with Each Other. Do you?
She Smiles. No, BB, I'm Afraid that this Example will Need a Little Work before it is going to in any Way Prove a New Species. The Controversy makes it Very Apparent that they Simply Do not Have a Solid Explanation that Establishes this as a New Species.
I Think I'll go Eat Now before I Experience too much Drawfing. :)
"Looks like you are Going to Keep me Busy Reading Evolutionist's Materials,"
..sorry, links are bothersome. On the other hand, it is good to understand modern biological thinking, especially if you don't agree with it. :)
I suspect that unless more specimans are found, there
isn't enough 'sample' to do more than conjecture at this point.
(you know how I just love
conjecture!)
..there is a very long and detailed summation of the original findings and all the controversies from then til now. No, you don't HAVE to read it!
But parts address the small
brain arguments and a number of studies comparing
the hobbit brain, those of
normal humans and those of
microcephalic humans. Oddly, although small, the hobbit cranium apparently
held a brain with large
frontal and temporal lobes
like us (and not microcephalics. So, the
experts (hobbitologists?)
continue to ponder. And I continue to conjecture, which is just one of my
bad habits. :) The other being terrible poetry:
There was a hobbit from
Flores-
A tiny old lady,
Delores-
Was she a new specie?
..a hominid pixie?
Or just old bones to
bore us?
[I know, I'm holding my
nose too]
BB, you almost had it brilliantly. If you'll permit me:
There once was a hobbit from Flores,
A tiny old lady, Delores.
Was she a new specie?
A hominid pixie?
Or just some bones put there to bore us.
Now the meter should work a bit better.
Hi BB,
Links are not Necessarily Bothersome if they come at a Reasonable Rate and are a Reasonable Length. Thanks for Sending the Shorter Link First. It was Interesting to Read it.
Actually your Poem was Cute. That's what I Like about you, BB, you Argue a Little and then you Entertain me. You are not at all Hostile. Instead you are Fun. Now go give a Haminid Hobbit a Hug.
Oh Hi IAMB,
Thanks for Dropping by and I'm Sorry I Missed your Comment Earlier. That's 41 Minutes Prior to My Comment. How did I Miss that? Oh well. Welcome.
BB an atheist? is it so?
Re commenters at my blog "At least some of them, though, are Probably more Interested in Politics, than in Science"
I think they're more interested in Politics than anything else. Every once in a while I TRY to change the subject...anything people! Are you more a dog or a cat person? how 'bout dream analysis? Always the politics. Heavy subject you chose here but interesting and I'm following it.
Lista: "If we Remove the Requirement that the Dwarfing and the Brain Size Absolutely have to be Caused by the Same Cause, then that Leaves us Open to more Options."
Maybe some of the hobbits were anorexic.
Are you Interested in this? Really?! Perhaps I'll have to do another Post then.
Actually, BB Might be an Agnostic. I've Forgotten Exactly what it was that he said.
I don't know about the Anorexia Idea. Anorexics are more Skinny than Short. Also, if I Understand it Right, what ever happened to their Brain Size, Happen not to Some, but to all of them. Interesting Idea, though.
RE: "yet I get such a Kick Out of it when Liberals call what is Conservative Biased," ..well, it IS
named CONVERVApedia! Speaking of getting kicks,
just for kicks, I picked a couple of historical figures, Micheal Servetus
and Desiderius Erasmus (both Christian Humanists,
the first burned at the stake by Calvin in Geneva,
the second a brilliant
reformer who stayed in the
Catholic church of the time) and compared and contrasted Wikipedia vs
Conservapedia. Consider
Servetus:
Conservapedia-6 paragraphs
Wikipedia- 30 paragraphs,
40 notes, 11 refs and 15 links...
Erasmus:
Conservapedia- 1 paragraph
Wikipedia- 49 paragraphs,
50 refs and 22 links..
IMO, if we seek information we need ALL that is available...not just the few things that
we agree with.
Hi BB,
"Well, it IS named CONVERVApedia!
Well, at Least they are Honest about their Bias. The Wikipedia is Biased in a Liberal Direction and yet won't Admit it.
I Think that your Observation Means something Different, though, than what you are Implying. The Conservapedia is Newer and therefore has Fewer Entries and Shorter Entries. I wouldn't Automatically Assume Excessive Bias just Based on the Length of the Articles.
"Well, at Least they are Honest about their Bias. The Wikipedia is Biased in a Liberal Direction and yet won't Admit it."
What's to admit? Conservapedia is chock-full of opinion and editorializing. If there's anything in its policy about neutrality, then it's certainly not implemented by the users.
On your suggestion, I compared the articles on same-sex marriage. Can you point out where you think the bias is in the Wikipedia article?
Or are you going to say that anything that isn't written according to your bias must be biased in some other way?
Thanks for your Comment, Captain Stubing
"Or are you going to say that anything that isn't written according to your bias must be biased in some other way?"
That's an Interesting Statement and the Reason Why is because anything that is not Written According to One Opinion is going to be Written According to another Opinion. Replace the Word Opinion with the Word Bias and you will get your above Statement.
The Only way to not be Biased is to Print the Opinions of Everyone and Leave no Vital Information Out. I'll be Back to Find some Examples Later. You sort of Caught me in a rather Tired Frame of Mind.
As we Compare the Same-Sex Marriage Entries in the Wikipedia vs. the Conservapedia, it is that which is Emphasized that Makes the Bias.
The Conservapedia Mentions, in the Very First Sentence, that this is a Proposed "Redefinition or Variation" of the Concept of Marriage. The First Sentence in the Wikipedia States that "Same-Sex Marriage is a Legally and/or Socially Recognized Marriage."
So the Opening Sentence of the First Stresses "Redefinition and Variation" (Opposition) and the Opening Sentence of the Second Stresses "Recognition" (Acceptance). The Biased Opinion of Both is Clearly Stated in the Very First Sentence of their Entries.
The way the Conservapedia Reads Sounds Like an Opposing Argument Against Gay Marriage and the way the Wikipedia Reads sounds like an Argument in Support of Gay Marriage. The Only Difference is that the Conservapedia Admits their Bias and the Wikipedia does not.
Everyone, one weapon in the Darwinist/Socialist vault is censorship. By firing those who disagree with the ruling paradigm, by doing DOS attacks against small conservative websites and by flooding everyone with pseudoscientific babble like ERVs and Junk DNA even though observational science has proven that ERVs are not what Darwinists asserted and that Junk DNA has multiple coding functions.
Wikipedia doesn't admit bias. Darwinists pretend they are not biased. They claim ownership of science and yet they are taking it back to the primitive axiomatic days of pagans and early Greeks. Classic scientific observation, testing, hypothesis, retesting and conclusions are now hobbled by the artificial insertion of methodological naturalism, which is the injection of religion into science.
Creation science sites admit they have a worldview. Darwinists pretend that they do not. Therefore they do indeed swallow a camel and choke on a gnat. The arrogance and pretensions of the ruling paradigm are built on 18th Century ideas sprung from Aristotlian-axiomatic paganism.
Modern science first had to cast aside Axiomatic science and put Baconian science in place before we could allow Copernicus and Brahe and Maxwell and Newton and Pasteur and so many other theistic scientists advance the cause of human understanding. I have never seen a more ignorant self-satisfied bunch of so-called scientists in my life as I now see the propagandized Dawkins and Myers and the rest blithely ignoring the observational data and carrying the pagan torch of Darwinism into the night. Heading in precisely the wrong direction.
Thanks Radar,
Excellent Comment!!!
Post a Comment