[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:40:46 +1000
PS Apologies for the font sizes -- Wordpad, Yahoo!, and AiG in concert seem to
have conspired against me and I haven't the time to re-edit the whole thing.Paul
No worries. Outlook express converts with a click or two. I do it all the time
to save looking for my glasses.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Martin S
First, the response to criticism of M Behe's Mouse Trap analogy. I went to
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=442 as you
suggested and read some of it, enough to know that I was never going to be able
to competently assess its content.
I did notice something however which caused me to go back to the top and
check the origins. What I found was that the refutation was written by M Behe.
Essentially, it's simply him stating that what he had said originally was
correct. Then I noticed the sponsor -- Discovery Institute! I thought that you
were directing me to a corroborating mainstream source. At the very least,
someone other than the original author. I'm sorry but this is never going to
sway me, even without my current well earned suspicion of anything from DI,
CSR, AiG etc.
Now to Baraminology. I snipped this from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
Baramin Distance
To refine this method, the concept of "Baramin Distance" was proposed. The
initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the including
genetic tests and Catarrhine primates, tests based on ecology and morphology.
However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the
two groups are separate,[4] so methods that did not separate humans from
primates were rejected.[5]
Criticism
Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community. It has been heavily
criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to
make it better fit the desired findings.[6] Baraminology has not produced any
peer-reviewed scientific research,[7] nor is any word beginning with "baramin"
found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and
botany since 1924.[8]
Instead, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific
theory[9] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor.[9] However,
both cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and the
scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by
baraminologists.[10]
I'm afraid that I'm in agreement with Wiki.
It is not that I am automatically dismissive of anything from the above
mentioned groups. It is just that if they were publishing good science, there
would be much wider agreement. It is as though these people believe that there
are alternative truths. It is Lysenko all over again.
I found this on AiG.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind
Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even
bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods
of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new
and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and
birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional
classification rank called "family," which includes many species. There is
evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each
a created kind.9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in
the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat
in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these
species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have
been generated after the Flood from information already present within their
parent kind. Lions, coyotes, and dromedary camels were probably not on the Ark
but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and camel kinds.
Again there is the Biblical reference. This is not science. I don't care
particularly if this is taught in Sunday School or preached from the pulpit as
religion, but it is not science.
Sternberg however, is another matter.
A good place to start is this link concerning the treatment Sternberg
received for publishing Dembski back in August 2004:
I believe you've made a fair case here -- he does seem to have been roughly
treated, at least from this single source anyway. If the material submitted,
and in this case -- published -- meets the definition of science, there should
not be any impediment to publishing. After all, if he is judged by his peers to
be talking a lot of cobblers, then it is done in public and he will be publicly
criticised. Most all revolutionaries are criticised publicly, and that is fair
enough. An establishment which blows with every breath of change is worthless.
New theories must earn their berth.
In this vein also, I've asked elsewhere but got no response -- do you know
why A E Wilder-Smith seems not to cast a shadow in the secular world despite
his three doctorates, while in biblically sanctioned venues he seems to be
lionised?
Also, have you checked your Uni-Pixel mailbox recently?
Paul D
PS Apologies for the font sizes -- Wordpad, Yahoo!, and AiG in concert seem
to have conspired against me and I haven't the time to re-edit the whole thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 20/09/2007
12:07 PM
Other related posts:
