Talk:Baraminology
David Gerard (Talk | contribs) (→nag nag nag) |
(→nag nag nag) |
||
| Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
:::I left them as WP links because I figured we weren't here to duplicate WP and there's nothing RW could reasonably add to what WP says. We could write a lite article on the subject, but I don't see much point when WP does fine. I think they're fine, but you could move them to footnotes if you prefer - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | :::I left them as WP links because I figured we weren't here to duplicate WP and there's nothing RW could reasonably add to what WP says. We could write a lite article on the subject, but I don't see much point when WP does fine. I think they're fine, but you could move them to footnotes if you prefer - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::At least move them to footnotes. We have a bit of a dislike for direct word links to WP, since we might have articles on the topic. One thing we do, is write basic "science" articles to show we know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it's too easy to just turn into a WP linkfarm. {{User:Human/sig|}} 02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::Just skimmed our [[cladistics]] article. I'm not sure what it offers over WP - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | :::Just skimmed our [[cladistics]] article. I'm not sure what it offers over WP - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::See above, mostly. I doubt our evolution article really has more than WP either, but we must have one. {{User:Human/sig|}} 02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Here comes the science bit. Concentrate. == | == Here comes the science bit. Concentrate. == | ||
Revision as of 02:11, 1 August 2010
Import?
Is this import or original work? I like it either way.DocSock 10:29, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
- Import for now, I am going to slaughter it to the true god and show how poor of a field it is.--TimS 10:31, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
pseudoscience
In order to be a psuedoscience, shouldn't you establish that somebody is claiming that it is science? Heart♥GoldJump up and down 20:01, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm no etymologist, but the "-ology" in "baraminology" (a word which sets off fire bells on the spell-check, by the way...) means "the study of." And if baraminologists aren't trying to proceed scientifically, how are they learning about their baramin buddies? PFoster 21:41, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I understand creation "scientists" call it science. Doesn't CP present it as science?--Bob_M (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
Rewrite
Still needs a major rewrite, and yes, HG, creationists believe this to be science, strangely enough.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:06, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
I have just read CP's entry on baraminology (again), I can see why it would appeal to schoolkids (assuming that it was all they were taught). I reckon it was originally a spoof by the inheritors of Lewis Carrol that got out of hand. The attempts (big words based on dead languages) to make it sound like a science are sadly laughable. "Sadly" because thes youngsters are more likely to be impressed by the pseudo flummery when it sounds so good. I hate the perversion of such (presumably) intelligent young minds. That's what really annoys me about almost everything cp stands for.
I could go on and on and on and ... ... Keepoff the grass 22:32, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Friggin Baramins!
I can't turn around in my house without falling over a baramin. Those damn baramins - they're everywhere! DogP 18:57, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Actually
Just for the record, "baraminology" is almost exclusively only heard of by the professionals practicing it. Most lay people (including school-age, homeschool, YEC science kids) have never heard of it.
One of the main baraminology guys is Dr. Wood, who was part of the team that sequenced the Rice genome, and has published numerous papers on plant transposons, and also has written many chapters in standard textbooks on genome sequencing and statistical significance in genome sequence comparisons. To get a feel for how baraminology is practiced, check out the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life".
The main differences between baraminology and other forms of taxonomy is that (a) it is not based on ancestry. Two organisms can be in the same baramin without having any common ancestors. Another is that (b) it allows for real discontinuity. Traditional taxonomy in large part assumes universal common ancestry with no major discontinuities.
The most persuasive evidence for including two species in the same baramin is reproductive compatibility. This is considered cumulative. For instance, if A is reproductively compatible with B and B with C, all are considered to be within the same baramin. The BSG is currently working on a hybridization database of all published crosses. The current results (which leaves a WHOLE lot of data out -- they haven't had the funding to get it completed) can be found here -- http://bryancore.org/hdb/
Current taxonomy studies by baraminologists have shown in some cases the baramin exists out to the "order" level of traditional taxonomy. However, it is thought, in general, to lie at approximately the family level. Jean Lightner's breeding studies of sub-order Ruminantia have shown significant amounts of reproductive compatibility throughout many disparate parts.
As for whether or not there is a 100% always-good litmus test for baramins, while there is none, that is the same for all taxonomy. Witness the proposal of Pegasoferae in secular science.
Other people prefer to take a statistical morphological approach, which is described in some detail in "Understanding the Pattern of Life".
Also, on the extreme rates of evolution, I think the analysis of the number of mutations is flawed for multiple reasons. First of all, it takes the assumption that the changes must be the result of mutation. However, current examples of rapid morphological change are actually the result of new symbioses. This can produce radical morphological shifts with little mutation (and then sometimes mutations follow it that trim down the genomes of both species to throw off the excess). Likewise, for things that do happen mutationally, baraminologists generally think that, like every other part of creation, the change process within organisms has been deteriorating. Therefore, detrimental mutations would not have been nearly as prevalent in the past as it is currently.
To understand baraminology, the best introduction would be:
1) Getting the book "Understanding the Pattern of Life" 2) Reading the proceedings of the Creation Biology Study Group (originally the baraminology study group -- they changed their name since they expanded beyond pure systematics and few people knew what baraminology was) -- http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html — Unsigned, by: 207.155.33.225 / talk / contribs
- All good insights. Could you put it into the article, and de-snarkify the article as needed?-αmεσ (tailor) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Sorry
I can't help out your project. I just wasted an hour typing, and I think I lost everything because of some system wierdness (actually I think it was because someone typed in the notes while I was posting, but I'm not sure). It looked like it saved to me, but in fact it did not, and I lost all my work.
207.155.33.225 08:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- It may have been an edit conflict, or an internet error on your end. Hit "back" in your browser; the text will still be there. I hope you haven't closed the window yet? Also, a good idea, if you're typing something long, is to type it in a word processor (MS Word) and then paste it over here, just to make sure it's saved. Hope you stay? Hope this allows you to recover the text?-αmεσ (tailor) 08:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Lulz
And I'm too lazy to make a wandalism page right now. But, user:Nwo added a new intro:
"Adam was the first biologist. Biologists are little more sophisticated than librarians. In Genesis, God gave the task of naming the animals to Adam. This is Baraminology, also known as biology"
Which I thunk was pretty funny, even acceptable to keep, perhaps. Btw, I noticed that "baraminology" contains all the letters of "biology" in the correct order. Liberal anti-God hating, or just coinkydink? human
17:56, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Baramin and DNA
I added this section as I have been recently bothered by the thought experiment implied in the section. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 12:36, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- Looking through some baraminology "literature" online, it seems baraminologists do not make distinctions on the basis of DNA but on the basis of whether two kinds of animals can successfully interbreed. I can;t see how this section is relevant to the topic. [1] [2] Rational Edthink! 15:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- What was the thought experiment, by the way? ħuman
19:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
- What was the thought experiment, by the way? ħuman
Amirite?
Baraminology, also known as Barmyology, is a branch of biology pseudoscience that attempts to...
Lead sentence - Linnean taxonomy
I'm reluctant to change the lead sentence, but I don't think it's accurate. I'm no expert on baraminology, but I don't think it's intended as an "alternative to Linnaen taxonomy". Alternative to phylogenetics/cladistics/phenetics/systematics, yes. Linnaeus was pre-Darwinian, so his work shouldn't be incompatible with a creationist world view.
- Linnaean taxonomy is the name given to the modern system, though, not just the one used by good ole Linnaeus himself. Right? ħuman
18:34, 17 February 2009 (EST)
This text is hidden in the article:
“”Creationists will agree upon and cite often in that the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) and the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) comprise a single "kind". Analysis of their comparative genetics suggests that the two species diverged over 100,000 years ago.[3] Because the populations would be vastly different merely measuring the times the genetic diversification occurred would not be accurate, instead the cumulative number of creatures must be analyzed.
There were roughly 150,000 Grey wolves in 1999.[4] The wolf generation is approximately five years[5] so there should have been something like 3 × 109
|
What's with this? Sterile lock shucker 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- At least tell us which section... Extreme rates is the one to check. ħuman
04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- As badly written as that section was, why expect a commented out part to be much more than gibberish? I'd say, uncomment it and see how it flies? Actually, I'll uncomment it now. ħuman
04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Along the way, I read it again and tried to make it make sense, and then accidentally deleted it. I wonder what the edit comment was when it was added? ħuman
04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Along the way, I read it again and tried to make it make sense, and then accidentally deleted it. I wonder what the edit comment was when it was added? ħuman
- As badly written as that section was, why expect a commented out part to be much more than gibberish? I'd say, uncomment it and see how it flies? Actually, I'll uncomment it now. ħuman
Also, this article is a mess, and I don't think it's our fault, I think it's the subject/target's fault. Since they have no idea what they are saying (other than Goddidit), how can we find the clear explanation of this stupidity to refute it? ħuman
07:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Being Intellectually Honest
Yes, I freely admit, I made the Proconsul video I linked too, but I thought it was relevant to this discussion.--Mustex 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I doubt it will last long - it's not a "reference", and also, sadly, I found it unlistenable. You need to practice pacing your speech a bit, I think. ħuman
21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this site was supposed to be informal? Also, is it not a relevant point (technically, I think saying "all anthropoids are descended from Noah" would be more accurate, but I decided to keep it simple)?--Mustex 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pimping your utube work directly on articles is poor form. Let's say you made a really good one. Post link on talk page, if other people think it is as good as you do, they'll add it to the article. Or they might just say, "oh, that's cool". Adding an unlistenable (do you prooflisten these things?) "ref" isn't an issue of formality or informality, it's just making the article worse. You really need to work on your presentation. I'll cut the link to here so it's not gone, and try to listen again... ħuman
03:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is Mustex' youtube self-pimping: [1] for posterity. This time I listened for even less time, since the production values are so low (distorted audio fershrissake?) I was in pain within 30 seconds. ħuman
03:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, this has been duly noted, and I will remember to do that in the future. (btw, yes I did proof-listen, but I grew up with a father who's deaf in one ear, so my idea of a reasonable volume level is different from most people's. I intend to work on it in future videos. I know that doesn't change the poor form of posting it, but thought I'd let you know).--Mustex 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, once you master this craft I'm sure something you point to on a talk page will end up as an external link somewhere. I'd suggest writing out your script, editing it til it's a pretty good essay, then figuring out how to pace and phrase your speaking - tough stuff more slowly, easy things a little quicker, perhaps? Not sure why the sound quality was poor - crappy microphone? Overloaded preamp perhaps? It's not that it was "too loud" (although at some stage of production it might have been, to overload something), it's just that it was distorted. ħuman
00:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, another possibility would be too much digital compression, like a 4-bit mp3 sounds. ħuman
00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, once you master this craft I'm sure something you point to on a talk page will end up as an external link somewhere. I'd suggest writing out your script, editing it til it's a pretty good essay, then figuring out how to pace and phrase your speaking - tough stuff more slowly, easy things a little quicker, perhaps? Not sure why the sound quality was poor - crappy microphone? Overloaded preamp perhaps? It's not that it was "too loud" (although at some stage of production it might have been, to overload something), it's just that it was distorted. ħuman
- Ok, this has been duly noted, and I will remember to do that in the future. (btw, yes I did proof-listen, but I grew up with a father who's deaf in one ear, so my idea of a reasonable volume level is different from most people's. I intend to work on it in future videos. I know that doesn't change the poor form of posting it, but thought I'd let you know).--Mustex 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is Mustex' youtube self-pimping: [1] for posterity. This time I listened for even less time, since the production values are so low (distorted audio fershrissake?) I was in pain within 30 seconds. ħuman
- Pimping your utube work directly on articles is poor form. Let's say you made a really good one. Post link on talk page, if other people think it is as good as you do, they'll add it to the article. Or they might just say, "oh, that's cool". Adding an unlistenable (do you prooflisten these things?) "ref" isn't an issue of formality or informality, it's just making the article worse. You really need to work on your presentation. I'll cut the link to here so it's not gone, and try to listen again... ħuman
- I thought this site was supposed to be informal? Also, is it not a relevant point (technically, I think saying "all anthropoids are descended from Noah" would be more accurate, but I decided to keep it simple)?--Mustex 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
AIG
I'd like to stick this in the article ...
"...you can see how a trip to the zoo can be used to glorify God and teach others about Him. Don’t miss this special opportunity the next time you visit the zoo!"
“”More Amazing Designs
The elephant’s trunk has over 40,000 muscles, while the entire human has only a few hundred muscles. The same trunk can pick up tiny peanuts or hurl a full-grown lion against a tree to break its back. The giraffe’s heart is the largest of any land animal because it must pump blood all the way to its head. Its neck also has special muscles in its blood vessels that slow down the rush of blood when it lowers its head. Without this design, the sudden jump in blood pressure would kill the giraffe. The snapping turtle’s tongue is specially designed with a lure, so that the turtle can remain still underwater and wiggle the worm-like lure until a curious fish swims up. The polar bear’s fur is made of clear hollow tubes, for trapping the sun’s heat. Its skin is actually black, which helps absorb heat from the sun. The cheetah’s claws are the only partially retractable claws among cats. This design gives it extra traction for speed. It also has an enlarged heart and lungs, which fill its blood with extra oxygen for bursts of speed. |
| —Fair use? |
What do you think, folk? 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ContribsTalk
- Isn't that more appropriate for an evolution vs. intelligent design type article? Anyway the turtle's adaption and cheetah's three adaptions are easily explained by stepwise refinement. The others are slightly harder. CS Miller (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article's basically about "kinds" - the above's an excerpt. 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ContribsTalk
- Yup, the article does seem to mix baraminology and intelligent design. On a related note, hasn't Sheila Richardson noticed that foxes and dogs look like each other, and cats are somewhat like them, and other carnivoria a bit like them, etc... CS Miller (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dead link!
ContribsTalk 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- So sue me, I assumed that Wikipedia has article on everything. CS Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dead link!
- Yup, the article does seem to mix baraminology and intelligent design. On a related note, hasn't Sheila Richardson noticed that foxes and dogs look like each other, and cats are somewhat like them, and other carnivoria a bit like them, etc... CS Miller (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article's basically about "kinds" - the above's an excerpt. 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Silver?
yuh think? - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do...Acei9 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thirded! The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I bang my head against Wikipedia
wp:Baraminology is marked "NPOV dispute." The dispute? Baraminology is part of Intelligent Design, which is a renaming of Creation Science, which is pseudoscience; but someone dared call baraminology a pseudoscience without a reference directly saying just that. AAAAIEEEE. Anyone got one? - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Gap between this and gold
What's missing for this being a cover story?
- Could do with a summary of recent work in baraminological science. Lulz aplenty.
Anything else?- David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to see a discussion on statistical baraminology actually, as it is the latest "research". - π 11:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Cover story nomination (please do not archive)
Actually, I think this is gold material as is. The additional material listed above would be nice, but is not IMO a barrier to cover featuring it. Is there anything that fails the criteria for a gold brain? - David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- A tentative yes, but let me give it a scrub first.
narchist 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I think the whole section on defining a baramin is good and extensive, I'm thinking that perhaps the rest of it needs more - for instance, WP has a "theological criticism" section that I think could be worth transferring over here. Yes, I know it's a not rationalist refutation of it, but it's good to point out how even religious apologists think the idea is a bit crackpot.
narchist 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "history" section is a bit thin, and its second sentence doesn't flow very well. I also had to capitalize Biblical and Earth in the lead, so I suspect it still needs more work. Does anyone have an idea for images that could be used here? Noah's Ark? ħuman
18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added the image from wp:Baraminology, the pathetic and scraggly creationist twigs of life - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "history" section is a bit thin, and its second sentence doesn't flow very well. I also had to capitalize Biblical and Earth in the lead, so I suspect it still needs more work. Does anyone have an idea for images that could be used here? Noah's Ark? ħuman
- While I think the whole section on defining a baramin is good and extensive, I'm thinking that perhaps the rest of it needs more - for instance, WP has a "theological criticism" section that I think could be worth transferring over here. Yes, I know it's a not rationalist refutation of it, but it's good to point out how even religious apologists think the idea is a bit crackpot.
- I also added two fact tags for some creationist claims just avoid any straw-man stuff. Still, I think it's a very good candidate and the work for it probably isn't as much as Human may be thinking.
narchist 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, by "work" I mostly meant careful proofreading and polishing. Thanks for the picture, glad you found one! Can we reword the second sentence in history section? ħuman
01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, by "work" I mostly meant careful proofreading and polishing. Thanks for the picture, glad you found one! Can we reword the second sentence in history section? ħuman
- Trouble is that there's not a lot of past rationalist refutations I could find - no-one's done a particularly vicious skewering of baraminology in particular. (Hence the trouble finding something reputably branding it as pseudoscience to Wikipedia standards.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The 2000/8000 was added by Icewedge. Apparently a source exists in apologetics. Anyone want to risk their intelligence on Answers Research Journal? - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also added two fact tags for some creationist claims just avoid any straw-man stuff. Still, I think it's a very good candidate and the work for it probably isn't as much as Human may be thinking.
The literature! The literature!
I just risked my brain on ARJ. Latest research suggests magical chromosome dances over hundreds of years rather than millions, and God steered it personally. So that must explain it, then. OH GOD I'D NEED TO READ MORE OF THIS TRIPE - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully there aren't actually very many publishing baraminologists. Further written equivalents of solvent abuse:
- Wood, T. C. 2006. The current status of baraminology. Creation Research Society Quarterly 43(3):149–158. Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/2006v43n3p149.pdf - this could be great for this article, actually. If you can cope with the crappy PDF layout.
- Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070
- A Refined Baramin Concept, Occas. Papers of the BSG No. 3, pp. 1-14
- http://www.creationbiology.org/ in general
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- My recommendation for ARJ: a little at a time. It's like radiation. A little's OK, but a lot will fry you. Sterile lock shucker 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Todd Wood's blog might have something, too. Sterile lock shucker 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Nice to see they've acknowledged the bloody obvious ancestors of humans as being in the human baramin, though. (But then, this has been a consistent creationist position.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Todd Wodd is a bizarre case who admits that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and then says he's a creationist anyway. (my ASK article on this.) Really bizzare.... Another source is this article in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Sterile lock shucker 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you make your stuff from that article (and any other missiony articles you've written for ASK) into RW articles as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm short on time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do. Sterile lock shucker 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you make your stuff from that article (and any other missiony articles you've written for ASK) into RW articles as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Theological criticism
The WP religious criticism section appears to be just Christians saying YEC isn't theologically necessary; Human, is there anything you were thinking of that addressed baraminology more specifically? - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not really, I refuse to touch the stuff. I only can mild skin burns by the time things have been RWified, the original material is like kryptonite to me. ħuman
01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please re-review
I've given it a top-to-bottom beating and tried to make it a quality "we destroy valuable braincells huffing this creationist glue so you don't have to." I think it's in excellent condition, but then, I've reduced my IQ to 85 through pseudoscientific solvent abuse. What does it need now? - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Get it down to 65 and we'll talk gold.
narchist 23:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- DUUUUUDE! FREEEEE BIIIIIIIIRD!! \m/ \m/ - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
PS, for the summary thing when we approve this, can we use that cartoony Ark drawing that tops the creationism navbox? It's pretty. ħuman
02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure beats the creationist Pathetic Bare Twigs Of Life - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- You mean atop
{{global flood}}. Speaking of which, should we use that instead of{{creationnav}}? - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)- It's one of those grey areas as baraminology is creationism and global flood; but out of respect of the facts that A) the Global Flood category is smaller and B) baraminology developed as a response to Noah's ark and wasn't just dreamt up by ID advocates, I'd agree with the Global Flood template.
narchist 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's one of those grey areas as baraminology is creationism and global flood; but out of respect of the facts that A) the Global Flood category is smaller and B) baraminology developed as a response to Noah's ark and wasn't just dreamt up by ID advocates, I'd agree with the Global Flood template.
- I've asked David Greig, a fellow BOFH who just happens to be the moderator of talk.origins and hence an expert to Citizendian standards, to review this article. (Let's see if it lures him to RW, though his current hobby probably destroys enough braincells through creationism huffing) - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Great idea. What's a BOFH? ħuman
02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So who would be the PFY? Assuming my interpretation of BOFH is right.
narchist 12:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- At present I'm the PFY at my work! Despite having the title "Senior System Administrator". Oh well - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- So who would be the PFY? Assuming my interpretation of BOFH is right.
- Great idea. What's a BOFH? ħuman
nag nag nag
Any objections to cover status now? - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep all cover story discussion under the cover story header, thank you. I'll go read it again... ħuman
18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that these mimic the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly as used in cladistics". These three words refer to four terms above this sentence. Must be linked to one or more brief descriptive articles. ħuman
02:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Link to Cladistics#Definitions perhaps? ħuman
02:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baramins and DNA section - I guess creatinists wouldn't think chimps and humans are in the same baramin (we have our own special one), but I'd rather see humans compared, say, with a banana (allowing the awesome Ray Comfort link). I think this article still needs more outlinks to supporting articles (which may exist already). Also those two (three?) guys in the history section should have brief linked articles. ħuman
02:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baramins and DNA section - I guess creatinists wouldn't think chimps and humans are in the same baramin (we have our own special one), but I'd rather see humans compared, say, with a banana (allowing the awesome Ray Comfort link). I think this article still needs more outlinks to supporting articles (which may exist already). Also those two (three?) guys in the history section should have brief linked articles. ħuman
- Link to Cladistics#Definitions perhaps? ħuman
- "Note that these mimic the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly as used in cladistics". These three words refer to four terms above this sentence. Must be linked to one or more brief descriptive articles. ħuman
"Is there a Biblical concept of "kind"?" section. Seems to use a lot of words to say very little? Perhaps reduce and combine with etymology section? ħuman
04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quit nagging. This article still requires a lot of work. Hell, I'm still extricating direct statements from weird, oh, what's the word, oh yeah, passive voice-ish things. And fixing misspellings. Also, the structure doesn't seem very logical, but that might be because I am buried in copyediting rather than skimming the overall product. ħuman
04:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Misspellings? e.g.? Thought I'd gotten them all. Structure works for me - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I will note that despite your churlishness, this article is already way better than several existing cover articles. You could of course suggest that we just demote all those for consistency, but I suggest that getting the cover article promotion process going again is more likely to produce something worth having and a drive for quality that offers the reward of the article actually being featured. Y'know, some sort of incentive to bother that harnesses the way that people observably work in collaborative environments - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I like the "Biblical concept of a 'kind'" section because it firmly establishes that the basis of baraminology is bollocks even on its own terms - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the Baraminological concepts table, we need to get rid of those WP links, at least moving them to footnotes, ideally making them go to RW articles that explain them well. Does cladistics cover it well? Do we have clade yet? Clade diagram? ħuman
00:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Re: the Baraminological concepts table, we need to get rid of those WP links, at least moving them to footnotes, ideally making them go to RW articles that explain them well. Does cladistics cover it well? Do we have clade yet? Clade diagram? ħuman
- I left them as WP links because I figured we weren't here to duplicate WP and there's nothing RW could reasonably add to what WP says. We could write a lite article on the subject, but I don't see much point when WP does fine. I think they're fine, but you could move them to footnotes if you prefer - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- At least move them to footnotes. We have a bit of a dislike for direct word links to WP, since we might have articles on the topic. One thing we do, is write basic "science" articles to show we know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it's too easy to just turn into a WP linkfarm. ħuman
02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- At least move them to footnotes. We have a bit of a dislike for direct word links to WP, since we might have articles on the topic. One thing we do, is write basic "science" articles to show we know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it's too easy to just turn into a WP linkfarm. ħuman
- I left them as WP links because I figured we weren't here to duplicate WP and there's nothing RW could reasonably add to what WP says. We could write a lite article on the subject, but I don't see much point when WP does fine. I think they're fine, but you could move them to footnotes if you prefer - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just skimmed our cladistics article. I'm not sure what it offers over WP - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- See above, mostly. I doubt our evolution article really has more than WP either, but we must have one. ħuman
02:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- See above, mostly. I doubt our evolution article really has more than WP either, but we must have one. ħuman
- Just skimmed our cladistics article. I'm not sure what it offers over WP - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Here comes the science bit. Concentrate.
So, firstly. Damn you for linking to the BSG. Now I read some of their pages, and lost a few more precious brain cells. However, one particular part of this paper rather caught my eye. On page 10:
“”The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.
|
Or to paraphrase, "We don't need no stinking data. We make this shit up, and we're proud of it." The science of baraminology basically boils down to "yep, that's a cow all right." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's brilliant and perfect - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've just added it to Wikipedia - cquote and all. Let's see how long it lasts - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- That paper actually gets worse. It's like a Conservapedia parodist coming out. "Herein we define and apply the 'I knows it when I sees it' method of scientific classification." - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
“”It seems to me that Jesus does not want us relying on evidence. Jesus wants to bring us to the point described in John 10, "the sheep hear his voice.... The sheep follow him because they recognize his voice. ... I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me" (verses 3, 4, 14). He does not want us to rely on the evidences that He graciously supplies but instead He wants us to have confidence in His voice alone. And from his reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it would appear that any scoffer's demand for evidence will be rebuffed. If they will not believe Moses and the prophets (i.e. the Word of God), no amount of miracles will convince them.
As a point of application, I think modern creationists would be much better served if we stopped coddling their every doubt and fear with new "evidence for creation" and instead helped to wean them off evidence altogether. A truly close Christian walk with Jesus should render evidence irrelevant. This is where we really want to be, not buffeted about by the wind and waves but confidently walking through the storm with our eyes fixed unwaveringly on Christ. |
| —Todd C. Wood, prominent baraminologist, on his blog |
- Yep, screw evidence. Sterile lock shucker 03:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Now that is fucking scary. But he does have a (sort of) point. It's always quite sad for people to go on about "faith" and then have to try and dig up evidence for it.
narchist 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Now that is fucking scary. But he does have a (sort of) point. It's always quite sad for people to go on about "faith" and then have to try and dig up evidence for it.
- Yep, screw evidence. Sterile lock shucker 03:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found