Talk:Baraminology

	This Global flood related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Ten million known species?

We should correct that. Estimates for species of animal run to 50 million, but there are only about 1.2 million known species. ^{— Unsigned, by: 62.163.78.104 / talk / contribs}

I'll fix that but never mind. There's no way this could work except the Ark was a huge sci-fi vessel that managed to ascend to orbit once the Flood started and that carried sperms and ova (or fertilized ova) of the "things" that according to Creationists would evolve into those countless million species. Of course this does not appear there, nor is evidence of the intermediate forms (and is still evolution, despite their BS of "micro" and "macro").

There's probably someone out there in a dark corner of the Internet that supports that idea, tweaking the Biblical text for that purpose. Mark my words. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite the above scenario, but I couldn't bring myself to not share this... whatever this is. Daev (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew grammar, etc.

I refrained from reverting the latest changes only because I don't want to get into a edit war. Let's discuss this a bit here in the talk pages and see if we can reach a consensus. Here are a couple of observations of my own, FWIW. The particle et can be dropped in poetry and ancient Hebrew as a marker of the object. But there is the obvious paradigm staring us in the face, with bara elohim et-. One has to be deaf to the actualities of Biblical Hebrew not to hear bara min as replacing elohim with min in that phrase. ISTM obvious that the coiner of the neologism bara min was so deaf, and should be called on that. Moreover, ISTM that the coiner of that phrase just lifted the words bara and min as the citation forms of the words from a glossary of Biblical Hebrew - I'm guessing from Strong's Concordance, where one looks up the number from the entry "created" and directed to the citation form bara - where, to compound the grammatical blunder, bara happens to be the standard citation form for Hebrew verbs, 3rd person masculine singular perfect, which happens to be an appropriate form to be translated "created", which in English happens to be homophonic with the passive participle in the intended phrase "created kind". But in Hebrew, the participle is another form, in this case baru. So, I suggest, that a person coined the phrase with no regard to either English or Hebrew grammar - either the conventional word order, or syntax, or, indeed, the paradigm staring us in the face, bara elohim.

And I ask those many who are far more knowledgeable than I am about the Hebrew language to correct me.

Oh, by the way, I suggest that one not use the word "species" in translating the word min in Biblical Hebrew. The concept of species did not appear until something 2000 years after this was written. Not to mention several difficulties about whether the word min is even a noun with any denotation at all. Not every noun "names a person, place or thing". TomS TDotO (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you know anything about this, you know more than me - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As a fluent speaker of Hebrew let me add something. "Bara" is a verb requiring both a subject and a direct object. In "Bara min" or "Min bara", "min" couldn't possibly be the intended subject since it would mean "a species created", a meaningless sentence fragment since there is no object - it is not said *what* this (indefinite) species created. In fact I cannot imagine how such a sentence could even be finished - whatever could "a species" create?

Clearly the intention is for "species" to be the direct object - for "bara min" to say "crested a species". But this too is just a sentence fragment. There is no subject. Who is creating? "Bara", as I said, requires a subject. It is allowed, in the *first and second person*, to indicate the subject by the verb's ending: "bara'ti min" - "I created a species", "bara'ten min" - "you [female plural] created a species". But the third person subject must always be stated explicitly in the sentence; here, "Elohim bara min" - God created a species.

In any case, unless one wishes to say God created only *one* species, the rest being created in some other way, you would say "Elohim bara minim" - "God created species", not the singular "min", "a species". To a Hebrew speaker "bara min" would, if anything, mean "created sex"... ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.69.37.238 / talk / contribs}

A goat for you

Hey guys, just to let you know, in Polish the word 'baran' means 'ram' and is frequently used as an insult for dumb people, essentially meaning 'dummy' or 'idiot'. I've seen similar references on other pages, though we could add it at the end of article. 213.48.106.145 (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What's going on with the 'Amirite' and 'Footnotes' sections of this talk page?

Did the archive bot fuck up there or something, what happened here? ^{— Unsigned, by: TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan / talk / contribs}

Explanations given from creationists

I have been told two explanations from creationists, 1. each baramin is close equivalent to each family. 2. each baramin is a group of species that share the same number of chromosomes, one of the creationists claimed that the chances of a species evolving to have a different number of chromosomes would be a chance of 4^(3 billion/26) because 3 billion divided by 26 would be the average number of chromosomes pairs in a chromosome, and this creationist said that anything with a chance of less than 10^80 is realistically impossible ans that such is because of a physics law that states this because they're wouldn't be enough atoms in the universe to make such a chance possible, and that if the chance is less than the number of atoms in the universe then it would be impossible for a unique pair to be formed to make this happen since in a chromosome pair a specififc amount of atoms are needed to be arranged in organize in order for that chromosome pair to work properly and that if all the atoms were displaced uniquely then the compound wouldn't have enough stability to keep itself together, therefore dissolving the pairs and making the chromosome reduction by the laws of physics, impossible. I don't know much biochemistry so I can't say whether any of these claims are true or not, though if anybody does have this expertise or wants to respond they can do so. Thank you for being patient with this text. ^{— Unsigned, by: 67.85.188.141 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sentences are easier to read than entire paragraphs masquerading as sentences. If you were to represent these multiple anonymous claims coherently and clearly it might be passible to respond to them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)