• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Determining the Ark Kinds

I'm not sure I want to know what research was done to find that one out....I imagine it's the type of thing one doesn't get a whole lot of funding for.
 
Dinwar said:
I'm not sure I want to know what research was done to find that one out....I imagine it's the type of thing one doesn't get a whole lot of funding for.
Click to expand...


Funding schmunding, how much would you need? I'm sure there are a lot of 'scientists' who would do it purely for the pleasure of doing research, and doing it well. :D
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
I'm not sure I want to know what research was done to find that one out....I imagine it's the type of thing one doesn't get a whole lot of funding for.
Click to expand...

I don't know, there are a lot of creationists with more money than smarts who would probably donate to this ehem, worthy cause.
 
Given the utter failures of previous efforts by Creationists who deserve a modicum of acknowledgement for trying to adhere to the scientific method, I'm expecting this "study" to be a joke as well. Todd Wood is one of the very few baraminologists who has tried to work out a taxonomy/phylogeny based on "kinds". His efforts have warrented kudos from open minded people, but derision for his results - both science advocates and Creationists alike. Woods' horse baramin study was basically him throwing up his hands and saying every horse species from Hyracotherium to Eqqus was "horse kind". The results from his hominid study were a bit more definative, but still problematic.
attachment.php
 
I think it's worth noting that this has been around a while. It's telling that no one ever seems to get anywhere with it. This page is a joke; don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise although the site has fooled many. But it links to some real examples of baraminology.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Good news everyone. Answers in Genesis is finally going to determine what "Created Kinds" were on the Ark.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/Ark-kinds-Flood-baraminology-cognitum


This should be good. :roll:
Click to expand...

Let's see:

Where hybrid data is lacking, we have chosen to use a cognitum method. Using current taxonomic placement as a guide, pictures and/or personal experience with the animals will be used to ?nd obvious groupings

Looks like he's just going to group them however he feels like it.

Oh wait..

A comprehensive understanding of biology should necessarily include the origin of life. While the secular world ignores the Bible and speculates naturalistic origins for life, a Christian should recognize that reliable eyewitnesses are invaluable for establishing historical facts (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15, Isaiah 8:2; 43:9–12; 44:6–8, Jeremiah 6:16–18, 32:12, Matthew 18:16, Acts 2:32, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19). Clearly, in the first few chapters of Genesis, we have a historical account of the creation of the world and life on it from the most reliable eyewitness, God himself. So this is where we will begin.

There you go! Who needs to study any actual science, we'll just read the Bible then make up whatever we want.
 
tsig said:
... Clearly, in the first few chapters of Genesis, we have a historical account of the creation of the world and life on it from the most reliable eyewitness, God himself. So this is where we will begin.
Click to expand...
So presumably the very first bit of Genesis where it must have said "In the begining God created a nice page a day diary and a never ending ballpoint pen" has been lost somewhere? Also, why does the bit of Genesis we do know about not begin with "Dear diary...".

You know, I think this creationist stuff doesn't add up.

Yuri
 
I'd never seen the term 'Baramin' before, a quick google soon showed that it is a poorly constructed term invented by Marsh in the '40s and 'born again' in the '90s. Try as I might, whilst reading the link in the OP, I couldn't shake of the similarity with Baramin and Bara Menyn, a Welsh phrase meaning Bread and Butter. It was then I realised that the crapola served up in the link was indeed AIG's 'Bara menyn'.
 
Some Christian groups are saying that the ark contained dna of animals and not the actual animal except for the meat variety of edible animal. Apparently Moses was able to put the dna to good use and repopulate the earth. Then he took the kangeroos to australia and the jaguars to south america.
 
welshdean said:
I'd never seen the term 'Baramin' before, a quick google soon showed that it is a poorly constructed term invented by Marsh in the '40s and 'born again' in the '90s. Try as I might, whilst reading the link in the OP, I couldn't shake of the similarity with Baramin and Bara Menyn, a Welsh phrase meaning Bread and Butter. It was then I realised that the crapola served up in the link was indeed AIG's 'Bara menyn'.
Click to expand...

This whole "kinds" crap is so rediculous I've never committed the root of the word to memory, but I seem to recall it coming from "bara" which was the Hebrew word used in Genesis. The attempt to give scientific credence to taking Genesis literally goes beyond the made up words describing kind groups like "holobaramin", etc. because those attempts in the 90s don't produce anything more "scientific" than the stuff that ChristineR linked to on the Objective Ministires parody page. As I've mentioned earlier, one of the few Creationists who has actually tried to produce something of value, Todd Wood, has produced analyses that either verify standard phylogenetics and deny evolution (horses) or produce results that would be contoversial by any scientific standard (hominids).

Cainkane1 said:
Some Christian groups are saying that the ark contained dna of animals and not the actual animal except for the meat variety of edible animal. Apparently Moses was able to put the dna to good use and repopulate the earth. Then he took the kangeroos to australia and the jaguars to south america.
Click to expand...

I've asked this of advocates of the "genetic frontloading" claim and none of them seem to have an answer, much less on that is satisfactory. If species W, X, Y and Z evolved from "created kind" containing the DNA for all the characteristics of species W, X, Y and Z, shouldn't we find specific genetic markers for all those characteristics, but turned on/off in species W, X, Y and Z and not unique genetic markers for characteristics in each of them?
 
Cainkane1 said:
Some Christian groups are saying that the ark contained dna of animals and not the actual animal except for the meat variety of edible animal. Apparently Moses was able to put the dna to good use and repopulate the earth. Then he took the kangeroos to australia and the jaguars to south america.
Click to expand...

:dl:

DNA? It seems exceedingly arbitrary to bring a 450 foot Ark into the story...
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
And, as an indicator of the rigor and accuracy of the link, please note that it claims that human sperm can fertilize hamster eggs.

Richard Gere better watch out.
Click to expand...

They seem to be talking about this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26843/

Once a capacitated sperm has penetrated the layer of follicle cells, it binds to the zona pellucida (see Figure 20-21). The zona usually acts as a barrier to fertilization across species, and removing it often eliminates this barrier. Human sperm, for example, will fertilize hamster eggs from which the zona has been removed with specific enzymes; not surprisingly, such hybrid zygotes fail to develop. Zona-free hamster eggs, however, are sometimes used in infertility clinics to assess the fertilizing capacity of human sperm in vitro (Figure 20-30).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
All I know about experimenting with Hamsters is the wise advice my Brother once gave me.
"Wrap cellotape around the Hamster first. It stops em splitting"

;)
 
Well on paper it should be fairly easy. Work out how many species you can have on the ark. Work out the total amount of genitic variance that exists in the groups of species you feel you have to include (you may chose to skip fish and bacteria for example). Devide up that genitic variance into as many groups as you have space for and pick the best known example of each. Adjust for theological reasons (humans and great apes being the same type will not end well). Ajust for PR reasons (telling kids there were no lions on the arc just cat kind is a great way to kill off your religion after one generation) and there you go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom