|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Original Intent Of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
So eg, this means that horse/zebras/mules are a kind for example (I think). Biology and genomics is currently consistent with this idea. When more genomes are in this will clarify the issue. At the moment science is consistent with a world of several thousand distinct genomes.[/B][/QUOTE]
So, are Bonobos and Humans in the same "kind"? They are at least as closeley-related as zebras and horses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What will baraminologists do, do you think, when molecular phylogenetic evidence (which they are using) puts man in the ape baramin, or shows a phylogenetic relationship between birds & reptiles, fish & amphibians etc. that is concordant with the fossil record, & mainstream paleontologies interpretations of it? They will ignore it. Practically any sort of phylogeny, regardless of the data it is derived from, puts man & apes in the same clade. This isn't science, it is an intellectually dishonest attempt to "prove" a pet theory by only using evidence that fits, & binning everything that doesn't. Christian baraminologists WILL NOT show humans & apes to be related, regardless of evidence, BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS THEIR FAITH. They simply WILL NOT admit it, but will accept phylogenies derived from the same data that puts chimps & gorillas together. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 05-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
private_universe Inactive Member |
I'm a newbie to this site, but I've been studying molecular biology for 4 years and never come across this "baramin" stuff. At the risk of sounding like an idiot could someone explain it to me? Never heard of it before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Have you got evidence for that? Zebras and Horses produce offspring that survive (although they might be sterile) don't they? I doubt that many people suspect that Bonobos and humans would produce viable offspring! %DNA similarity isn't that useful either. At the end of the day we really need the genomes (which we will have in about 5 years). At the edn of the day if you really want to believe that man evolved from a common ansecestor with apes over a period of 5-10 millions of years, feel free. However, we already know that the pattern of protein expression in brain is very different between man and apes. And we'll have a much more infomed discussion when the genomes are in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
It's a creationist idea that we think will align with the mainstream rewriting of taxonomy once genomes come in. Baramins is just a technical word for 'kinds' and some creationists have technical procedures for assigning baramins. My professional opinion is that this will be much easier once the gneomes come in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Hi pv, Try this site, it contains a fair explanation.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm Note guideline 1 that is going to trump all other considerations. "1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2)." Baraminology isn't science. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So far, all the genetic information we have is consistent with the morphological tree of life. What makes you think that things will be different in the future? Or, are you simply hoping against hope?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Schraf, once the genomes are in we'll more easily be able to tell what sort of differences there are between man and apes. The protein expressin stuff was seondarily reported in Nature and New Scientist in the last month or so. %DNA doesn't tell us whether there are new protein families or not. Ultimately if there is no real difference in the genomes (ie apart from millions of point mutaitons) then I'll concede that your POV (on ape to man) is more likely than I had thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PeterW Guest |
quote: Do you beleive that the story of the Flood in Genesis is theliteral truth ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
werd19 Inactive Member |
ok heres the real story.
the flood in the bible correlates to the euphrates bursting its banks and flooding mesopotomia. this flood is similarly documented in mesopotomian literature (worldwide flood, only one family survived, etc). they figured out the time period that the story is looking at and backed it up archiologically. the flood story in the bible is based upon this story. that is why you cant figure out the timeline and such of the flood across the world. similarly, in egyptian relion, there is a man named hesus i think or soemthign similar to that, who is born of a virgin, and led a life similar to that of jesus. this isnt to say that jesus didnt exist, or anything like that, im just saying, the facts of his life are twisted and embelished upon. now for creationism. the story of adam and eve does not refer to the origins of man, but rather to the origins of society. in mesopotomia, a place called eden existed, (edin in mesopotomian religions, also the birthplace of man) where farming societies first arose, and the time refered to in the bible is archiologically backed up. man existed before this time but there were no cities or anything of that sort. in sandland you have hinduism (which worships cows), islam, christianity, judaism. muhammed in a short amount of time got many many many followers. and he didnt live THAT long ago. the moral of the story is that the bible is based on other religions of long ago and also that sand people will beleive anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PeterW Guest |
quote: That's more or less my view ... with some additional wrinkles. I was particularly interested in Tranquility Base's view onthe literalness(????) of the flood story in genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024