Comments on Jeanson Accuses Duff Again

Okay.

Don’t hold your breath.

I’d have to say that the level of scholarship in that paper, even on its own terms, is pathetic and should be an embarrassment to all concerned. Essentially, it just goes through a list of families (a fairly up to date list, at that) and declares each one to be a kind.

2 Likes

The level of stupidity in all three of those “papers” is astounding.

1 Like

Hey, they’re up to almost 400 “kind” for birds and mammals alone. That’s already ~800 individual animal organisms Noah and his family need to provide care and provisions for, on one boat.

And these organisms all need to carry the viruses and parasites associated with every single living species from these clades, or at least all the virus and parasite “kind” common ancestors.

They’re probably still counting up the all the arthropod kinds.

No kidding. Here is one of the baraminological methods they use:

A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses. A cognitum can be above the level of the baramin (for example, mammals), below the level of the baramin (for example, foxes), or at the level of the baramin. This perception-based concept was proposed by Sanders and Wise (2003) as a separate tool in baraminology. Though not originally proposed as a means to identify baramins, the basic concept could prove useful for our purposes here. Use of this method assumes that created kinds have retained their distinctiveness even as they have diversified.

This is just using big fancy words to say “We point to animals and say ‘Horsey! Doggy! Kitty!’”

2 Likes

I wonder if they are aware of the work that has been done on different cultures and the congruence between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy. The take home is science and folk taxonomy matches up pretty well for species but quickly falls apart for higher taxonomic groups which doesn’t bode well for trying to intuit the “kinds”

1 Like

Pretty jaw-dropping. As I have pointed out above, for the original readers of Genesis, a cognitum ( to use this horrible coinage with the given definition ) would have been at the level of species. Ancient people, such as reflected in Egyptian and middle eastern art, distinguished animal species familiar to them. Cognitum meant a lion is a lion, as opposed to “member of cat family”.

1 Like

It is a different level of lunacy to make this statement and then go on to explain over and over again. What is going on Herman? Are you well?

I will concede that interacting with people like Bill Cole isn’t good for your long-term sanity.

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Don’t patronize me Joshua.

2 Likes

Carry on then. I honestly meant no offense. I just don’t understand what I’m seeing here…

Maybe you can find “common ground” with Bill since you are better at mingling your religious beliefs with the science than I ever was.

I don’t mingle the two in any inappropriate ways, and yes @colewd and I have found real common ground. Certainly not in repetitive arguments with him. We had to look elsewhere.

36 posts were split to a new topic: Reason, Religion, and Science

Hey guys. Nathaniel Jeanson has written a new article in which he shows one of the main reasons why evolutionists cannot accept the scientific predictions made by the YEC. He takes David MacMillan as an example. This is a must read article!

Ha! Part 3! He really has become obsessed with @David_MacMillan

1 Like

As you can see Herman, one of the main reasons why evolutionists reject YEC’s scientific predictions, is not so much scientific as political, and above all it is a question of who is allowed to determine the content of textbooks in schools!

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

So long as Jeanson is signing on to this as a contractual condition of his employment then he is not doing science. I would like to see him challenge the teaching of creationism in US public schools. This will be the first place any good lawyer will go.

1 Like

I laughed out loud the first time I read that particular passage, a few years ago. It’s just absurd. They are proposing that humans (or perhaps only human males??) have a sixth sense whereby we can identify and distinguish different “kinds” innately.

If that’s the case then my “cognitum” puts “kind” at the level of carnivorans. Therefore, all carnivorans share a common ancestor. My “cognitum” also puts “kind” at the level of great apes. Therefore, all great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor. My “cognium” also puts “kind” at the level of theropods. Therefore, avian and non-avian theropods share a common ancestor.

Of course their model is ultimately unfalsifiable because any deficiencies or disagreements are clearly the result of The Fall and Loss Of Information and Sin Nature. Adam, of course, had a perfect “cognitum” and could tell exactly which birds were different kinds and which ones were not, they say.

But their model isn’t actually supported even if you read Genesis 2. It didn’t say Adam was able to distinguish between kinds; it said God brought the animals to Adam and Adam gave them names. I always wondered how God got basking sharks into the Garden of Eden.

Precisely. And there’s nothing in Genesis which suggests that the animals brought to Adam for naming were separated at the level of kinds. For all Jeanson’s talk of created heterozygosity, God still could have created populations with heterozygosity and diverse phenotype. For example, he could have created a heterozygous super-cat with a lion phenotype AND a heterozygous super-cat with a Siamese phenotype, and had Adam name both.

Round and round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows.

No, it’s because YEC is nonscience.

This is just a humorous aside but worth chuckling over.

I drove down into Virginia this past weekend and my wife was playing a sermon on the radio in the hopes it would lull the kids to sleep (this hope was successfully realized). The sermon was some KJV-only independent fundamental Baptist preacher pontificating about dispensationalism and the impending apocalypse. He was reviewing Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar II’s Dream of the Image, where the king saw a great statue with a head of gold, chest of silver, belly of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of clay. Daniel explains that the different materials represent different kingdoms in the future, with the golden head of Babylon to be replaced by the silver of Persia, then by the bronze of Greece, then by the iron of Rome.

This bit from the preacher was particularly amusing:

“Now one thing you will notice is that as you move down the statue, in time, the materials become less and less valuable! Silver is not worth as much as gold, and bronze is not worth as much as silver, and so on all the way to dirt! And so the kingdoms that have ruled this world have become less and less powerful as time went on! This is a strike against the evolutionists, who would have us believe that everything gets better and better over time. But the word of God says that the devices and inventions of humans only get worse and worse!”

I couldn’t contain my laughter.

2 Likes