RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Answers in Genesis has a mathematical model!!!, for determing< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,13:58   

I stumbled over this and wondered if it is a new claim or something old.
   
Quote
A CREATION MODEL.
Creation biologists have developed a statistical model to compare the physical traits of various creatures to help determine whether they belonged to the same original “created kind.”


Found here
in the second blue highlighted section about half way down the page.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,14:02   

The author:
   
Quote
Mike Matthews earned a BA in English and an MEd in English education from Bob Jones University. Mike was the content manager for the Creation Museum and now is the editor-in-chief for Answers magazine.

I bow to his expertise. But I expected a BS.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,14:28   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 27 2010,14:58)
I stumbled over this and wondered if it is a new claim or something old.
     
Quote
A CREATION MODEL.
Creation biologists have developed a statistical model to compare the physical traits of various creatures to help determine whether they belonged to the same original “created kind.”


Found here
in the second blue highlighted section about half way down the page.

Sounds like Baraminology to me.
I don't think it's particularly new.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2010,20:26   

Quote (ppb @ April 27 2010,14:28)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 27 2010,14:58)
I stumbled over this and wondered if it is a new claim or something old.
     
Quote
A CREATION MODEL.
Creation biologists have developed a statistical model to compare the physical traits of various creatures to help determine whether they belonged to the same original “created kind.”


Found here
in the second blue highlighted section about half way down the page.

Sounds like Baraminology to me.
I don't think it's particularly new.

Oh my! I followed the link...then followed other links...I think I OD'ed.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,08:36   

Only an expectation?  With all the experience gained from internet creationism I would have thought you knew the site was nothing but BS even before clicking.  :D
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 27 2010,15:02)
The author:
         
Quote
Mike Matthews earned a BA in English and an MEd in English education from Bob Jones University. Mike was the content manager for the Creation Museum and now is the editor-in-chief for Answers magazine.

I bow to his expertise. But I expected a BS.



   
Quote (ppb @ April 27 2010,15:28)
     
Quote (Paul Flocken @ April 27 2010,14:58)
I stumbled over this and wondered if it is a new claim or something old.
           
Quote
A CREATION MODEL.
Creation biologists have developed a statistical model to compare the physical traits of various creatures to help determine whether they belonged to the same original “created kind.”


Found here
in the second blue highlighted section about half way down the page.

Sounds like Baraminology to me.
I don't think it's particularly new.

I know the overall effort is baraminology.  I was curious if the claim to some kind of mathematical rigor was new.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,12:16   

Only rigor mortis.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,12:55   

Quote
I was curious if the claim to some kind of mathematical rigor was new.


I understand Dr. Bill is on it, just as soon as he finishes his CSI calcs.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,12:59   

Quote
I understand Dr. Bill is on it, just as soon as he finishes his CSI calcs.



I just finished my CSI calculations for a bowling ball, however, I'm still in the process of decoding the computer output.

Here's the raw feed:  BR-549 and King's Cross

I don't know what this means, but I'm working on it.  More later.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,15:58   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 30 2010,12:59)
Quote
I understand Dr. Bill is on it, just as soon as he finishes his CSI calcs.



I just finished my CSI calculations for a bowling ball, however, I'm still in the process of decoding the computer output.

Here's the raw feed:  BR-549 and King's Cross

I don't know what this means, but I'm working on it.  More later.

The result of my calculation ( 9.75) is that Dr. Bill is a redneck and a nerd.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,19:34   

Quote (Doc Bill @ April 30 2010,12:59)
Quote
I understand Dr. Bill is on it, just as soon as he finishes his CSI calcs.



I just finished my CSI calculations for a bowling ball, however, I'm still in the process of decoding the computer output.

Here's the raw feed:  BR-549 and King's Cross

I don't know what this means, but I'm working on it.  More later.

I should have said Dr Dr Bill.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2010,22:15   

Remarks like those could really strike at somebody; you could spare him instead of calling him a turkey!

Meanwhile, I gotta split. Ten-four.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2010,12:36   

Quote
The baraminic status of fossil hominids was tested using statistical baraminology techniques. Eight previously published cladistic studies of fossil and extant hominids were reexamined with baraminic distance correlation (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). Results indicate that hominins may be divided into as many as four different holobaramins: (1) the genus Homo (including Australopithecus sediba), (2) the genus Paranthropus, (3) Australopithecus africanus, and (4) Gorilla, Pan, Australopithecus afarensis, and Australopithecus garhi. These results tentatively confirm the common creationist claim that fossil hominids can be divided into human and non-human categories. In contrast to many creationist claims, however, the present results indicate that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and—most surprisingly—Australopithecus sediba belong in the human holobaramin. Future studies should focus on including postcranial characters in baraminic distance calculations and developing a model for understanding biological similarity and the significance of human-like australopiths and the ape-like humans.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....inology

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/05/creationist-vs.html#more

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
  11 replies since April 27 2010,13:58 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]