Real Science Friday: Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF

This is the show from Friday June 10th, 2011.

[TOL Note: Within the first 15 posts below, Bob replies to Alate_One, Frayed Knot, and the Barbarian; and by the 35th post, Tom from Maybank joins in the battle! And I'm sorry to see that Jukia has been banned :( and just after I gave him positive "reps" for post 4 (I appreciated his contrarian humor) but with the enormous latitude that TOL gives to those who are hostile to it's own biblical position, I imagine that Jukia earned his banishment.]

SUMMARY:

Creation-vs-Evolution-Chart.jpg


* Baraminology Author in Studio:
Real Science Friday interviews Dr. Roger Sanders of Bryan College. What's baraminology? It's a furtherance of Adam's first task, which was to name the animals, into a classification of living things within the framework of the created kinds as described in Genesis. The anti-creationist National Center for Science Education begrudgingly states, in an article by Alan Gishlick, that researchers, such as Dr. Sanders, "practice a form of systematics, called 'baraminology', and for creationist science it is surprisingly rigorous and internally consistent." RSF is happy to accept that compliment on behalf of creationists and reminds our audience of Bob's debate with the NCSE president Eugenie Scott that you can watch on DVD or listen to right here on Real Science Friday at KGOV.com.

* Is there a Genetic Bottleneck in Land Animals? Because a global flood destroyed almost all land animals and birds only thousands of years ago, Bob asked Dr. Sanders if marine animals have been shown to have greater genetic diversity than bird and land animals. Dr. Sanders recalled that a study done on land and marine turtles showed greater genetic diversity among sea turtles. Evolutionists believe that sea turtles evolved from land-dwelling creatures, so if evolution were true, genetically we would expect to see the opposite of what we expect to see from the perspective of a recent global flood. This Turtle Topic reminds RSF of one of our recurring themes, that the fossil records documents statis rather than evolution, as in this quote from Bob Strauss on turtle evolution: "the basic turtle body plan arose very early in the history of life (during the late Triassic period), and has persisted pretty much unchanged down to the present day... Paleontologists still haven't identified the EXACT family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises, but they do know one thing: it wasn't the placodonts." [RSF capitalized the letters of "exact" to call attention to this common style of the misleading use of words by evolutionists]

* Adam's First Task: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field..." Genesis 2:19-20
[Post-show Note: Why would God's Word say that He brought the animals to Adam "to see what he would call them" if the future is exhaustively foreknown? If this topic interests you, check out the recent debate, Is the Future Settled or Open? between Bob Enyart and Dr. Larry Bray.]

* Carl Linnaeus, John Ray, and Classification: The fathers of biology and modern biological classification were creationists. The distinctions that enable the classification of living things appears itself to be poweful evidence for creation. For the groupings of biological organisms by body design distinguishes them from other groups by a discernible discontinuity. If evolution had actually happened, it happened not in descrete and enormous steps of differentiation, but by producing a seamless continuum of organisms. And just as the fossil record is missing the mountains intermediary stages that should dominate it's catalogues, so too living creatures should display widespread continuity.

CarlLinnaeus.jpg


* Two Classification Quotes from Creation.com: On molecular biology, "Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic sequences. It confirmed Linnaeus, not Darwin." And about John Ray and Carl Linnaeus: "John Ray was a committed Christian and brilliant biologist of the seventeenth century—credited with defining the term ‘species’ as a group of organisms that can interbreed to form fertile offspring. Carl Linnaeus (Latin form of his Swedish name, von Linné) was responsible for founding taxonomy in the 18th century, the classification of all living things into a hierarchy, with genus and species names at the bottom. Initially, they both erred in their belief that species were fixed, that none had been lost since creation and that new species could not arise. Later in their lives, both Ray and Linnaeus made observations that caused them to modify their position to one that allowed speciation by a combination of degenerative changes and/or cross-breeding."

* Notes from Dr. Sanders Presentation at the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship: An example of a conclusion of baraminology research is that whereas today's 10,000 species of grasses were preserved from before the flood, all 175 species of horses descended from one pair on the ark. This year the Journal of Evolutionary Biology published an article by Dr. Todd Wood who is the director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College where Dr. Sanders works. Evolutionists have prefaced the traditional ordering of living things with the "domain" category so that there is Domain, Kingdom, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The classical ordering of species has located perhaps 60% of the created kinds at the level of "Family," including for example the cat family, with other created kinds either above or below that level, with for example the water fowl created kind classified higher (class and order) and the created kind hominid Australopithecus lower, at the species level. Other interesting notes: Apparently, dandelions can become trees on islands. And scientists have genetically modified a small plant of a just few inches in height, to repress a single gene, and it has now become a wooded tree. Dogs and foxes have the same genes on different chromosomes, which probably occurred during the rapid diversification in the early post-flood period. By determining created kinds and then listing the animals mentioned in Genesis and Job (like horses, camels, wolves, donkeys, etc.), helps to determine the rate of diversification shortly after the Flood. And from Dr. Sanders' paper on a Quick Method for Developing a Cognitum System, "biologists can… identify and systematize cognita quickly… because God created organisms to be perceived by humans who were created to recognize and sort easily by "gestalt."

* Post-show Bonus: Neither the medieval world nor the church ever taught that the Earth was flat or had four corners. These Bible verses imply a spherical Earth: Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27; Ecclesiastes 1:6; Psalm 19:6; Isaiah 40:22. And the phrase, "the four corners of the earth," is a Jewish idiom that means the entirety of the earth just as the same Hebrew words mean the entirety of a nation when used in that context, as in Ezekiel 7:2: "the four corners of the land [of Israel]."



Today’s Resource: You'll just love the science DVDs, books, and written, audio and video debates offered by Real Science Friday! So have you browsed through ourScience Department in the KGOV Store? Check out Bob most highly-recommended astronomy DVD, What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! And see Walt Brown’s great hardcover book, In the Beginning! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’sUnlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with the infamous anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott. And if you have young kids or grand kids, you owe it to them and to yourself to give them as a gift the SUPERB kids' radio programming on audio CD, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s great Creation magazine and if you're up to reading more technical scientific articles, you'll also want to subscribe to CRSQ! And to order any of our BEL science products by phone, just call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278).

* Special Editions of Real Science Friday:
- RSF's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
- Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
- PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Friday so we hit back with the PZ Trochlea Challenge
- Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Science mag cover: Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
- Microbiologist in Studio: Creation Research Society Quarterly editor on new genetic findings
- Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
- And see the RSF Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 paid in 1998; $1,500 in 2010...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jukia

New member
Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF

This is the show from Friday June 10th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

Creation-vs-Evolution-Chart.jpg


* Baraminology Author in Studio:
Real Science Friday interviews Dr. Roger Sanders of Bryan College. What's baraminology? It's a furtherance of Adam's first task, which was to name the animals, into a classification of living things within the framework of the created kinds as described in Genesis. The anti-creationist National Center for Science Education begrudgingly states, in an article by Alan Gishlick, that researchers, such as Dr. Sanders, "practice a form of systematics, called 'baraminology', and for creationist science it is surprisingly rigorous and internally consistent." RSF is happy to accept that compliment on behalf of creationists and reminds our audience of Bob's debate with the NCSE president Eugenie Scott that you can watch on DVD or listen to right here on Real Science Friday at KGOV.com.

since the rest of Gishlick's paper goes on to suggest that baraminology lacks a certain amount of validity because when all else fails, the Bible trumps evidence, it would have been more intellectually honest to mention that as well.

Color me surprised.
 

Frayed Knot

New member
since the rest of Gishlick's paper goes on to suggest that baraminology lacks a certain amount of validity because when all else fails, the Bible trumps evidence, it would have been more intellectually honest to mention that as well.

It's easy to be rigorous and internally consistent when you're not constrained by those pesky facts. Dr Sanders was clear about that - this field of "baraminology" doesn't look at evidence, it presupposes creation and then sees how the diversity of life that we see today can be explained.

Which, of course, is the same thing Bob and Fred do, but Dr. Sanders at least admits it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
This Turtle Topic reminds RSF of one of our recurring themes, that the fossil records documents statis rather than evolution, as in this quote from Bob Strauss on turtle evolution: "the basic turtle body plan arose very early in the history of life (during the late Triassic period), and has persisted pretty much unchanged down to the present day... Paleontologists still haven't identified the EXACT family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises, but they do know one thing: it wasn't the placodonts." [RSF capitalized the letters of "exact" to call attention to this common style of the misleading use of words by evolutionists]

How about a shell-less turtle?

odontochelys-a.html


It has a plastron, but no carapace, just a few anatomical indicators of a carapace. Notice the toothless jaws. It's an anapsid, too, no skull fenestrations, just like turtles.

And it fits the other evidence. In embryology, the plastron forms first, and then the carapace.

Of course, "baraminologists" can only shrug and mutter "God must have done it."

But real science can explain why.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
How about a shell-less turtle?

odontochelys_belly.jpeg


It has a plastron, but no carapace, just a few anatomical indicators of a carapace. Notice the toothless jaws. It's an anapsid, too, no skull fenestrations, just like turtles.

And it fits the other evidence. In embryology, the plastron forms first, and then the carapace.

Of course, "baraminologists" can only shrug and mutter "God must have done it."

But real science can explain why.
Fixed your image for you . . . ;)

Oh but the paper is from 2008, that's just too recent for Bob to talk about. :chuckle:


The origin of the turtle body plan remains one of the great mysteries of reptile evolution. The anatomy of turtles is highly derived, which renders it difficult to establish the relationships of turtles with other groups of reptiles. The oldest known turtle, Proganochelys from the Late Triassic period of Germany1, has a fully formed shell and offers no clue as to its origin. Here we describe a new 220-million-year-old turtle from China, somewhat older than Proganochelys, that documents an intermediate step in the evolution of the shell and associated structures. A ventral plastron is fully developed, but the dorsal carapace consists of neural plates only. The dorsal ribs are expanded, and osteoderms are absent. The new species shows that the plastron evolved before the carapace and that the first step of carapace formation is the ossification of the neural plates coupled with a broadening of the ribs. This corresponds to early embryonic stages of carapace formation in extant turtles, and shows that the turtle shell is not derived from a fusion of osteoderms. Phylogenetic analysis places the new species basal to all known turtles, fossil and extant. The marine deposits that yielded the fossils indicate that this primitive turtle inhabited marginal areas of the sea or river deltas.

 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My husband is getting hooked on Bob Enyart Live. He asked me about the program today.

I have done some limited reading on Baraminology. I would like to explore this further. The orchard concept make more sense to me than an evolutionary tree.
 

Jukia

New member
My husband is getting hooked on Bob Enyart Live. He asked me about the program today.

I have done some limited reading on Baraminology. I would like to explore this further. The orchard concept make more sense to me than an evolutionary tree.

When does the orchard start? After a big Flood? when was the Flood?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
My husband is getting hooked on Bob Enyart Live. He asked me about the program today.

I have done some limited reading on Baraminology. I would like to explore this further. The orchard concept make more sense to me than an evolutionary tree.

You realize that the "orchard" concept requires hyperevolution? Evolution that happens faster than has ever been observed . . . to get from a generalized "big cat" to lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The thing that's astonishing about the "baraminology hyperevolution", is that even though new species of mammals would be popping up monthly, no one thought that remarkable enough to write about it.

I think I know why.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Dr Sanders was clear... this field of "baraminology" ...presupposes creation... Which, of course, is the same thing Bob and Fred do, but Dr. Sanders at least admits it.
Frayed, I don't understand why you would imply that we don't admit our presuppositions, including the existence of the Creator God. In my debate with Zakath, I went so far as to argue that without presupposing the existence of a Creator, you can't even justify the validity of the laws of logic apart from circular reasoning; whereas biblical creationists believe in the very existence of reason and logic because the creation is the expression of the thoughts of God. The preconditions of intelligibility are not things that someone who denies presuppositions can justify. Have you ever tried to do so, Frayed Knot, from an atheistic perspective?
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Frayed, I don't understand why you would imply that we don't admit our presuppositions, including the existence of the Creator God.

I think God requires no presuppositions.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Nor does science require any presuppostions than the obvious one:
Nature is consistent and knowable, and has worked by the same rules since the beginning.

God and evolution are entirely compatible with these things.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
You realize that the "orchard" concept requires hyperevolution? Evolution that happens faster than has ever been observed . . . to get from a generalized "big cat" to lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars.
A_O, again we agree on something. Thanks for seeing this and trying to hold our feet to the fire (or flood). Hey, RSF might not be a referred journal, but at least we have our fair share of volunteer idea testers and fact checkers :)

-Bob
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Nor does science require any presuppostions than the obvious one:
Nature is consistent and knowable, and has worked by the same rules since the beginning.
That's two.

Atheistic "science" cannot justify the claim that Nature is consistent. In trying, the atheist scientist commits logical fallacies, being arbitrary, using circular reasoning, etc.

I agree Barbarian that nature is knowable, and that this is obvious. However those truths are borrowed from the creationists worldview. I can justify them as a biblical creationist living in a world which was created by the thoughts in the mind of the God of Truth. Materialists cannot justify your assumptions. You claimed that these things are "obvious," but that commits so many logical fallacies that (hyperbole) we might not have time to list them. :)

Some of the preconditions for intelligibility that atheists take for granted but that they cannot justify, but we can by our biblical worldview, include the validity of the laws of logic and the general reliability of our senses and memories. A logically defensible worldview must provide these preconditions. (Otherwise, as demonstrated by the entire life of Bertrand Russell, eventually we conclude that we can know almost nothing, scientifically or otherwise. Russell was heading in that direction, where atheism takes everyone, to a point of absolute ignorance. He just died before he got to where he was going.)

-Bob
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Oh what a nightmare; I accidentally deleted the contents of Barbarian's post here, because I have administrator abilities, and hit Edit by accident when I meant to click "Quote," I've ruined his post. I'll look now to see if it was quoted below and if so, repair this damage.

I'm sorry Barbarian.

-Bob Enyart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Frayed Knot

New member
In my debate with Zakath, I went so far as to argue that without presupposing the existence of a Creator, you can't even justify the validity of the laws of logic apart from circular reasoning; whereas biblical creationists believe in the very existence of reason and logic because the creation is the expression of the thoughts of God. The preconditions of intelligibility are not things that someone who denies presuppositions can justify.

No no no. The laws of logic were granted by magical leprechauns. Since you don't believe in magical leprechauns, then you can't even justify the validity of the laws of logic that you claim to use!

This line of argument is just silly, Bob.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
A_O, again we agree on something. Thanks for seeing this and trying to hold our feet to the fire (or flood). Hey, RSF might not be a referred journal, but at least we have our fair share of volunteer idea testers and fact checkers :)

-Bob
You're pretty bad on "fact checking" from what I've seen. So if you acknowledge hyperevolution perhaps you'd care to provide us some evidence for its occurrence?I mean really we should be seeing obvious new species popping up every few hundred years.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Frayed, it would be kind of you to acknowledge that I don't hide from my presupposition that God exists.

...without presupposing the existence of a Creator, you can't even justify the validity of the laws of logic apart from circular reasoning; whereas biblical creationists believe in the very existence of reason and logic because the creation is the expression of the thoughts of God. The preconditions of intelligibility are not things that someone who denies presuppositions can justify.

No no no. The laws of logic were granted by magical leprechauns. Since you don't believe in magical leprechauns, then you can't even justify the validity of the laws of logic that you claim to use!

This line of argument is just silly, Bob.

Frayed, you may have tried this a dozen times in your life. I don't know. But why don't you here try to justify the laws of logic on a materialistic basis. If logic is valid, that something cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same way, then it cannot be granted either, nor created, nor removed. Barbarian is correct that there cannot be justifiable atheistic science (at least that much I think we agree on Barbarian), for if the only thing that exists is matter in motion, that worldview permits no conceivable way to validate it's trust in intelligence and logic. We both admit that the analogy you give above is silly. We don't agree that belief that the personal God who revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ and made us after His image and likeness is silly.

So why don't you demonstrate how a strictly materialistic science can validate its own use of logic?

-Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top