Using definitions that assume the truth of your religion is no way to do science.Why should species be straightforward? If evolution is true, all organisms are constantly in flux. A species is simply a population that happens to be distinct from some other populations at a particular point in time. Biology is not straightforward, in general. That would be math.
Again, that would be you.
| Failure to Qualify as a Scientific Hypothesis Friar states that: "The goal of baraminology is to characterize holobaramins." The goal then, is to identify Biblical "kinds" and to describe all of the organisms comprising them. So creationists begin with the assumption that "kinds" exist, in light of scientific evidence to the contrary. They have not tested – nor do they ever intend to test – the question of whether holobaramins actually exist. In fact, Friar deliberately avoids listing the assumptions of their model entirely. The reason is obvious when you read the "guidelines" for practicing bariminology: "Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations." So scripture tells them that "kinds" exist, and they have only to describe them. This is a critical piece of information – it means that they will never, ever admit that "kinds" do not exist. Ever. This is contrary to the way science is conducted – a scientific theory or hypothesis must be potentially falsifiable. That is, there must be a test or tests that, if confirmed, would deny the validity of the hypothesis or theory, and scientists must be willing to part with hypotheses if enough evidence exists that rejects them. In phylogenetic analysis, tree building methods are judged based on, among other criteria, how well they perform when assumptions are violated and whether they alert us when assumptions are violated (Penny et al. 1992) But creationists have no intention of ever testing the vital assumption that "kinds" exist, and since scripture has priority over all other considerations, it is evident that they would dismiss any evidences suggesting that "kinds" do not exist. |
They are.
I present Rhinoceros unicornis.
They are.
I present Rhinoceros unicornis.
Yes, we've been over how wrong and moronic you are by asserting you're right over and over without supporting evidence.
They are.
I present Rhinoceros unicornis.
The precise definition found in the Bible?
The precise definition found in the Bible?
Oh, wait, the Bible never says what it means when referring to a unicorn. Of course, it is only an English translation that uses that word, so what did the original word, in the original language mean?
Go ahead...
Your analogy sucks because you used a term that doesn't mean what you think it means.
No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context. Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns. The point being, you can define something that doesn't actually exist quite well. Unfortunately nothing like them exists or has ever existed.
No, Flipper's reference makes sense in context. Modern popular culture has a great definition of unicorns. The point being, you can define something that doesn't actually exist quite well. Unfortunately nothing like them exists or has ever existed.
If there is an animal that was the basis for unicorn legends, it was likely this (An extinct rhino called Elasmotherium) The size and shape of the horn has to be inferred from the skull since rhino horns are not bony and do not preserve well (though there is a huge bony base where a horn would presumably be):
Sidenote: The hebrew word found in the old testament, re’em sometimes translated as "Unicorn", probably referred to aurochs, the wild progenitors of modern cattle based on a similar word in Assyrian.