En Passant: Baraminology

I just took a break from the purgatory of report writing and came across this little gem of an article on Baraminology, which is probably overall the outright weirdest article I have ever read on Conservapedia. Just take this:

Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity[4]).

Uh-huh. And this:

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

What does that even mean? I don’t know, but I do know that it is something that desperately needs a refutation. Fortunately, I don’t have to write it (not that I’d have the time, anyway), because a mr. John Ponce was kind enough to write it for me way back in the 17th century:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary)

Get with the program, Conservapedia.

Anyway, back to the report writing. 13 days to go. Stay frosty, America!

Advertisements

16 Responses to “En Passant: Baraminology”


  1. 1 Wikinterpreter June 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Talk about ‘let’s invent a whole lot of non-Biblical stuff so our, uh, literal view of the Bible makes sense’. Whoa …

    Oh, and good luck with the reports!

  2. 2 PAL June 5, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Hmmm…i may have to work on the refutation while im recovering. But how do you write a refutation of fiction? How do I refute “Tale of Two Cities?” Not depressing enough?

  3. 3 lanfranc June 5, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    Reductio ad absurdum?

    Except it’s already absurd as it is. Hmm.

  4. 4 olliegrind June 5, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    Are we not men?

    WE ARE DEVO!

  5. 5 PAL June 5, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    I like cheese.

  6. 6 Todd Larason June 5, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    re: humans are devolving

    See this Aschlafly edit where he says “Take a look at how smart humans were just 100 or 200 years ago by looking at their writings, and compare that to the average human writings today.”

    As someone said, it’s so bad it’s not even wrong.

  7. 7 bilbo June 5, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Don’t know if anyone noticed this cute little exchange between Andy and TK.

    http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DeborahB.#Thanks

  8. 8 palmd June 5, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Wolfgang Pauli on reviewing a paper, “This isn’t right…it’s not even wrong!”

  9. 9 Linus June 6, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    Did anyone see my lovely lovely edit?

    And they protected the article! Well well!

  10. 10 conservative June 13, 2007 at 12:51 am

    You are just jealous because RationalWiki does not rank in the top 10 for Google rankings for Baraminology like Conservapedia does! Please see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Baraminology&btnG=Google+Search

  11. 11 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:03 am

    And Wikipedia ranks as #1, I notice. Better keep working on those marketing efforts.

    -AK

  12. 12 conservative June 13, 2007 at 1:47 am

    Rome wasn’t built in day. Internet traffic takes time to build. Let me know if RationalWiki surpasses our ranking for this entry in 12 months which I think is a reasonable time frame considering how new Conservapedia is.

    By the way, how much press has RationalWiki gotten? I just spoke to a LA Times reporter about Conservapedia.

  13. 13 Splodge June 14, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    And every media story about Conservapedia has mocked it for the appalling quality of its articles.
    And you can’t even recognise this, given the number of times you link to them on your main pages.

    You are a joke site and will remain so.

  14. 14 human June 26, 2007 at 2:10 am

    “By the way, how much press has RationalWiki gotten? I just spoke to a LA Times reporter about Conservapedia.”

    Interestingly enough, now that the article is out, RW is in it. OK, tarred as “vandals”, but the url is out there. Not bad for a month on line.

    Yeah, let’s check back in a year – 12 mos. for RW, 19 or so for CP, fair enough for me. It will be interesting, to say the least.

    You guys have a guy named “TK” too, don’t you? Did you give him balloons?


  1. 1 Baraminology Revisited « The Conservapedia Column Trackback on June 25, 2007 at 10:41 pm
  2. 2 What is Baraminology? « WhiteCoatUnderground Trackback on June 26, 2007 at 5:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.

del.icio.us


%d bloggers like this: