BB
Look below ( this is what I want to say) and NOW since that is too hard I have to figure out how to write it “down” but during the time it takes me to do that the content becomes less timely. Are you really suggesting I will get other people to read this stuff if I just posted a bare thing about what I define a kind to be and have left it at that that others would read it? I have said from the evolutionists side why the concept of kind is not dealt with properly at EVC , but it has been ignored. I repeated myself, it was ignored as well. Now like in the “where did the creos go” we started TO SEE some creation influence the admins took that one. And so now that I define WITHIN THERMAL evolution what the creationist after the kind demonstrably could be if I was not the only creationist (I AM NOT OF COURSE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR ALL etc) do you think that evcboard would turn upside down?? Nope they would still speak of me as Nash!
__________________________________________________________________
Fourier said,
“This diversity of temperature interests us still more, if we consider the changes which succeed each other in the envelope itself on the surface of which we dwell. Those alternations of heat and cold which are reproduced every day and in the course of every year, have been up to the present time the object of repeated observations”
So it behooves us to respond with how many days it might take organic matter to repeat this observation if clay evolved in the topological condition of the thermal evolution of higher levels of selection. This is not against Gould’s view except the class of less individuality where the ‘evolution as evolution might be a potential rather than a probably discrete event. There will probably be posts against the idea of clay evolving any thermal effect as well as clay NOT evolving any biomatter but I will ignore these contributions for now. I shall explain how these can be handled by my difference of infinite divisions OR empric criticms as per the thread (my idea hypothetically) if it need be. But we probably would have the Fouirer “repeated observation” if that was true in which case there WOULD be more than me talking about “thermal” evolution and not “evolution” in the sense that Faraday spoke of evolution in the sense of “issuance”.
But none of this matter directly if the question is what is the AFTER the kind. As this would all be “after” that. Percy has said or seemed to say that Mendel’s use of parent or hybrid is immaterial to common understandings but lets say – WE CAN DEFINE- a like kind that must exist AFTER its kind – then it does matter if it was quartz/feldspar vs clay that gave beyond Newton’s island crystal the translational reality from before to after this kind kind.
There is no doubt that Mendel attended to NUMBERS in his work and that subsequently a RATIO was debated as Genetics got more sophisticated.
Now I am going to define THE CREAIONIST KIND or BARAMIN
I will start by saying that it is trivial to associate the genetic number of Mendel to the total set of natural numbers. I will use the equivocalness of Mendel’s use of words “parent” and “hybrid” to EXIST in this set (by definition) and I find the baramin (that kind which can only exist to itself) to BE Mendel’s developmental binomial as van de Waerden decomposition of the natural numbers in to a finite number of classes as divided by the subsets of natural numbers on finding the granted “arbitrarily long arithemetic progression”. In other words what makes it necessary that kinds can only reproduce AFteR their kind is a result of the causality of the “aribitrarily long arithemetic progression” on the other number of finite subsets of the classed total list of natural numbers.
That is what is missing from current evoltutionary theory and one can read in the literature evolutionists not appreciating the the difference made in the creationist literature as to whether the after”” referred to God or the Kinds.
“A famous theoremof van der Waerden (Nieuw Arch. F. Wisk. 15 (1927) 212-6) asserts that, if the natural numbers are subdivided into a finite number of classes ( in any manner whatsoever), at least one of these classes contains arbitrarily long arithemetic progressions. This result suggests many other interesting questions, most of which have only been partially answered.” In SEQUENCES VOL I 1966 by Halberstam and Roth: Oxford at the Clarendon Press. ( If I am not mistaken I think I now understand how Freeman Dyson got away with making a book titled “infinte in all directions” but let me stay on the positive side please.)
In a recent post I have suggested how this phenotypic subsetting might be related to point set density but this sharper DEFINITION of Mendel’s Binomial AS the Baramin denotation erases Cracraft’s criticism of creationism and establishes a new way to think about sequence relations in genomics that did NOT originate from within evolutionary theory sensu stricto but by means of e/c criticisms OF current evolutionary theory c/e wise.
How this all relates to thermal evolution in Faraday’s sense is an actually real question but will continue to go unanswered as long as my contributions are taken negatively or “just brad’s”.
_________________________________________________________________
Yes I would like to make this easier to understand but if Baramins ARE divisions of the natural numbers AS sets, it is hard to say just what evos here missaid as it becomes possible to subsume evolutionary theory within my broad perspective as if it was true.
I am aware r'althor has asked me nicely more than once but you see I have to do almost twice as much work to explain the creationist position on par with the evos and this is only actually possible for me to do so by name dropping and moving on where no one knows much as I wish I didnt do it. Hold on RT, im getting back to you.
#########################
you see berberry, SPLx didnt give me the time to even get to work out an easier to read version. As soon as I get "pissedOFf" I have no inclination to try to make what I had already said easier to understand. I wouldnt have gone further but SPLx said something about my kids mama. If she wanted a lunatic that is fine but that I need help from them- well that is wrong. I need to help the kids not yet my parents at all! Besides my parents dont want any from me anyway- so where is the evc time to do it right and normal order? I think Moose's attempt to keep all this diversionary stuff limited is a good one. It's just sorry that SPLx thinks baramins are diversionary. I think what Percy said ontologically is questionable even while epistemologically operational.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 14:22 AM
™ Version 4.1
Seriously, I mean this to be friendly advice.