This would be a good time to add my post from the thread that spun off this one.
quote:
It is telling that baraminology is stuck on how to identify a baramin. Especially when its devotees are already fully convinced they exist. They don't even know what it looks like, yet they are willing to squander their days developing terminology which will (hopefully) describe it once they figure it out! And to what end?
From previous discussion, it is fairly obvious that any consistent definition based on morphology would either: a)place mankind in the same kind as all the apes; or b)result in the identification of far more kinds than could ever successfully live on the ark for a year. Thus, baraminology remains stuck where it is until it is willing to bite the bullet and introduce one of these problems into the equation. I'll be interested to see if that ever happens.
™ Version 4.2