Incredible - a single cell

[The Barbarian]

Who are we most related to as far as consciousness goes?

Since God directly gives us a soul, and since we have become like God in knowing good and evil, our consciousness is most like that of God.

Our nervous systems are most like that of chimpanzees, but consciousness is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok, lets grow up now.

That would be good. Instead of false accusations, just work on your argument. Trust me on this, you'll do better.

 

[The Barbarian]

What about the first sentence...is it wrong?

Yes, it is. The Earth does not orbit the moon. But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.

 

[Tone]

Yes, it is. The Earth does not orbit the moon. But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.

I can not fathom how great a creator our God is.

The first sentence was the above ^.

 

[The Barbarian]

The first sentence was the above

Well, that's likely true. I doubt if you can fathom how great God is. The more I learn about His creation, the more in awe I am of His power and wisdom.

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.

 

[Tone]

Well, that's likely true. I doubt if you can fathom how great God is. The more I learn about His creation, the more in awe I am of His power and wisdom.

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.

I hear ya!

 

[Kenny'sID]

What is also amazing is how many forms of life are needed to sustain life.

Exactly, it never seems to end, all that had to come together by chance only, as if even one thing were possible to come from nothing, which it is not. So, yeah, I'd say we bible believers are pretty much on the right track, and it's absurd to even contemplate it could have happened any other way.

I can not fathom how great a creator our God is.

 

[Sam91]

That's wrong, too. For example, the Earth, when it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, is about one million miles farther from the Sun than it is when it's winter.

Yes, I know that the distance changes over a year. Also about how Milankovitch cycles, Earth's tilt, wobble, eccentricity, activity affect climate too. The post wasn't about that though. It was the cumulative affect of so many improbable, if not impossible factors
Doesn't that make it all remarkable?

 

[Sam91]

Yes, it is. The Earth does not orbit the moon. But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.

Nobody said that it did. My post was poorly structured but I certainly did not suggest that the Earth orbited the moon. The moon was brought up as a separate thought introduced after a comma. The moon deserved a sentence of its own because I wasn't referring to the moon and climate, although some people debate its effect.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think these cca 1,000 scientists are still more or less the same creationists who were quoted on ICR, AiG and similar or signing something all their life, its not a new growth...

It's a small and insignificant point as to whether there is enough growth in the numbers of those that reject Darwin to extol that growth. It is a fairly big mistake to equate YEC with ID

 

[The Barbarian]

Nobody said that it did. My post was poorly structured

I suppose that would explain it. Clarity is always a good thing in writing. If you realize that the Earth doesn't orbit the moon, that's fine.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's a small and insignificant point as to whether there is enough growth in the numbers of those that reject Darwin to extol that growth.

Given that the numbers have been packed with non-scientists and non-biologists, it's become kind of a joke for us. The list includes some dead people as well. And it's still less than one percent of biologists in the world. This is why the bandwagon argument is such a bad move for creationists.

It is a fairly big mistake to equate YEC with ID

The guy who invented ID is a YEC.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I know that the distance changes over a year. Also about how Milankovitch cycles, Earth's tilt, wobble, eccentricity, activity affect climate too. The post wasn't about that though. It was the cumulative affect of so many improbable, if not impossible factors
Doesn't that make it all remarkable?

The anthropic principle says that the universe looks the way it does to us, because if it looked much different, we wouldn't be here to see it.

If you win a raffle, how can you tell the difference between just being lucky or someone fixing it so you'd win?

 

[nolidad]

In other words, you explanation could be adjusted to fit any outcome. It could, for example, explain why Oak trees were able to outrun conifers.

Barbarian observes:
Your fellow YEC, Kurt Wise disagrees with you. He says the dino/bird series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And he actually knows what he's talking about.

Well I wonder if now 24 years later, hold the same view given that the whale and horse series have both been debunkd by both sides of the aisle!

And if I understood correctly, he is talking about "macroevolutionary changes" within a kind. But given the wqay he writes, he is not promoting macroevolution (which he clearly said he rejects), He is just saying that back in 1995 creation paleontology was still very unformes, had not been well develolped and that in a few cases there was strong evidence back then.

But at least 2 of his examples have been debunked

And here is an article showing the proven frauds!
Whale evolution fraud - creation.com

Once again it is hard to be a transitional form to whales when you appear long after whales!

AIG
"Organisms that can interbreed are of the same created kind, since God designed organisms to reproduce “after their kind.” Due to loss of information and other factors, however, some organisms lose the ability to interbreed. Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level."

Yes but dogs always were dogs! They are all the family canidae but they can vary by genus. that is simply variation. Still doesn't prove evolution from goo to you by way of the zoo. Creationists have acknowledged this for a long time! but it does mean any support macroevolution in teh darwinian or neo darwinian sense.

Show us your evidence for that. And typing an all caps is considered to be screaming. Avoid that.

My bad I accidently hit the caps and didn't change it!
Human and Chimp DNA--Nearly Identical?
Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree
Genetic Gap Widens Between Humans and Chimps

That would have been a real problem for evolutionary theory. What they got were tuft feathers, like those on early dinosaurs. Which verifies the common descent of archosaurs like dinosaurs, alligators, and birds.

not according to the article I posted twice interviewing one of the scientistes involved in the experiment!

But once again your conclusion is a canard for the experiment and result (tufted feather or flayed scute as the scientist said) because thius took an already existing genetic material for feathers and implanted it into an alligator!

 

[nolidad]

If so, it's hard to see how you missed Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe. Endorsed by the ICR, this study asserts the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. I discussed this in email with Woodmorappe, and he confirmed this.

They would not call it evolution of new genus and species. Definitely not families. All we have as evidence for that is your mystery email with Woodmaroppe. They may refer to it as evolution to speak to evolutionists, but they call it variations within a baramin.

 

[nolidad]

For Barbarian:

Another video which is shorter and shows the fallacy of the alleged evolution of the whale!

Debunked by the very people who described the transitions!

Here's info on the false transition in the horse sequence!

Infor from evolutionists, reporting by creationists!

 

[grasping the after wind]

Given that the numbers have been packed with non-scientists and non-biologists, it's become kind of a joke for us. The list includes some dead people as well. And it's still less than one percent of biologists in the world. This is why the bandwagon argument is such a bad move for creationists.




The guy who invented ID is a YEC.

ID is not an invention.

 

[The Barbarian]

ID is not an invention.

It's an invention. It was first developed in the early 1980s, and quickly replaced "creationism" in YEC efforts to get their doctrines imposed on public schools:

The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.[11]

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."[34] In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",[12] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic].[11] In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[27] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.[24] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..."[35]
Intelligent design - Wikipedia

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's an invention. It was first developed in the early 1980s, and quickly replaced "creationism" in YEC efforts to get their doctrines imposed on public schools:

The most common modern use of the words "intelligent design" as a term intended to describe a field of inquiry began after the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard that it is unconstitutional for a state to require the teaching of creationism in public school science curricula.[11]

A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought, "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."[34] In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "Creation Science", were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design",[12] while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic].[11] In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,[27] and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.[24] Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..."[35]
Intelligent design - Wikipedia

So the Nasa scientist was a YEC?

 

[The Barbarian]

They would not call it evolution of new genus and species. Definitely not families.

John Woodmorappe, whose study was endorsed by the ICR, told me otherwise. He said that the exact amount of variation was not precisely known, but he believed it stopped at new families.

All we have as evidence for that is your mystery email with Woodmaroppe.

I can believe you, or I can believe Woodmorappe. I think he's better positioned to know what he thinks. Sorry.

They may refer to it as evolution to speak to evolutionists, but they call it variations within a baramin.

Of course they do. AIG originally denied speciation. Later, when they admitted higher taxa could appear, they said it's "not real evolution."