Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who are we most related to as far as consciousness goes?
Ok, lets grow up now.
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.
I can not fathom how great a creator our God is.
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.
What is also amazing is how many forms of life are needed to sustain life.
I can not fathom how great a creator our God is.
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 factorsThat'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.
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.Yes, it is. The Earth does not orbit the moon. But that really doesn't have much to do with the question.
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...
Nobody said that it did. My post was poorly structured
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
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?
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.
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."
Show us your evidence for that. And typing an all caps is considered to be screaming. Avoid that.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?