Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

...

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

If you don't mind.

Personally, regardless of whether or not Kent Hovind is a model Christian or not, there are SOME (not all) seeemingly very good arguments in the debate here. IOW his arguments cannot be dismissed simply because of his person.

From "where I stand" I see an otherwise smart guy spouting some rather ignorant statements.

How about this... get together some of the points that you feel are most compelling about Hovind's presentation and we'll have Prax set up a one-on-one.

That's what really shook me out of the YEC stuff - having to stand up personally in front of an audience or congregation and teach this stuff. It was humiliating. I have no desire to humiliate you, but if you'd like to go the route that I did... let me know.

I'm even willing to debate folks like Arlo Moehlenpah (who refuses to even talk to me in any forum that might be recorded or published - privately only!) or Steve Grohman (creationseminar.net), who I have yet to meet. These are the top two Young Earth Creationist guys in the UPCI and Apostolic fellowship and frankly, their arguments are pathetic. Maybe Steve's got something that he does in person that's not available on his website or in the videos, dunno. But frankly, most of our college educated young people backslide soon after hearing from these two guys.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Listening to this somemore today. At the 57:00 mark the evolutionist professor says something along the lines of "I don't have proof for Noah's ark, I don't have proof for Adam and Eve, BUT WALES LIVED ON LAND, AND I CAN PROVE IT!

Ridiculous.

Pel, do you belive that kind of stuff?

Uh, actually Wales IS land. It's an Island in the UK

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

"Chickens are descendants of DINSOARS" 59:00th minute.

This field is still growing and changing and making mistakes. but that is supposed to be what Science is about, self correcting. The problem is when you have politics involved and corrupt scientists.

Anyways, if he was talking about sequencing apparently not everyone is convinced...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...confirmed.html
There was one glaring mistake, however. Asara's results suggested the Anolis lizard, a native of the Southeastern US, shared more relations with mammals than with alligators and dinosaurs. Such errors are common when working with limited sequences, Asara says.
Trusty old bones

But Mark Norrell, a verterbrate palaeontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, says such obvious errors question the usefulness of molecular trees, when compared to the old-fashioned kind made by studying bones.
"It doesn't add much new," he says. "Mammoths and elephants - I mean, five-year olds know that."
Thomas Holtz, a palaeontologist at the University of Maryland in College Park agrees. "I could do a hell of a lot better with bones," he say

-----
It seems really odd to me. Aren't T-Rexs more reptilian?

There is a huge difference between a species of that kind and the avian kind. Birds not only have feathers but they have very light weight bones. I can't see a T-Rex evolving into a chicken (to me that would be de-evolving anyways lol)

[pelathais]

coadie, you mentioned Russell Doolittle earlier (actually you said something like "r Duliddel") but it appears that you you have clicked through some links on the clotting issue. I have a question:

Do you understand how microbiologists use the word "scaffold?" Have you considered this phenomena when attempting to understand Behe's arguments on blood clotting being "Irreducible?"

Have you considered the problems that Michael Behe's support of Darwinian evolution represent to your statements like the the ones in the taunt above (in your last post)?

1) You quote Behe (sort of, you claimed his words as your own).

2) You taunt "evolutionists" over the issue of blood clotting.

3) You then find out that Behe is both an evolutionist and a Roman Catholic believer.

4) You taunt Behe for being a "sprinkled" Catholic and disassociate yourself from him.

5) You then return to taunting "evolutionists" with Behe's original assertions.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

Believing in a Big Bang does NOT mean a Big Bang created and God did not. I never understood that logic...in fact it's non-sense

Consider Genesis. God caused the ground to grow vegetation. He didn't create fully formed trees and weeds etc out of the blue. He caused the ground to grow these things.

So, assuming there was a big bang (there are other theories), why couldn't God have done that? Why wouldn't that be creation? He created the big bang

BTW I doubt the evolutionists literally meant whales lived on land. He probably meant that whales started out as land based creatures

Whales are mammals. They breath air. They might have started out as creatures like seals who could live on land and sea. The evolutionists is not saying that a 3 ton whale used to flop around on land. Evolution would mean the whale started out as something different, perhaps smaller like a sea lion or bigger like an Argentinosaurus that lived and survived near the water like Elephants and Hippos do in Africa.

In fact I would argue, if there was a big Bang, that the Universe could NOT have happened with out God. God is the cause, the BB was the method.

Same goes for evolution. The "lizard" that eventually lost it's legs and turned into a snake would not have been able to do that without God. The animals that evolved to adapt would not have been able to without God.

In fact, the irony is that anti-evolutionists decry the odds of evolution happening and the...and yet if the odds are so astronomical and we still have tons of fossil data, why are we resisting the idea that God was involved?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Modern birds (including chickens) are known to be the avian descendants of avian/theropods like Archaeopteryx.

Those creatures with the mixed avian and theropod characteristics were the descendants small theropods, i.e. "dinosaurs."

Spend some time investigating this topic. You're a smart guy. Relax your "clench" instinct, settle in and go for it, kind of like enjoying a fast ride at an amusement park. You'll have more fun and get way more out of the experience if you lighten up and relax.

Your "laughter" sound hallow and forced. Start here: http://www.asa3.org/

Yeah I hate that. It's even worse when you know someone is intelligent but are using mockery to cover for their lack of understanding on a topic

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

...
-----
It seems really odd to me. Aren't T-Rexs more reptilian?

There is a huge difference between a species of that kind and the avian kind. Birds not only have feathers but they have very light weight bones. I can't see a T-Rex evolving into a chicken (to me that would be de-evolving anyways lol)

I don't think the supposition offered by the majority of the paleontological community is that modern birds descended from "dinosaurs" like T-Rex. Rather, that there were related and smaller theropods that coexisted with T-Rex and their descendants evolved into avians.

Also, with regard to "lizard-like" features amongst dinosaurs, there are two general classifications of dinosaur: Saurischians ("lizard hipped) and Ornithischians ("bird hipped").

You are correct about the "lizard like" features of T-Rex (at least the hips). I think some confusion may arise in thinking that "bird-hipped" dinosaurs were the ancestors of modern birds. They were not.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...ithischia.html

"Aves" or avians - "birds" developed from bipedal theropods much later. T-Rex and company came along long, long after most of the well known Ornithischians (like stegosaurus and 'brontosaurus") had become extinct. For some reason, the "bird-hipped" AND four legged model became obsolete early on.

It was when the bipedal Saurischians began to develop avian characteristics that a form which persists into today's arena was seen. Another seemingly counter intuitive thing is that pterosauria ("flying dinosaurs" like pterodactyl) did NOT evolve into birds either. They died out as well.

The "bird family tree" seems to have "bushed out" quite early on - in the Cretaceous. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0626141117.htm

[coadie]

Must be a religion. They can't offer empirical evidence for the wild claims so the religious boys take Darwinism on faith.

The neo darwinist synthesis theory is nearly dead. anything else?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Must be a religion. They can't offer empirical evidence for the wild claims so the religious boys take Darwinism on faith.

The neo darwinist synthesis theory is nearly dead. anything else?

YES! Answer the questions:

Originally Posted by coadie

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
"crack pipe coadie." That's you. And everyone else agrees. Lamentably.

We all want the very best for you, but you have to want that as well.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

I'll make a deal with you. I will FOREVER stop calling you "crack pipe coadie" if you do the following:

1) Show us how Zerubbabel could possibly be literally descended from the paternal lines of both Solomon and Nathan, the sons of King David.

(See Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 3; Haggai 1:1-2:23 and Zechariah 4:6-14).

2) Select a single fossil from the list I gave you at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils) and demonstrate why this fossil DOES NOT represent a transitional form as predicted by Charles Darwin.

Deal?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yeah I hate that. It's even worse when you know someone is intelligent but are using mockery to cover for their lack of understanding on a topic

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.