Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

The darwinists offer nothing on when and in what species blood clotting first evolved. The next problem is that a clotting mechanism will not transfer from one species to another ever.
Looks like the evos take it on faith and not science.

Pelthais oh uneducated one. You didn't realize that the evolution of blood clotting would be a fatal mutation. It kills a live animal when the blood clots or coagulates.

Evolutionists are not only not logical, they are irrational. How would a species that died by reason of coagulation of blood live another million years to develop an anti-thrombin?


Which snake's venom causes blood to turn into a solid/jellylike? ... If the clotting wont kill you, something else might. The lack of blood cells would cut off circulation of ...


Every time little buddy thinks he has something we see it crumble.

Darwinists have no evidence that blood clotting was created by evolution. No blood samples and of course no tests. None. They also get incredibly angry when people like myself publically discuss their ignorance and point out issues their drones can't raise in their little biology classes.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

creation/evolution debate I was listening to today. Didn't finish it, but there may be some here who want to watch it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...85675446958159

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?

[Jason B]

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

[Jason B]

"Fossils don't mean anything to evolution. Forget fossils, they just aren't important."-evolutionist 1:33:50-1:34:05 minute

[pelathais]

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?

I can't hear the discussion well enough to confidently jump right in on this guy. I am familiar with Hovind (I've seen him in person, gone through his entire video series and read a lot of his stuff) but I don't recognize the "professor."

I know that Hovind did a "debate" with a couple of guys who taught airplane engine mechanics at a trade school and lied when promoting video excerpts by claiming that they were "college professors." I don't know if this is the same outing.

With regard to your question about "WALES" being on land...

Yes, Wales is a country on land located on the Island of Britain between England and the Irish Sea.

Please remember: Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds.

Let me know if you want more info on this. Thanks.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

...
Pelthais oh uneducated one. You didn't realize that the evolution of blood clotting would be a fatal mutation. It kills a live animal when the blood clots or coagulates.

...

Every time little buddy thinks he has something we see it crumble.

Darwinists have no evidence that blood clotting was created by evolution. No blood samples and of course no tests. None. They also get incredibly angry when people like myself publically discuss their ignorance and point out issues their drones can't raise in their little biology classes.

I offered a discussion on this subject by actual hematologists (Miller and Levine). You couldn't keep and messed yourself.

And so coadie - 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?

YOU brought up these issues with the loudest of boasts. Answer the questions crack-pipe coadie and stop running your cold dank fingers through Mr. Smith's hair.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I can't hear the discussion well enough to confidently jump right in on this guy. I am familiar with Hovind (I've seen him in person, gone through his entire video series and read a lot of his stuff) but I don't recognize the "professor."

I know that Hovind did a "debate" with a couple of guys who taught airplane engine mechanics at a trade school and lied when promoting video excerpts by claiming that they were "college professors." I don't know if this is the same outing.

This particular video was held at some university in california (i'm not sure which one) and was started between Micheal Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Kent Hovind. Then in the question and answer section is the panel of three professors.

Originally Posted by pelathais

With regard to your question about "WALES" being on land...

Yes, Wales is a country on land located on the Island of Britain between England and the Irish Sea.

LOL. Thats what happens when your listening to a debate, working, and posting on AFF all at once. Anyway, his comment referred to wHales living on land, is that something you would affirm?

Originally Posted by pelathais

Please remember: Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds.

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)

Originally Posted by pelathais

Let me know if you want more info on this. Thanks.

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.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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

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/

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

I plan to. I've got a Hugh Ross book "Creation and Time", and have a John MacArthur book "Battle for the Beginning" on the way. I've had the Hugh Ross book for about 4 years, never read it.

I do certainly believe in a 6 day creation, personally I believe that to disbelive that is to disbelieve the Bible no matter how someone spins it.

Really the issue isn't creation and evolution, it is quite frankly a battle for biblical inerrancy, authority, and even credibility.

I appreciate the compliments [smart guy] you've given me here and before, I dropped out of high school (I did eventually go back and graduate), my life was a mess before I came to God, and I had no interest in either science or history (or math or anything really of educational or social value) so I'm catching up on alot of things I wish I'd have paid more attention to. We have some really strong agreements in some areas, and some really strong disagreements in some areas (this one is the most blatant).

Anyway, I think creation, and by extension the creation/evolution debate is going to be the next big study I get into. So if you have suggested authors or resources let me know. I don't digest material real fast, and I've already got two books on deck, but if its something really worth my time let me know. I do prefer books over links because I like to highlight and make notes.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This particular video was held at some university in california (i'm not sure which one) and was started between Micheal Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Kent Hovind. Then in the question and answer section is the panel of three professors.

LOL. Thats what happens when your listening to a debate, working, and posting on AFF all at once. Anyway, his comment referred to wHales living on land, is that something you would affirm?

It would assume, since Michael Shermer was there (who I respect), that the "professor" in question was speaking loosely. Obviously, "whales" are sea creatures and would die if left on the land for any considerable period of time - even a few hours in most cases.

However, the ancestors of modern whales did live on land.

Here's a video series on Youtube - five parts. You'll have to click on through to Youtube to get Parts 2-5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KK...eature=related