Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[notofworks]

I'd like to summarize this nonsense.

First, there's Pel who knows everything. Robert Bayer had the bible memorized, Pel has everything memorized. He's like Dr. Reid on Criminal Minds.

Second, there's Jason the fundamentalist. Jason doesn't just thump the bible, it is his personal two-edged sword. He takes it all literally and sees symbolism in nothing.

Third, there's Coadie. Coadie is a master of copying and pasting and hoping someone will think he's really that smart.

Fourth, there's DAII who calls "Bull" on Coadie, here and everywhere else.



However, ALL of you believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Why don't we just leave it at that and be happy campers.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Rivalry is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact is that Haekels work is to this day used as support for evolution.

Show me where "to this day" anyone uses Haeckel. I have a European textbook series from the 1920s that give him a mention. Nothing newer.

And "rivalry" is exactly the point. Darwin's theory was "Natural Selection." Haeckel famously rejected that. So how can Haeckel even be said to be a "Darwinist?"

I am really, really wanting to see you back up these last two assertions. Find me "dodging" the question. Find an example of Haeckel being used "to this day."

[coadie]

) It is interesting that the writings of Moses (Old Testament law) constitute the Bible section that most frequently uses “day” with a cardinal number. Moses uses it in well over 100 verses, and every time, without exception, he uses it to refer to literal days. Never – not once – does he use it to refer to longer periods! Since the three verses we are studying were all in the writing of Moses, it would seem highly unlikely that all three of them refer to long periods of time, when such a usage is never found anywhere else in Moses' writings.

(2) Further, the same is true with all writings that have the nature of history, law, or doctrine. Always, without exception, references to “day” with a cardinal number refer to literal days, never to longer periods. (The one apparent New Testament exception is not really an exception, as we will note later.)

http://www.gdcoc.org/creation/day_with_cardinal.htm

Peter 3:8 — But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This passage is sometimes used to try to argue that the days of creation may be longer than a literal day. Please consider, however, the following points:

(a) The word “as” proves unquestionably that this is a figurative use. “One day” is plainly said to be “as” a thousand years. Shall we conclude that this proves “day” always means 1000 years in the Bible? Of course not!

is 6,000 years enough?

[DAII]

Jason, I don't a dog in this fight but when you resort to this ....

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)God created using the method and order given in Genesis 1
2)the first man was called Adam
3)there was no worldwide flood
4)the genologies in the Bible are not literal

It sounds like the guys that say this:

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation preached at Pentecost
2)Baptism doth not save
3)tongues were the initial and only evidence of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, 10 and 19
4) the invocation of Jesus name baptism is the apostolic model and applies to blood of Calvary

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

What does that have to do with Jews? They are not connected to the rotation of the earth.

"ceased creating". There we have an admission of the end of evolution and denial of evolution in a single expression.

You lack in formal education and can't discerne the assumptions you offer. You assume that if the sun and moon stop existing, the rotation of the earth would stop.

Where can you measure and prove God didn't have a literal 24 hour evening and morning and 24 hour day. I thank you in advance for showing your work and test for that claim.

Are you still limping under the assumption that anyone takes your posts limping under the assuimption that anyone takes your comments litterally?

All you can offer is opinion and speculation. You never offer true science.

God doesn't need days. God doesn't get tired. God wasn't looking at the Sun to know when His work day was over. The sabbath was given to the Jews years later

BTW try this www.dictionary.com

BTW the rotation of the earth is not what time is based on. It's the rotation of the earth and the Sun and moon. That's why ancient people invented a sun dial

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

Bible doesn't say 24 hours. It says evening and morning.

Evening and Morning without a sun or moon eh?

You can go to the North Pole where there isn't much sun and the time is still based on solar positioning

BTW you said take away the sun and moon and the earth will still rotate? You sure about that Coadie? You sure that the earth rotating with out a sun or moon still gives us an evening and a morning?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Show me where "to this day" anyone uses Haeckel. I have a European textbook series from the 1920s that give him a mention. Nothing newer.

Can't they get you a new book?

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E...roductId/19164

Below are listed a number of such modern textbooks which have used Haeckel's embryo drawings in the fashion stated above. The list includes an analysis of each textbook, with documenting graphics:

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...textbooks.html
Fairy tales for adults lie to the little children.



http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...s/Haeckel.html

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

Bible doesn't say 24 hours. It says evening and morning.

I don't need an interpretor.

5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Do we need an interpretor for the age of Adam at time of death?

You may need an interpreter ... because 24 hours is what constitutes a day.

It's how we measure the unit we call day.

If you don't believe that God did not do what he did in 6 human days then you a no more a creationist than Darwin.

Zerubbabel much?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

RE- Post a single "creationist argument" that's been made on this thread (or anywhere for that matter) that I have NOT answered.

RE-POST one. Just one. You can't even find it can you?

This was in reference to Ham, Hovind, Grohman, etc. Not to AFF.

Though often you deflect the questions or points I make. To paraphrase I may post something about a specific fact of creation using the phrase "the Bible says" and often get a response along the lines of "science says this ______, so who do you believe science or your interpretation of the Bible".

Originally Posted by pelathais

So you agree then that the genealogies of the Bible are not and never were intended to be taken literally?

I've already addressed this. I certainly do not agree.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Give me some "creationist arguments." I'd love that. Don't claim to have posted something and then baselessly assert that I've been the one to dodge. You're being Orwellian here.

1)The Bible plainly defines day as morning and evening. The Bible plainly says that creation was a [literal] 6 day event. To arrive at any other conclusion is to at best have bad herenutics, at worst to deny Biblical inerrancy or even that it is God's word.

ALL of creation, the literal man ADAM, and the miracles of the Old Testament are ALWAYS referred to in scripture as literal historical events. In Jesus ministry he referred to 1)creation 2)Adam (in fact JESUS said that Adam was at the beginning of creation-Mark 10) 3)The Flood 4)Sodom & Ghomorrah 5)Lots wife 6)Jonah & the fish 6)Naaman 7)the serpant in the wilderness

Peter also endorsed a literal flood, a literal 8 souls being saved. Paul endorsed a literal Red sea crossing. The whole Bible is filled with a literal intepretation when it comes to historical and miraculous events in the old testament. So how can you say Genesis 1 is figurative (mind you while completely ignoring the order of creation given) and yet at the same time affirm any of the miracles of the Bible?

Also, how long with it take for the new heaven and earth to be created?

[Praxeas]

Question for Jason and Coadie, how old IS the earth?