Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You left out the first verse. I suspected you had taken a scissors to the chapter and missed the first verse which answers the question very nicely.

Was there a gap ... between the beginning and day 1?

Love me some Zerubbabel.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

What in that text forces us to say the earth was already created? The Bible begin with "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" And then the state of the earth is given, void and without form.

At the very BEST all one could do is use the gap theory and say "see right there between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 millions of years"

But even then one is obligated to admit that God created everything else in 6 days.

I have it in bold. Read the bold part, even your partner admits the earth and heaven were already created

Before the first day the earth is created and is void. Come on, now you are interpreting the passage and not taking it literally

[Jason B]

Great thread. I can't even keep up.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.
That was the...

No wonder Christians with discernemnet avoid this horror.

coadie can you actually prove that "Haeckel" is "still in the textbooks 120 years later?"

No, you can't. And again - Haeckel's Lamarckism was the very ideology that was eventually overthrown by Darwinism.

As far as the lurid thing about crossing apes with humans, Stalin was infamous for his attempt. Haeckel? Dunno, but we've already seen the depths to which your own lurid imaginings can go.

How about you proving your assertions? Why can't you answer the "Zerubbabel Question" that YOU brought up?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

So millions of solar "years" ... a another unit we use today ... could have transpired from morning to evening ... of course without sun or moon to help in distinguishing both morning and evening ....

Must we assume on side of the universe was light and the other side darkness when this "morning and evening" transpired on day 2?

Zerubbabel is hollerin' at ya.

You don't have to make any assumptions. It is what it is. As soon as man makes assumptions and claims they have it all figured out, they are wrong.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I have it in bold. Read the bold part, even your partner admits the earth and heaven were already created

Before the first day the earth is created and is void. Come on, now you are interpreting the passage and not taking it literally

1)Coadie does't speak for me. I agree with his overall position on this topic, but I'm not ready to take ownership over his posts.

2)I edited my post before you quoted me. What in the passage demands seperating Genesis 1:1-2 from 1:3? It seems very much to be one account. What hermenutic do we use to divorce verse 1-2 from 3? Only scientific influence, not sound hermenutics.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

You don't have to make any assumptions. It is what it is. As soon as man makes assumptions and claims they have it all figured out, they are wrong.

Then you clearly don't believe in 6 literal days, Coadie. You're a cultic Darwinist.

Zerubbabellin'.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Right. We all know that not every Father and Son are named in genologies. It is not uncommon for several people to be skipped. That doesn't make them figurative or symbolic, they are still literal, they are just not exhaustive.

So then they can't be used for dating purposes then, can they?

In fact, one would have to conclude that the author (who knew he was "skipping" generations) never even intended that the genealogies be used as such.

They weren't dummies back in antiquity. And, they weren't trying to pull some sort of "coadie-like" stunt in trying to get us to believe something that had never really happened (like coadie speaking "6 languages").

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So then they can't be used for dating purposes then, can they?

In fact, one would have to conclude that the author (who knew he was "skipping" generations) never even intended that the genealogies be used as such.

They weren't dummies back in antiquity. And, they weren't trying to pull some sort of "coadie-like" stunt in trying to get us to believe something that had never really happened (like coadie speaking "6 languages").

No, they didn't bear false witness.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You didn't answer the question. So you are admitting the heavens and the earth were already created, before the so called 6 literal days of creation? or were you just obfuscating again with another red herring?

You asked a question
You left out scripture that answered it

You are wrong again. Intentionally wrong.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

What hapens before the end of verse 5 according to the bible you want to dismiss is wrtten about as the first day. What does your religion teach?