Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

How do you prove God was unable to place the sun and moon in the sequence He had written?

I never said God was unable to do anything.

The historical account of Genesis classhes with your faith in a Darwinistic dogma.

I don't have faith in a dogma. I leave that sort of stuff up to you pharisees and pray some day you'll put your faith in the savior and not in a dogma

God doesn't lie and he doesn't lie in writing.

I never said God lied. I never denied what is written.

Psychologists deal daily with people like your self that have been brainwashed by secular humanistic teachings and battle great errors in perception of reality and devote a lot of energy to fanatical illusions and dreams.

You still on crack Coadie? Nobody here takes you seriously or believes half your fanciful stories. Did you ever figure out those weird threads where nothing made sense? Where people posted stuff that just had nothing to do with the topic? They were all pretending to be Coadie and it was funny

Attacking the scriptures is how you explicitly tell us your religion has a better story of origins than does God's word in your head.

Ah from Crack to Lying. I didn't attack scriptures. I pointed out what they said and did not say.

But I noticed you didn't address a single thing I said specifically. You just launched into your usual insult laced diatribe full of inane assertions and obfuscations

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I get a kick out of the claim that "God created using evolution" when everything about evolution is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible says.

Such as?
Give your top 3 examples

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Then go debate Pel if his position is so obviously wrong that its laughable.

Exactly

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Here's whats going to happen if I debate Pel. The debate is going to move OFF of the Bible and to Carbon dating, the magnetic force of the earth, and all such things. And I have no problem admitting I'm not up to debating those things right now.

However we don't have to have perfect knowledge of all such things to know that the theory of evolution is AGAINST what the Bible teaches. I'm not arguing against the theory of evolution, which Pel can very skillfully present, but I'm arguing that the theory isn't Biblical, and is in fact against the Bible. That is the issue.

Thus, I don't want to debate Pel at this time because the debate wouldn't be based on the Bible, but will be based on things outside of the Bible, and I again admit, I'm out of my league at this point on those things as mentioned above.

I like Pelathias, I don't think hes an enemy, and I'm sure he feels the same way about me. However I think he's wrong in this area because of what the Bible teaches, he thinks I wrong in this area because of what "science" teaches. However, true science doesn't prove evolution at all (neither does it prove creation) both are matters of faith. And if I'm going to place faith in someones Word, it will be the Word of the God that saved me, and has miraculously come through at some tough times in my life, rather than atheisitc agenda driven scientists.

Again, I don't know why we say "God CAN do anything." in one breath, and turn around and say 6 day creation is "preposterous, God could NEVER do that".

But therein lies the problem... the facts. The Scientific data that you have no answer for. There are scientific facts, data such as carbon dating or the other methods like radio dating, potassium/argon or whatever. There is enough data to show the earth is not a mere 6-10 thousand years old.

But back to the problem. If you can't debate against the facts Pel would present then your basis of saying it's silly or resorting to horse laughter is really your ignorance. It's akin to me trying to debate Aquila or others that don't have a grasp of the more technical arguments of theology and rather than refute it just resort to insults and mockery. Same problem goes for Coadie. In fact Im convinced Coadie is just an arm chair creationist that has no clue what the issues are. He is just more adept at cutting and pasting stuff he doesn't really understand. Thats also why he resorts to insults and other idiotic arguments and doesn't debate Pel directly.

I'll set it up, just Pel and one of you two in an Internet debate

As far as "the bible"...I'll debate you. What's the topic?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But therein lies the problem... the facts. The Scientific data that you have no answer for.

Your correct, therein lies the problems, faith in science, not faith in God's word, when again, science has proven nothing as for the age of the earth or the origins of life.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This entire debate is a debate of Biblical authority and inerrancy, no matter how many times theistic evolutionists deny that. The FACT of the matter is that if there are errors in the Bible, yet one still accpets it as the word of God, then EVERY passage is debateable as to whether it is truly God's Word, or simply mans opinion.

To quote John MacArthur to Hugh Ross "If you don't believe Genesis 1, exactly where do you jump in? Genesis 3, Genesis 6? At what point to you begin to believe the scripture"

As I've said before If we can't be sure of the creation story, and in fact hold it as an impossibility, using that same hermenutic, what keeps us from denying:

-The existence of a literal Adam & Eve (huge reprocussions to the gospel, see Romans 5)
-How sin entered the world (and also death)
-the Flood (which Pel you already deny also, if I'm not mistaken)
-Sodom & Ghomorrah
-Lot's Wife
-The battle of Jericho (walls falling down flat)
-Elijah on Mount Caramel
-the virgin birth
-the resurrection

Basically the SAME logic and hermenutic used to DENY the authenticity of Genesis 1 can be used anywhere else in the Bible for anything else we want to apply it to, until we end up with the same ideas that Not4Sale has, that the bible is full of errors and mans interpretaions, so we pick and choose what is God's word, and what ins't. Its post modern secular christianity. Everything is relative to the reader of the text, and there is no absolute truth.

People who make these claims, CLAIM to believe in an absolute truth, but how, and using what logic?

If Genesis 1 is in error, how can we believe that Jesus endorsed the beginning as being with Adam & Eve. Especially those who don't even believe there was a man called "Adam"? So then how can we be sure that that scripture is true? In fact how can we know Jesus said ANY of those things attributed to him? Now because of our skepticism we go Thomas Jefferson on the Bible, not literally, but the way we interpret it. WE decide which content is true, and which content is false.

Again, this isn't about creation and evolution, it is about Biblical inerrancy and authority. Just call a sapade a spade.

Bump for Praxeas

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Behe: As a Roman Catholic I was always taught that God made life, and how He made it was up to Him. I was taught that the best scientific answer, so far, for how God made life was Darwinian evolution. That made sense to me, so I never gave evolution much of a thought. I was taught in my undergraduate years and graduate studies in biochemistry that all of these fantastically intricate systems that I was learning about were the result of Darwinian evolution. I had a thesis to complete, so I didn't think much about it.

However, in 1987 or so, I read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It startled me because he said there were huge and unaddressed problems with evolutionary theory. In fact, there was a very good chance the theory was incorrect; it could not really describe how life came to be. When I read [Denton's] book, I got mad; I was upset because I realized much of my world view was not based on science, but rather on people saying, "Well, yes, this is the way it happened. Don't worry about it. Maybe you don't know how it happened, but somebody else does."
Well, reading Denton's book made me realize that nobody else knew about the problems. And from then on I became increasingly interested in it. I looked in my own field of biochemistry and in the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal of Molecular Biology and places like that for research that might say how these biochemical systems were gradually put together. I rapidly found out that there were no such papers. So, over time I developed the idea that in fact these systems were the result of intelligent design.

http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html

You are misunderstanding Behe's statements and beliefs. Your pattern of "QUOTE MINING" - selecting little snips and phrases is a dishonest methodology and will almost always end up with YOU misrepresenting the views of others. Try and focus on the statements that I underlined above and repeated below.

"how God made life"

" it could not really describe how life came to be"

Behe is talking about the origins of life, not what happened to the single celled organisms and their development throughout 4.5 Billion years Natural History of the earth.

Consider this statement from the website where Behe actually works (as opposed to the dishonest sources that you wallow in):

Indeed, Behe has made his views clear that he believes in an ancient earth and even accepts common descent. Consider what Behe said in an online letter-to-the-editor with the journal Science just a few years ago:

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God." (Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism by Michael Behe)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05...the002259.html (Hosted by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, WA).


That's what Behe said about himself. So I guess we're back to you scorning the man.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Your correct, therein lies the problems, faith in science, not faith in God's word, when again, science has proven nothing as for the age of the earth or the origins of life.

Do you drive a car? Does it work? Science explains how gas fumes ignited expand and push those pistons. That's not "faith in science", that's really dumb to even say. That is just the typical response by ignorant Christians and I mean that without malice but many Christians are just plain ignorant. They live in the stone age. It reminds me of the gullible Christian that thinks Cris Angel is really doing magic of the debil

Nobody here ever suggested we have faith in science and not in God's word. Therein lies the problem Jason. You are afraid to deal with fact because you think they will contradict your faith in the bible. This is the problem with a lot of Christians who are spoon feed such tripe from their preachers

And here you have the audacity to say what science has proven yet you have to admit you don't know enough about the subject to debate? How would you know then what science has or has not proven? You don't, yet you spout the same ignorant rhetoric over and over.

Science is not faith. Science is a method of examining things. It's really sad that people can talk that way about science and yet here they are using the benefits of science. Without scientist, people who are interested in how things work, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd not know how electricity works. We'd not know about the semiconductor properties of silicon. We'd not have computers

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bump for Praxeas

What do you want me to do with it? You have one out of context accusation...which is all you and your buddy Coadie have, accusations. When you lack logic, facts, truth, you resort to accusations

First of all this debate is NOT about biblical authority and accuracy. It's about the scientific data which you are ignorant of.

Second, as far as the bible is concerned it's really more of a debate between hyperliteralists who are inconsistent themselves because where as they demand we take Genesis 1:1 literal, literally 6 days, they don't always take everything else literally.

It's the literalists that you are that is the issue, not a question of inner ency or authority that is like both you and Coadie perpetuate as an accusation because neither one of you can deal with Pel's arguments.

I never denied the authority of the bible. I never said the bible was full of errors. That is a lie you both have lied about because you can't handle either the biblical points I made nor Pel's scientific data.

[Praxeas]

And the fact is, neither Coadie nor Jason have quoted me directly and directly addressed where I attacked the bible, said the bible is in error or that it was not authoritative.

That is typical of people that are ignorant of the topic and or don't have answers of their own but desperately want to believe what it is they believe despite not having good counter arguments. Ignore what the other person says, lie that they made some argument they did not make, resort to wild accusations, try to cover up your own intellectual insufficiency with mockery and when all else fails resort to personal insults but above all try to avoid actually addressing the points the other person made