Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

What was the name of Adam's mo in law? I haven't even read the question.

I am still pondering how you claim Adam and Eve's parents had hanky panky and created them and we find those apes have a very different number of pairs of chromosomes.

I of course know the evolution time line is unsupported by DNA. There is none back there to gather. It is another element that puts the theory in crisis.

You asserted that your literal interpretation of the Bible's genealogies (please notice the correct spelling!) were evidence for a Young Earth.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...8&postcount=49

I pointed out that these genealogies could not possibly have been intended to be interpreted literally.

We're still at that point. Answer the "Zerubbabel Question" before we move on.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by coadie

Haeckels drawings of embryos

This is what textbooks claim is Proooof.

Darwin said that a human baby was proof in the womb. It had a long tail and was evolving from a fish to a normal human.

Eugenie Scott is a flaming atheist that speaks in the video, She is both wrong and defensive.

Picking and tricking sketches to support the theory is another reason we see they are not scientific. Genetics refute haeckels in every way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk

Quote:
Behe: Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed in evolution when there was this clear argument against it.

The embryo's had been modified in how they were drawn so the superstition would not suffer.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You asserted that your literal interpretation of the Bible's genealogies (please notice the correct spelling!) were evidence for a Young Earth.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...8&postcount=49

I pointed out that these genealogies could not possibly have been intended to be interpreted literally.

We're still at that point. Answer the "Zerubbabel Question" before we move on.

We have to start in "the beginning" with all the kinfold before Adam.

We don't have problems with geneologies and naming names.

Its when the snakes turn into birds, things break appart.

Is a bull snake a transitional?

Catfish?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The embryo's had been modified in how they were drawn so the superstition would not suffer.

Taking to "answering" your own posts now because you can't answer the questions that others bring up?

Haeckel was a Lamarckian and rival of Charles Darwin.

See: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=31862&page=18

Scroll down and pick up with post #177.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

We have to start in "the beginning" with all the kinfold before Adam.

We don't have problems with geneologies and naming names.

Its when the snakes turn into birds, things break appart.

Is a bull snake a transitional?

Catfish?

No, we "have to start" where you brought up the Bible's genealogies: http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...8&postcount=49

Notice verse 27, that YOU have already quoted. That's where we're at. You said it. I questioned your assertion. You've been dodging and trying to change the subject ever since.

Simply answer the "Zerubbabel Question." Or, admit that you can't. Stand up bravely and confess that your demands for literalism have gotten you into a bind from which you cannot extricate yourself... or answer the question.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jason what do you think is happening? Where are all these dates coming from? You think scientists invent dates?

Naww
Impossible

Pelthais offered the Archaeopterex. They claim it is from 150 million years ago. If we accept no geneology continuity ok. Then it is claimed birds came from dinos 69 million years ago. Where are the birdies in between?

It looks like someone is 80 million years off on dates. nuance.

80 million year gaposis. No wonder Zerubabel is a big deal. a very big deal. It is a distraction.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Naww
Impossible

Pelthais offered the Archaeopterex. They claim it is from 150 million years ago. If we accept no geneology continuity ok. Then it is claimed birds came from dinos 69 million years ago. Where are the birdies in between?

It looks like someone is 80 million years off on dates. nuance.

80 million year gaposis. No wonder Zerubabel is a big deal. a very big deal. It is a distraction.

It's a question that you can't answer and it shows the utter failure of your method of Fundamentalist Literalism.

And, just because you don't understand the fossil record and have refused to even consider its implications, it doesn't also mean that there's some sort of "problem" with it.

The problem is with YOU.

We see it in the way you mash and mangle the Scriptures and refuse to even look closely at the words on the very pages of the Bible itself. We also see how you refuse to look at the evidence and the testimony of the fossil record.

Such refusals are no big deal, really. You'd just be another crank out there somewhere with plenty of company. However, you have brought your bile here to AFF. That requires a response.

Now answer the "Zerubbabel Question," or admit that you can't.

[coadie]

Darwinism Sorcery in the Classroom
SUMMARY Chapter 1

1. Darwin was of the opinion that all organic life – plants, animals and humans – evolved very gradually from one common ancestor. He did not deal with when or how or in what form living organisms arose.

2. New-Darwinists, however, make claims far beyond what Darwin proposed. In their opinion the universe, and later, organic life, literally created themselves. This is an opinion. There is no supporting proof. In fact, the natural Law of Cause and Effect obviates such alleged events.

3. Biologists admit that spontaneous generation - that is, something creating itself from nothing – is impossible. Yet many experiments are being conducted to prove that life generated itself from non-life. The pseudo-science of Alchemy also sought in vain to make the impossible possible.

4. The Miller/Urey experiment did not produce life, only some useless biological molecules.

5. The Law of Biogenesis – a proven natural law – states that existing life is the only generator of living offspring. Non-life (inert matter) cannot produce a living organism.

6. Variations occur naturally in animal families. But dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; pigeons remain pigeons. Variation within species is not molecule-to-man evolution, just variation within species.

7. Darwin’s opinion that all organisms evolved gradually from one primitive common ancestor lacks the foundation of when, how, and in what form life allegedly arose from non-life. Without that information evolution is just a silly idea.

8. The first and most basic reason m-to-m evolution is in fact a lie is its dependence on “magic” to account for the first living organism. Only “magic” could produce life from non-life.

9. All evidence cited as proof for Darwinian evolution is more readily interpreted as support for ex-nihilo creation by God.

10. Because it is founded on the “impossible,” operates entirely on “speculation,” and cites for “proof” the unproven, molecule-to-man evolution is simply Alchemy for the 21st century.

[DAII]

Zerubbabel

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

Zerubbabel

Was he related to the knuckle draggers?

It is funny how evoas try to make a big distraction when the question presented is:

Is evolution a religion Cult?

For the younger kids brainwashed in public schools, it is a given.
For Christians, it is like sorcery.