Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

create, made and formed all synonomous

Not in the Hebrew. Two different words

Create is often used to mean "out of nothing" but man was not made out of nothing. He was made or formed from what already existed, the earth.

[Praxeas]

Im waiting for the dark agers to tell us when it's ok to use scientific dating methods

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I've heard this argument before, my problem with it, is that several times in Genesis and in the books Moses wrote, when He wanted the reader to know that a significant amount of time passed he wrote "and in the process of time, it came to pass".

Yet there is no indication whatsoever of time passing between verse 1,2 or 3.

"Books Moses wrote?" What Bible are you reading? Moses gave us the Law, not the Pentateuch.

Whenever the writer wanted us to understand who had written these works, they would say something like... "even as it is unto this day." What day was that?

Genesis 19:37; Genesis 26:33; Genesis 32:32; Genesis 35:20 ... and dozens of more.

It couldn't be Moses because when he died we read:

"And he (God) buried him (Moses) in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day." - Deuteronomy 34:6

That's kind of a funny thing for Moses to write about himself. Also consider Genesis 14:14. How could Abram have LITERALLY pursued Lot's captors all the way to a city that was named after Abram's great-grandson when Abram had yet to even have a son in the first place?

Also, how could Moses have "simply inserted 'Dan' for our understanding" when that particular city wasn't called "Dan" until about 120 years after Moses had died? See Judges 18:29. Moses died even before "Dan" was some place down around Gaza let alone way up past the Golan Heights where they later migrated.

There's a whole history that the writers of Genesis knew about concerning the migrations of the Tribe of Dan that all happened long after Moses himself had died.

The writers never stop saying "unto this day" until they get to the book of Nehemiah. Why is that?

[Praxeas]

You guys are really out there without a paddle...id be careful how far you go. You might go over the edge

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"Books Moses wrote?" What Bible are you reading? Moses gave us the Law, not the Pentateuch.

Whenever the writer wanted us to understand who had written these works, they would say something like... "even as it is unto this day." What day was that?

Genesis 19:37; Genesis 26:33; Genesis 32:32; Genesis 35:20 ... and dozens of more.

It couldn't be Moses because when he died we read:

"And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. - Deuteronomy 34:6

That's kind of a funny thing for Moses to write about himself. Also consider Genesis 14:14. How could Abram have LITERALLY pursued Lot's captors all the way to a city that was named after Abram's great-grandson when Abram had yet to even have a son in the first place.

Also, how could Moses have "simply inserted 'Dan' for our understanding" when that particular city wasn't called "Dan" until about 120 years after Moses had died? See Judges 18:29. Moses before "Dan" was even some place down around Gaza and NOT way up past the Golan Heights where they later migrated.

There's a whole history that the writers of Genesis knew about concerning the migrations of the Tribe of Dan that all happened long after Moses himself had died.

The writers never stop saying "unto this day" until they get to the book of Nehemiah. Why is that?

Oh yes, little sticker in that whole literalist argument...a HUGE HUGE assumption that God gave Moses the book of Genesis

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes, that water was already there. All God did was DIVIDE IT and bring forth dry land. So where did God create the planet? What verse? Im not asking when did God bring forth dry land or create the sky...

What was that light? Yes it says light before Sun but it does not say what that light was. In fact

oh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

Jesus is the light...is that what you believe that Jesus was literally sun light before there was a sun?

Was Paul speaking literal?
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand; therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.
Rom 13:13 Let us walk becomingly, as in the day; not in carousings and drinking; not in co-habitation and lustful acts; not in strife and envy.

1Th 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the Day should overtake you like a thief.
1Th 5:5 You are all the sons of light and the sons of the day. We are not of the night, or of darkness.
1Th 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us watch and be calm.
1Th 5:7 For those sleeping sleep in the night, and those being drunken are drunken in the night.
1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be calm, having put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation for a helmet.

2Pe 1:19 We also have a more sure Word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Daystar arises in your hearts,

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



Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality.

Yes and God said he created it. After creating plants, he created the sun as a source of light for plants.

Why are you arguing with scripture that doesn't fit your belief system?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not always accurate? How do you know? You previously suggested you didn't really know a lot about the topic.. Its amazing you can say that but be clueless on the topic...in fact you defer to videos and quotes from champion YEC that you don't really even understand.

Your correct, I'm no expert on the topic. I am speaking from some of the dates that have been given for certain things in videos I've seen. This is one area I will be working on, making more notes, so that in the future I can have a more direct answer and not have to depend on second hand info. However the videos are posted for anyone to refute those dating claims made.

Would you then say the dating methods are always accurate and correct?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I suggest the argument that you made earlier about dating and it only being so because the evolutionists assumed that the earth is billions of years old is just a desperate red herring.

Come on Prax, I'm suprised you would claim such.

Who is assuming here. Evolutionist say the earth is BILLIONS (we're not talking thousands or even hundred thousands, even millions, but BILLIONS of years old) and exactly what proof do they have for that? NONE.

Evolutionists have NO EVIDENCE, NO FACTS, nothing but theories and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's good enough for biblical archeologists as long as they don't go past their preconceived "the earth is only 8000 years old or so" idea.

Not necessarily. They could just as easily be mistaken as someone else, especially if they hold to theistic evolution. If Pel or yourself was a "biblical archeaologist" because of your confidence in C-14 datingyou would probably follow their methods and use their same calculations. Thus you could find an artifact and claim it to be 20,000 years old. That claim doesn't make it true, it is still just an assumption, a guess at best.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Don't you see? Forget evolution. Dating is science a science used in archeology, anthropology and forensic medicine, and even if it's not 100% accurate it's not so inaccurate that archeologists and forensics don't use it.

I need to look into this a bit more, but if Im not mistaken, isn't the half life of carbon like 5700 years? And supposedly thereafter the dating method begins to have room for error? Furthermore, how can we know for sure that the half life of C-14 is 57000 years. No one has tested this, observed it, or proven it. It is an assumption, a guess.

One of my kids books had something in it about the Cactus in the Arizona dessert, and it said something along the lines of "the _____ cactus is believed to live 300 years, however the exact life span cannot be determined because no one lives long enough to verify it" that was just in some book about the dessert, not religious at all. True its just a kids book, but the point remains. How can we be dating things thousands, even MILLIONS of years when no one has lived long enough to verify this in any way. It is all based on assumption. Research has been done, and no doubt its not just a bilnd assumption, I'm not asserting that, only that in the end it is impossible to be certain about such outrageous dates, so why not just accept the plain testimony of scripture, Genesis 5 gives us some sense of time for creation to the flood. If the Bible is reliable, then why not take it for what it says.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So let's say they are off by 50 years...what does that do to the dig where dinosaur bone are found and dated to a couple hundred thousand or million years? Off by how much?

Theres a BIG difference between 50 years or even 10,000 years when compared to 100,000 or 1,000,000 years. Prax, you are much smarter than that. Comparing 50 years to a million is not at all the same.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Statistically you still have an earth that is scientifically much older than your 8-10 thousand year old earth

And there still remains NO ABSOLUTE PROOF of an earth older than 10,000 years (or even 8,000).

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Not in the Hebrew. Two different words

Create is often used to mean "out of nothing" but man was not made out of nothing. He was made or formed from what already existed, the earth.

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh yes, little sticker in that whole literalist argument...a HUGE HUGE assumption that God gave Moses the book of Genesis

Where do you originate the claim?

Is this claim used to say the books aren't correct or true?

[Jason B]

Glencoe World History text book, (certainly not a religious book at all) copyright 2003 says this in the introduction:

The most common definition of history is "a record of the past." To create this record, historians use documents (what has been recorded or written) such as pottery, tools, and weapons; and even art works. History in this sense really began five thousand to six thousand years ago, when people first began to write and keep records." page XX