Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that evolution is a scientific theory that is accompanied by a humanistic philosophy. In my mind a "religion" or "cult" is focused on a body of spiritual teachings. A philosophy is a theoretical way of interpreting the world around you and relating to it. In my opinion, evolution appears to be more of a philosophy rather than a religion.

Teleology, or Directional Evolution, assumes that evolution is purposeful and moves towards a final goal
Philosophy is a big gap. If evolution is truly random and undirected mutation, what is the purpose of a new structure?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by coadie

Teleology, or Directional Evolution, assumes that evolution is purposeful and moves towards a final goal
Philosophy is a big gap. If evolution is truly random and undirected mutation, what is the purpose of a new structure?

See... it's more philosophical.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

Then they wouldn't be your ancestors would they. They be merely ancient.
You dont grasp the concept of (common ancestor)

You also seem to be clueless on the definition of Mitochondrial Eve.

WOW, you are an idiot. Go think about it for a while before you respond next time. Having one common ancestor does not cause you to be incapable of having another common ancestor.

The simplest example of this is to consider a population of two people. They reproduce and their children reproducue and their childrens children reproduce and so on until there are about 100 people. Then a massive catastrophe occurs and only 2 people, 1 man and woman live. This man and woman and reproduce and their children reproduce and their childrens children reproduce and so on until there are 6 billion people. Each of those people will have two sets of common ancestors. The very first man and woman of the population and the only man and woman who were left alive after the catastrophe.

Maybe you can use your brain and think of a way that people can have multiple common ancestors without always having a man and woman ancestor occur at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard even for you...

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

WOW, you are an idiot. Go think about it for a while before you respond next time. Having one common ancestor does not cause you to be incapable of having another common ancestor.

The simplest example of this is to consider a population of two people. They reproduce and their children reproducue and their childrens children reproduce and so on until there are about 100 people. Then a massive catastrophe occurs and only 2 people, 1 man and woman live. This man and woman and reproduce and their children reproduce and their childrens children reproduce and so on until there are 6 billion people. Each of those people will have two common ancestors. The very first man and woman of the population and the only man and woman who were left alive after the catastrophe.

Where did those two come from? There is one before there were 2.
Unless you believe in creation.

What Is a Common Ancestor?

It is the scientific search for a human who is the common ancestor of all people living today

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

Where did those two come from? There is one before there were 2.
Unless you believe in creation.

What Is a Common Ancestor?

It is the scientific search for a human who is the common ancestor of all people living today

The goal of this wasn't to talk about origins coadie. The goal was to talk about human common ancestors and you were wrong, so man up and admit it.

There can be many common ancestors of all people living today. Heck, the biblical account has at least 2 common ancestors (Adam and Noah) with hundreds of years apart. Since there can be many common ancestors then by talking about the most recent common ancestor you have not spoken about the most ancient or first common ancestor. Unless you can show where evolutionists say there is no most ancient pair of human common ancestors then you haven't shown anything about evolution and the "biblical Adam and Eve" being incompatible.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The goal of this wasn't to talk about origins coadie. The goal was to talk about human common ancestors and you were wrong, so man up and admit it.

What goal? Do you mean your agenda?

Common ancestor is singular. Common ancestors is plural.
You and your batch are unable to have a coherrent conversation about male and female human ancestry because all we have is BONES and not very many. In fact, the darwinists are so lacking in soft tissue and non bone organs that all we get is speculatuions and assumptions.

Marsupial and placental mammals diverged from a common ancestor more than 100 million years ago they claim. That is a guess. When did mammals diverge into male and female? Got a fossilized cervix? Again, no soft tissue so the Darwiniacs can't guess when placentals first developed.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my opinion that teaching evolution in public schools is the teaching of a specific religious belief the same as teaching creation in 6 literal 24 hour days would be.

Richard Dawkins: “In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”
[The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 133.]

Dawkins is the current leader/spokesman for atheism/evolutionism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

3 bogus assumptions.

! you havent seen all the geologic colums. You have no idea what you haven't seen

I think you mean "number one" here. And, yes I have - and you can too! See: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...ed=0CBsQ8gEwAA

There is in fact only one "geologic column" and it is usually found spread all around the globe with different layers being exposed at different locales.

The "relative dates" of the fossils in the column were established way back before anyone even knew what an atom really was (See here for more). The implications of the geologic column were a threat to the then long standing and accepted notions of the earth's history - and I don't mean Bible Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was still in its own nascent stages at the time. Men like Georges Curvier had held sway for some time with their "catastrophism" and other notions, and they were widely respected. The teachings of men like Hutton, Lyell and William Smith threatened their positions. Introducing humanity to the realities of the world wasn't an easy task.

Perhaps the best read on this subject is "The Map That Changed the World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology" by Simon Winchester. You can get a copy in paperback for under $10 at Amazon.com.

Originally Posted by coadie

2 You make some assumptions on initial values of various carbons. They are not measurable because the time is ling gon

Yes, we all know that "the time is ling gon." That's just one of the consequences of aging. But then again, aging is generally considered preferable to the alternative by most people.

And, I made no "assumptions" about carbon at all. I didn't even mention carbon for that matter. Perhaps you've smoked your way down to the sticky tar-like substance at the bottom of your crack pipe? Dunno. But that's probably mostly carbon.

Originally Posted by coadie

3 I know and laugh at your reference to fossil deposition because it is the curcular reasong scheme behind dating of the geology.

If I have brought any happiness into the Fibber McGee-like closet that is your thought life, then I am glad for it.

The pattern of "fossil deposition" is what caused us to conclude that life on earth had changed over time; and that it had changed dramatically over longer periods of time. Much, much later, techniques for dating material via radiometric means were developed. The results of these tests have consistently shown that the earlier "relative dating" methods were accurate.

The entire column is almost always represented by fragmented remains distributed across the surface of the globe. However, there are a number of places around the world where the entire geologic column has been excavated in one continuous column. The fact that these columns are often more than a mile deep gives you some idea of the ages involved.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column

Here is a list of other sites where the entire geologic column has been found:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Originally Posted by coadie

4 every time you stumble, you resort to the psychotic behavior of name calling and smoking crack.

Your misbehavior shows us it is a religion to you and you are being a sign of insecurity and weak faith in your religions.

coadie, there are more than a few people who think I made you up to make the Young Earth Creationist position look bad.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

No i don't struggle. You make up strawmen to argue against. That is how you prove to me you have nothing but faith in evolution in a religious way.

You use the potter example and it actually is he opposite of the crackpot theory of life forming from non life.
Darwinism has no Potter.

Was the "dust" described in Genesis 2:7, alive BEFORE the LORD God breathed into it? No.

So, from a purely materialistic point of view, Genesis 2:7, does describe an event that could be called "abiogenesis" - "life from non-life."

We have to open ourselves to the Supernatural realm to see that this materialistic life is actually founded upon a Power and a Life that transcends our material world.

Science, by definition, limits itself to the material world. That's all that science does. Science tells us that the non-living material of this world "came alive." The Word of God reveals for us that there was a Source for this event that is much greater than the sum of the material parts.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Ancestors of Adam?

I assume they are dead since you show skull fragments.

Thanks for confirming your faith in death before Adam.

I expect you checked that they were bipedal like adam from the skull fragments?

If the foramen magnum (the opening in the skull that the spinal cord goes through) is at the BACK of a skull, then that particular creature primarily move around "on all fours."

If the foramen magnum is at the base of the skull, then that particular critter primarily moved around in an upright posture.

And yes, there was "death before Adam sinned." The life span of the bacteria in Adam's gut (and yours and mine) is only about 3 - 10 days. The trees in the garden could not have lived at all if not for the life-and-death cycle of the fungi and bacteria in the soils around their roots which processed nutrients into a form that the trees could absorb.

Death is an important part of life. Just ask your dinner tonight.

Paul's exposition on how "death came into the world" was never intended to be some sort of microbiological analysis of nature nor was it intended to be a dogmatic expression about what happened to the dinosaurs and other extinct organisms. It was a discussion about sin and the consequences of sin. Your Fundamentalist approach is a novelty of the 19th and 20th centuries and does not represent the theology of the people of God who have come and gone since Adam.