Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Your lack of education and demonstyrated bias show you have nothing but presuppositions

You have no way to date the fossils. I know you don't and you will whine and attack and try to bluff.

It is also true that there is no way anyone can prove specifically all the creatures alive during Adam. it is faith.

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column

LOL. Okay. You're smoking crack again. You've had enough.

Fossils can be dated relatively by their position in the geologic column. Older fossils will appear below and younger fossils on top.

Of course, the earth moves a bit over the course of millions of years so you can have features like overthrusts so you have to pay attention to the larger picture around you. And stay sober and clean from "junk."

The geologic layers themselves can be dated reliably within certain ranges by a number of techniques. Despite fanciful attempts of Young Earth Creationists to discredit this science, no one who has ever studied radiology or nuclear isotopes seriously doubts the results.

The only way to alter the decay rates is to fuse the atoms (nuclear fusion, like at the core of the sun). It's pretty apparent that the earth's surface has not been exposed to that kind of heat since it formed.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I know you are unable to prove whether they did or did not. You are unable. I have a choice as did you whether to place my faith in that they did or didn't exist at the same time.
It takes a lot of faith to believe in the Darwinist doctrine.

No homo sapiens are found in the same geologic layers - or even below! - the layers containing Australopithecine fossils. Homo sapiens are a relatively recent innovation to life on this planet, if you look at it in purely geologic terms.

No wonder the angels and the Psalmist would ask, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" (Psalm 8:4 and other references).

coadie, you appear to struggle with the question, "Why hast thou made me thus? " (Romans 9:20).

The best answer I have to offer you is, "Hath not the potter power over the clay?"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

LOL. Okay. You're smoking crack again. You've had enough.

Fossils can be dated relatively by their position in the geologic column. Older fossils will appear below and younger fossils on top.

Of course, the earth moves a bit over the course of millions of years so you can have features like overthrusts so you have to pay attention to the larger picture around you. And stay sober and clean from "junk."

The geologic layers themselves can be dated reliably within certain ranges by a number of techniques. Despite fanciful attempts of Young Earth Creationists to discredit this science, no one who has ever studied radiology or nuclear isotopes seriously doubts the results.

The only way to alter the decay rates is to fuse the atoms (nuclear fusion, like at the core of the sun). It's pretty apparent that the earth's surface has not been exposed to that kind of heat since it formed.

You sure make a lot of assumptions. Fancy your faith in dating techniques that can't be proven and verified?

Your post is another sign that the topic is evolution and for sime wild reason you are onto the old earth iissues.
Get back on topic and go back to discussing evolution as a religion.

You and pelthais seem to not be able to control your selves and always pounce on old earth issues. Afraid of biochemistry?
Hyperventilating on the old earth imaginations doesn't prove evolution.

The geologic colum issue doesn't help your cause because we all know almost none of the planet has been dug up and your assumptions are too numerous to list.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

LOL. Okay. You're smoking crack again. You've had enough.

Circular reasoning 101
Of course, the earth moves a bit over the course of millions of years so you can have features like overthrusts so you have to pay attention to the larger picture around you. And stay sober and clean from "junk."

The geologic layers themselves can be dated reliably within certain ranges by a number of techniques. Despite fanciful attempts of Young Earth Creationists to discredit this science, no one who has ever studied radiology or nuclear isotopes seriously doubts the results.

The only way to alter the decay rates is to fuse the atoms (nuclear fusion, like at the core of the sun). It's pretty apparent that the earth's surface has not been exposed to that kind of heat since it formed.

3 bogus assumptions.

! you havent seen all the geologic colums. You have no idea what you haven't seen
2 You make some assumptions on initial values of various carbons. They are not measurable because the time is ling gon
3 I know and laugh at your reference to fossil deposition because it is the curcular reasong scheme behind dating of the geology.
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]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No homo sapiens are found in the same geologic layers - or even below! - the layers containing Australopithecine fossils. Homo sapiens are a relatively recent innovation to life on this planet, if you look at it in purely geologic terms.

No wonder the angels and the Psalmist would ask, "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" (Psalm 8:4 and other references).

coadie, you appear to struggle with the question, "Why hast thou made me thus? " (Romans 9:20).
The best answer I have to offer you is, "Hath not the potter power over the clay?"

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.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Consider the actual fossils in the photographs above. They are not "artistic representations."

... be back after a while.

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?

[jfrog]

I think coadies argument is an argument that can be applied to anything. He seems to be arguing more about how knowledge is obtained in general than he is against actual evolution. The problem is if we believe his claims that we cannot know about evolution then we cannot really know about anything. If we believe him about evolution then everything that didn't happen in our lifetime is faith. Coadie must have faith that he had a great great grandmother. Coadie must have faith that America was inhabited by native Americans when the Europeans got here. Coadie must have faith that the Europeans even got here. Coadie must have faith that gravity even existed 6000 years ago. Coadie must have faith that gravity will still exist 200 years from now. Coadie must have faith that The ocean is really as deep as they say since no one has ever been there. Of course if we don't accept coadies view of knowledge then we can know things like what I stated above. And here's the catch, if we believe all those other things are facts, then there is no reason for us to say evolution isn't a fact. If you believe evolution is faith then at least be consistent and say everything that you ever learned in a school book is faith!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think coadies argument is an argument that can be applied to anything. He seems to be arguing more about how knowledge is obtained in general than he is against actual evolution. The problem is if we believe his claims that we cannot know about evolution then we cannot really know about anything. If we believe him about evolution then everything that didn't happen in our lifetime is faith. Coadie must have faith that he had a great great grandmother. Coadie must have faith that America was inhabited by native Americans when the Europeans got here. Coadie must have faith that the Europeans even got here. Coadie must have faith that gravity even existed 6000 years ago. Coadie must have faith that gravity will still exist 200 years from now. Coadie must have faith that The ocean is really as deep as they say since no one has ever been there. Of course if we don't accept coadies view of knowledge then we can know things like what I stated above. And here's the catch, if we believe all those other things are facts, then there is no reason for us to say evolution isn't a fact. If you believe evolution is faith then at least be consistent and say everything that you ever learned in a school book is faith!

Have you ever considered written historical records?
\
"even the rocks cry out" looks like your palls are listening to rocks and ignoring written sources of info.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I think coadies argument is an argument that can be applied to anything. He seems to be arguing more about how knowledge is obtained in general than he is against actual evolution. The problem is if we believe his claims that we cannot know about evolution then we cannot really know about anything. If we believe him about evolution then everything that didn't happen in our lifetime is faith. Coadie must have faith that he had a great great grandmother. Coadie must have faith that America was inhabited by native Americans when the Europeans got here. Coadie must have faith that the Europeans even got here. Coadie must have faith that gravity even existed 6000 years ago. Coadie must have faith that gravity will still exist 200 years from now. Coadie must have faith that The ocean is really as deep as they say since no one has ever been there. Of course if we don't accept coadies view of knowledge then we can know things like what I stated above. And here's the catch, if we believe all those other things are facts, then there is no reason for us to say evolution isn't a fact. If you believe evolution is faith then at least be consistent and say everything that you ever learned in a school book is faith!

Evolutionists say this geneology is false. what say you????


23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Since you claim to have truth, give us the correct geneology.

The first thing we see in a false religion is they claim another religion is not true. Tell us what the true facts are.

What is the jfrog geneology including all names.

[Timmy]

lol