Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Folks,

I only pursue these discussions with coadie because from my experience in the Apostolic ministry and throughout the Apostolic fellowship in general, I have found that these angry and belligerent voices tend to actually sway many Apostolics. I watched just this sort of personality come into dominance amongst us in 1992 and the fall out was a bitter and sad experience.

How can a great organization like the UPCI actually stand up and vote WITH a resolution that was sold with the behind-closed-doors catch phrase, "Every movement needs a bowel movement...?" The General Conference actually stood and affirmed that statement.

That was this same scenario working out on a different set of issues. There are thousands of insane and crazy voices that seek to sway our fellowships. coadie is just one example. Because of crazed and simply nonsensical statements and assertions from people like coadie (and Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Arlo Moehlenpah et al.) many if not most Apostolics have a simply insane understanding of the natural world.

That's not healthy for any of us. We need you. We need your Apostolic witness and testimony. But we also need you thinking clearly and behaving rationally. There's a lot at stake. Wise up. Stir yourselves. Rise to this challenge with all of the faith in your hearts.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Folks,

I only pursue these discussions with coadie because from my experience in the Apostolic ministry and throughout the Apostolic fellowship in general, I have found that these angry and belligerent voices tend to actually sway many Apostolics. I watched just this sort of personality come into dominance amongst us in 1992 and the fall out was a bitter and sad experience.

How can a great organization like the UPCI actually stand up and vote WITH a resolution that was sold with the behind-closed-doors catch phrase, "Every movement needs a bowel movement...?" The General Conference actually stood and affirmed that statement.

That was this same scenario working out on a different set of issues. There are thousands of insane and crazy voices that seek to sway our fellowships. coadie is just one example. Because of crazed and simply nonsensical statements and assertions from people like coadie (and Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Arlo Moehlenpah et al.) many if not most Apostolics have a simply insane understanding of the natural world.
That's not healthy for any of us. We need you. We need your Apostolic witness and testimony. But we also need you thinking clearly and behaving rationally. There's a lot at stake. Wise up. Stir yourselves. Rise to this challenge with all of the faith in your hearts.

The question I posed is Evolutionism a religion.

Then Pelthais starts pounding the pulpit and preeching. Apparently it is a religious proposition for him.



He has more evangelizing zeal than most Christians. No fresh science but a lot of wiki pics.

Pelthais represents the heathen side of the insane world.

Richard Dawkins The God Delusion
Eugenie Scott Another atheist/evolutionist

, Humanism and Its Aspirations book Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

Hitchins : God is Not Great

Pelthais is the one with questionable mental health. I haven't evaluated him but we have seen a lot of zealots like this when I did inpatient clinical rotations.
I don't have a problem with us holy rollers being strange but insane because we can't stretch our imaginations to include life forming from slime pits and humans coming from knuckle draggers is a maladaptive worldview.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by coadie

Where did you come up with that?

Gerald Schroeder's book? He is a physicist. He didn't study biochemistry.

Why would I read about stars to find out that DNA is the fingerprint of information being passed along in life?

planetary sciences not the same as plant science.

I will mess with you. With out google, can you explain junk DNA? Can you live without it?

See what I mean!!! You throw out sound bites, but you assume a scientist like Schroeder has nothing to say. You are incoherent!

Sorry, I asked anything of you, you are so smart no one can carry on a discussion with you. Be blessed, I have better things to do.

[Jason B]

I claiming a bye week on this thread. I'll try and catch the next one Pel.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by coadie

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

All true scientists now know that life did not start by itself from nothing. Even Dawkins knows this, though he still does not attribute God as its source, he prefers to attribute it to space aliens.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by crakjak

See what I mean!!! You throw out sound bites, but you assume a scientist like Schroeder has nothing to say. You are incoherent!

Sorry, I asked anything of you, you are so smart no one can carry on a discussion with you. Be blessed, I have better things to do.

I will keep is real simple. Real simple. Schroeder is into physics. Nothing wrong with that. evolution is about changes of frequencies of occurrence of alleles in populations over generations. Schroeder works with a telescope and biology uses the opposite a microscope.

Schroeder is a waste of time regarding evolution. As a PHD at MIT he uses the exact same math I use and if he is a little older also had to write some of his own programs for calculations in Fortran
before canned software came along after my time.

You said

can't just fluff off all of science as fraudulent

What a bogus claim. It is about as bad as Pelthais saying apostoilics are insane if they don't buy into darwinian evolution. But I can tell you that evolution theory is a soft science and mostly extrapolation and not observable.

Pelthais is surely not prepared to addmit criteria for diagnosis and placement in an asylum were where people are insane and can't take care of themselves.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The question I posed is Evolutionism a religion.

Then Pelthais starts pounding the pulpit and preeching. Apparently it is a religious proposition for him.

...
Pelthais is the one with questionable mental health. I haven't evaluated him but we have seen a lot of zealots like this when I did inpatient clinical rotations.
I don't have a problem with us holy rollers being strange but insane because we can't stretch our imaginations to include life forming from slime pits and humans coming from knuckle draggers is a maladaptive worldview.

Still working on a draft response to the genealogy and transitional fossil questions? You are going to answer some questions at some point, aren't you?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by crakjak

All true scientists now know that life did not start by itself from nothing. Even Dawkins knows this, though he still does not attribute God as its source, he prefers to attribute it to space aliens.

Dawkins is offering panspermia. Life forming in space just moves the problem to another planet.
Same way with old earth arguments. It didn't evolve from non life but if given enough time, it could have. Now with strong math probability tests, they need trillions of years.
Can you explain thy the flat earth evolutionists were putting the Miller urey experiment in childrens science text that did claim it was proven life came from non life?


1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

First published:
TJ (now Journal of Creation) 18(2):28–36
August 2004

by Jerry Bergman

Summary
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.

The religion of evolution is packed and loaded top to bottom with wishfull thinking. So much goes into the classroom and they use the courts to interfere with people that suggest questioning the brainwashing.


Good students today know biochemistry is much too complex for life to come from nuttin. Miller Urey didn't know that. Pelthais doesn't grasp it.

[coadie]

The leading evolutionist can't support claims that animals added info to the genome to create novelle structures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKry...eature=related

We have never seen what evos claimed happened in the creation of millions of species.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Go read Behe on the matter of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor. He chooses to emphasize what he calls "intelligently designed descent," but it is common descent all the way. Behe is an evolutionist and a believer.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

Miller and Levine address your misapprehension of the evolution of blood clotting in vertebrates here:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev.../Clotting.html

Hopefully you are not the one to heparinize the patient since you can't even spell the word.

Actually it is used as a slang expression.

It is a home made word. Stick with dead fossils.