Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

And I rip on coadie for his typos... look at mine! "Hallow?" Did I mean "shallow" or "hollow?"

But it is sort of shallow Bro. unless you want to take me up on the one-on-one offer.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

They are stumped on the chickens evolving from dinos and reptiles. Chickens have an entirely different pulmonary system and they can show no empirical evidence of reptile and dino lung changes.

The word for making claims with no observed empirical evidence or tests is called Pseudo science.
Avian lungs have parabronchi
Reptiles work a diaphragmatic respiratory system, while birds have no diaphragm. Reptiles have airsacs. The diaphragm working like a bellows.
Denton states that the avian lung's structure invalidates Darwinism:

The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

The key is they can't show the small and progressive evolution from one system to another. No empirical evidence again.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Believing in a Big Bang does NOT mean a Big Bang created and God did not. I never understood that logic...in fact it's non-sense

Technically Prax, you are correct. A Big Bang doesn't mean that God didn't create through a big bang, EXCEPT that the Bible says he spoke everything into existence in 6days.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Consider Genesis. God caused the ground to grow vegetation. He didn't create fully formed trees and weeds etc out of the blue. He caused the ground to grow these things.

If we're considering Genesis that is exactly what it says. God created the all plantlife from nothing. Appearently fully formed. Just as Adam didn't start as a single cell or have a childhood. As for weeds, thorns, briars, I think if we're making the case from Genesis, then it can be asserted that those things are result of the fall.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So, assuming there was a big bang (there are other theories), why couldn't God have done that? Why wouldn't that be creation? He created the big bang

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it. Therefore the issue is not really creation, but the Bible itself. Of course we would [almost] agree that God could have created in anyway he decided. I say almost because as long as the assertion ISN'T that God created everything in 6 days we talk about how God COULD do anything, except of course create in 6 days, of course, God could NEVER do that. Impossible.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW I doubt the evolutionists literally meant whales lived on land. He probably meant that whales started out as land based creatures

I don't know, thats certainly what I got out of it. The clip is only about 1-2 minutes long, listen for yourself, see what you think.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Whales are mammals. They breath air. They might have started out as creatures like seals who could live on land and sea.

This isn't science, this is simply theory. To say a seal or seal like creature became a whale is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The evolutionists is not saying that a 3 ton whale used to flop around on land. Evolution would mean the whale started out as something different,

I realize that is what most evolutionists would say, that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell that living organisms transform into something else. Thats all well and good, but thats not science, and it is specifically against the Bible.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In fact I would argue, if there was a big Bang, that the Universe could NOT have happened with out God. God is the cause, the BB was the method.

Yes Prax, you could argue that, but not from the Genesis account.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Same goes for evolution. The "lizard" that eventually lost it's legs and turned into a snake would not have been able to do that without God. The animals that evolved to adapt would not have been able to without God.

In fact, the irony is that anti-evolutionists decry the odds of evolution happening and the...and yet if the odds are so astronomical and we still have tons of fossil data, why are we resisting the idea that God was involved?

I don't think anti-evolutionists resist the idea that God was involved. More correctly stated they resist the idea that God created THROUGH evolution, especially when defined as secular modern macro evolutionsts define it. Evolution as a whole is much worse than a theory, it is a lie.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And I rip on coadie for his typos... look at mine! "Hallow?" Did I mean "shallow" or "hollow?"

But it is sort of shallow Bro. unless you want to take me up on the one-on-one offer.

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it. Therefore the issue is not really creation, but the Bible itself. Of course we would [almost] agree that God could have created in anyway he decided. I say almost because as long as the assertion ISN'T that God created everything in 6 days we talk about how God COULD do anything, except of course create in 6 days, of course, God could NEVER do that. Impossible.

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Technically Prax, you are correct. A Big Bang doesn't mean that God didn't create through a big bang, EXCEPT that the Bible says he spoke everything into existence in 6days.

If we're considering Genesis that is exactly what it says. God created the all plantlife from nothing. Appearently fully formed. Just as Adam didn't start as a single cell or have a childhood. As for weeds, thorns, briars, I think if we're making the case from Genesis, then it can be asserted that those things are result of the fall.

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it. Therefore the issue is not really creation, but the Bible itself. Of course we would [almost] agree that God could have created in anyway he decided. I say almost because as long as the assertion ISN'T that God created everything in 6 days we talk about how God COULD do anything, except of course create in 6 days, of course, God could NEVER do that. Impossible.

I don't know, thats certainly what I got out of it. The clip is only about 1-2 minutes long, listen for yourself, see what you think.

This isn't science, this is simply theory. To say a seal or seal like creature became a whale is ridiculous.

I realize that is what most evolutionists would say, that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell that living organisms transform into something else. Thats all well and good, but thats not science, and it is specifically against the Bible.

Yes Prax, you could argue that, but not from the Genesis account.


I don't think anti-evolutionists resist the idea that God was involved. More correctly stated they resist the idea that God created THROUGH evolution, especially when defined as secular modern macro evolutionsts define it. Evolution as a whole is much worse than a theory, it is a lie.

A lot is a lie. Prax and pel push a lot of stuff that no one can ever know. It has never been observed and can't be but thy claim it is fact.

]
The big lie.

God's Word says he created completed kinds and species. Darwinists say that is an outright lie.



Darwinist fundamentalists are very intense. They have no qualms twisting the WORD and calling it a lie.

Common ancestry means all animals and life trace back to a single life form.
Linnaean taxonomy is they plot development.

Gould shoots down his own belief when he believes in stasis or lack of changes over millions of years and at the same time, we have evidence most species appeared simultanelusly and very rapidly.

Gould writes against gradualism.

common ancestry is the one of 3 non negotiables for the crackpot religion of Darwinism.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

What is the correct knuckle dragger geneology? Where are the intermediates and their names?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

Touche' Pel. I've never heard of the "Zerubbabel problem". When I get into all this, I'll consider that.

So then, would it be accurate to say that you don't believe in Biblical inerrancy?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

Philip Johnson and A guy by the name of Denton have dissembled evolution theory withoput reference to the bible many years ago.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton

Every chapter is loaded with items that the Evoas have run from and been found unable to deal with.

Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement

Children in the evolution movement will jump over to Panda's thumb , regurgitate the atheist talking points and attack but still avoid the issues.

The empirical evidence that they can't provide relagates their wishfull thinking to the dung heap of pseudo science.

They can only proved bone chips and fossils and very few of those. None of them have linneages attached nor soft tissue and dna. They are not traceable and just placing them on "the Big Tree" is circular reasoning.

[coadie]

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton

Behe credits Denton for his awakening and beginnings of questioning the darwiniac Dogma. He even uses it as a college text. Behe has done great work for intelligent design. Another nuclear term
Creationists and evolutionists both have issues with Michael Behe.

I like Behe for his work on malaria. He covers it too much but it clarifies the issues we have with 4 groups of blood cell chains.