Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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

So you do acknowledge that the genealogies of the Bible cannot be taken literally, don't you?

[pelathais]

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.

Let me ask you this, upon what basis do you conclude that the Bible "lines up" with objective truth?

You have to use your own reasoning to establish that conclusion. You've worked much of it out yourself. Even if someone else placed your first Bible into your hands and taught you in Sunday School, I trust that over the years you have been thinking, reading and working things out. How can you KNOW that you've reached the correct conclusions concerning your faith in the Bible?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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

Originally Posted by pelathais

So you do acknowledge that the genealogies of the Bible cannot be taken literally, don't you?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Let me ask you this, upon what basis do you conclude that the Bible "lines up" with objective truth?

You have to use your own reasoning to establish that conclusion. You've worked much of it out yourself. Even if someone else placed your first Bible into your hands and taught you in Sunday School, I trust that over the years you have been thinking, reading and working things out. How can you KNOW that you've reached the correct conclusions concerning your faith in the Bible?

Great question.

Any rational Christian tests the promises of God.
Dishonest people like your self devote a lot of time thinking if you can find error in the word, you will look good and the word loses it's power.

Darwinism is for liars and atheists.

Lie number one Changes in life are random. That means not predictible. Not controlled
Lie number two. Darwinists claim to have a Narrative of dogmatic supremacy and need not offer empirical evidence.

Mary under theory of Darwin had no reason to believe the child born would be human. It could have been a knuckle dragger.

The bible is much more accurate in predicting the future than darwinistas are in reporting the past which they have never seen.

Darwinists are very lively in seeking erron in scriptures and hiding their monster errors and contradictions.



\

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Great question.

Any rational Christian tests the promises of God.
Dishonest people like your self devote a lot of time thinking if you can find error in the word, you will look good and the word loses it's power.

[B]Darwinism is for liars and atheists.

...
\

Originally Posted by coadie

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

Originally Posted by pelathais

So you do acknowledge that the genealogies of the Bible cannot be taken literally, don't you?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Great question.

...
Darwinists are very lively in seeking erron in scriptures and hiding their monster errors and contradictions.



\

Originally Posted by coadie

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
"crack pipe coadie." That's you. And everyone else agrees. Lamentably.

We all want the very best for you, but you have to want that as well.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

I'll make a deal with you. I will FOREVER stop calling you "crack pipe coadie" if you do the following:

1) Show us how Zerubbabel could possibly be literally descended from the paternal lines of both Solomon and Nathan, the sons of King David.

(See Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 3; Haggai 1:1-2:23 and Zechariah 4:6-14).

2) Select a single fossil from the list I gave you at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils) and demonstrate why this fossil DOES NOT represent a transitional form as predicted by Charles Darwin.

Deal?

[Jason B]

http://www.gty.org/PDF/CreationBelieveItOrNot.pdf

[Praxeas]

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.

Speaking part is not an issue. The 6 days is the issue. Considering the bible says a day is like a thousand years to God then I'd have to cast doubt on whether that meant 6 literal days

Also a day is based on solar time table etc etc and there was no sun or moon till a few days later

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.

Genesis doesn't say God created plant life fully formed.

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it.

The bible doesn't say "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.

Genesis does not elaborate on the hows and whats other than God spoke

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.

Why is it 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.

Where does the bible speak against speciation, micro and macro evolution?
What is "science"?

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

The genesis account only tells us God spoke

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.

More assertions but no substance

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Speaking part is not an issue. The 6 days is the issue. Considering the bible says a day is like a thousand years to God then I'd have to cast doubt on whether that meant 6 literal days

Also a day is based on solar time table etc etc and there was no sun or moon till a few days later

Genesis doesn't say God created plant life fully formed.


The bible doesn't say "how" He did it.

Genesis does not elaborate on the hows and whats other than God spoke

Why is it ridiculous?

Where does the bible speak against speciation, micro and macro evolution?
What is "science"?

The genesis account only tells us God spoke


More assertions but no substance

The presented question "is evolutionism a religion"

It sure is. It is presented by yourself and others as an alternative to the biblical faith.

When you act like you have special revelation in Genesis intepretation, it tells me you want to express dogmatic supremacy for your personal creation fairy tales that we all know were not supported by observation.

Prax, your biggest fattest lie is common ancestry It is the foundation of Evolutionism dogma and you do not have a way to weasel and twist it into the scriptures.




How do you prove Godwas unable to place the sun and moon in the sequence He had written?

The historical account of Genesis classhes with your faith in a Darwinistic dogma. God doesn't lie and he doesn't lie in writing. Psychologists deal daily with people like your self that have been brainwashed by secular humanistic teachings and battle great errors in perception of reality and devote a lot of energy to fanatical illusions and dreams.

[B]Attacking the scriptures is how you explicitly tell us your religion has a better story of origins than does God's word in your head.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

http://www.gty.org/PDF/CreationBelieveItOrNot.pdf

Not so. Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a
faith-based premise. Its basic presupposition—an a priori rejection of everything

This is why they attack YEC and the scriptures like pitbulls. It is a religious position.

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can
account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is
it “scientific” in any true sense of the word.

The fish with legs is nothing new. Dagon a false god in the bible was half man and half fish.

The heathen for thousands of years offer graven images of 'transitionals"

Modern naturalism is often promulgated with a missionary zeal that has powerful religious overtones.
The popular fish symbol many Christians put on their cars now has a naturalist counterpart: a fish
with feet and the word “Darwin” embossed into its side.