Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[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.

Haeckels drawings of embryos

This is what textbooks claim is Proooof.

Darwin said that a human baby was proof in the womb. It had a long tail and was evolving from a fish to a normal human.

Eugenie Scott is a flaming atheist that speaks in the video, She is both wrong and defensive.

Picking and tricking sketches to support the theory is another reason we see they are not scientific. Genetics refute haeckels in every way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You should have thought of that BEFORE you brought him out and threw a clip of Behe's writings into jfrog's face as "evidence" AGAINST evolution.

Your scorn of Behe just makes you look even sillier.

How long before you find some reason to hold your newest hero Arlo Moehlenpah in contempt?

Apparently you haven't read THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION

The crucial passage in “The Edge of Evolution” is this: “By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.”

What a bizarre thing to say! Leave aside the history: unacquainted with genetics, Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished

according to Dawkins review

Behe: Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed in evolution when there was this clear argument against it.

[coadie]

RI: What impact has Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis [Adler & Adler, 1986] played in your journey?

Behe: As a Roman Catholic I was always taught that God made life, and how He made it was up to Him. I was taught that the best scientific answer, so far, for how God made life was Darwinian evolution. That made sense to me, so I never gave evolution much of a thought. I was taught in my undergraduate years and graduate studies in biochemistry that all of these fantastically intricate systems that I was learning about were the result of Darwinian evolution. I had a thesis to complete, so I didn't think much about it.

However, in 1987 or so, I read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It startled me because he said there were huge and unaddressed problems with evolutionary theory. In fact, there was a very good chance the theory was incorrect; it could not really describe how life came to be. When I read [Denton's] book, I got mad; I was upset because I realized much of my world view was not based on science, but rather on people saying, "Well, yes, this is the way it happened. Don't worry about it. Maybe you don't know how it happened, but somebody else does."
Well, reading Denton's book made me realize that nobody else knew about the problems. And from then on I became increasingly interested in it. I looked in my own field of biochemistry and in the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal of Molecular Biology and places like that for research that might say how these biochemical systems were gradually put together. I rapidly found out that there were no such papers. So, over time I developed the idea that in fact these systems were the result of intelligent design.

http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html

[coadie]

http://www.creationists.org/irreconc...evolution.html

. Matter Created by God in the beginning.... 1. Matter existed in the beginning
2. Earth before the sun and stars.............. 2. Sun and stars before the earth
3. Oceans before the land......................... 3. Land before the oceans
4. Light before the sun............................ 4. Sun, earth's first light
5. Atmosphere between two water layers.... 5. Atmosphere above a water layer
6. Land plants, first life forms created......... 6. Marine organisms, first forms of life
7. Fruit trees before fish........................... 7. Fish before fruit trees
8. Fish before insects............................... 8. Insects before fish
9. Land vegetation before sun.................... 9. Sun before land plants
10. Marine mammals before land mammals.... 10. Land mammals before marine mammals
11. Birds before land reptiles..................... 11. Reptiles before birds
12. Man, the cause of death..................... 12. Death, necessary antecedent of man

[coadie]

The flood

If the evolutionists can destroy genesis 1, then they can tell us the flood is a false story from the historical record.

1. Local flooding occurred; no global flood......... 1. Global flood occurred during Noah's time
2. Man evolved from apes ...............................2. Adam created from the dust of the earth by God
3. Humans evolved millions of years after dinosaurs 3. Dinosaurs and humans created the same day and lived at the same time. Some may still be alive today.
4. First humans were asexual ...........................4. Adam and Eve created as separate sexes
5. Earth started off as hot gases...................... 5. Earth started off as water
6. Universe billions of years old......................... 6. Universe a few thousand years old from Earth's perspective (click here and here to see how God's stretching of the universe may have given in the appearance of being billions of years old)
7. Universe evolved over billions of years............. 7. Universe created by God in six literal 24-hour days
8. Life evolved from dead chemicals..................... 8. God created all life
9. Based on atheistic philosophies of naturalism and materialism. A world view and man-made false religion.......................................... .. 9. Based on the revealed Word of God, and supported by honest science
10. Big bang resulted in the order we see today..... 10. God created the ordered universe
11. Dinosaurs evolved into birds Dinosaurs and birds are unique, with no common ancestors (see Refuting Evolution, Chapter 4- Bird Evolution?)

This thread
Is evolutionism a religion




So they replace our scriptures with their religious claims

[coadie]

http://www.creationists.org/God-stre...le-verses.html

Seven books of the Bible reference this event starting from about 1000 BC in the book of Psalms, to about 518 BC in the book of Zechariah (a span of almost 500 years). This "stretching" of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis. Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe. From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old. However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.

The crackpot religion of Darwinism has to battle the scriptures. My religion clashes with the religion of the Darwinists.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by coadie

http://www.creationists.org/irreconc...evolution.html
CREATION EVOLUTION
1.Matter Created by God in the beginning.... 1. Matter existed in the beginning
2. Earth before the sun and stars.............. 2. Sun and stars before the earth
3. Oceans before the land......................... 3. Land before the oceans
4. Light before the sun............................ 4. Sun, earth's first light
5. Atmosphere between two water layers.... 5. Atmosphere above a water layer
6. Land plants, first life forms created......... 6. Marine organisms, first forms of life
7. Fruit trees before fish........................... 7. Fish before fruit trees
8. Fish before insects............................... 8. Insects before fish
9. Land vegetation before sun.................... 9. Sun before land plants
10. Marine mammals before land mammals.... 10. Land mammals before marine mammals
11. Birds before land reptiles..................... 11. Reptiles before birds
12. Man, the cause of death..................... 12. Death, necessary antecedent of man

I get a kick out of the claim that "God created using evolution" when everything about evolution is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible says.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I get a kick out of the claim that "God created using evolution" when everything about evolution is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Bible says.

Then go debate Pel if his position is so obviously wrong that its laughable.

[Jason B]

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?

Obviously this could be a very long and specific answer covering several areas. For now I'll sum it up as this: The Bible has proven itself to be true in my life by experiencing the very things contained therein. Namely a life changing salvation experience, the gift of the Holy Ghost, excorcism, and miraculous healing. I have found God to be faithful to his word, and I have also come to learn that following Him doesn't necessarily mean everything will always go smooth in life, but on the contrary if we trly seek God, there will be trials and tribulations, all of which God uses to perfect our faith and bring us to spiritual maturity.

Thus, I would say in the first place I have found the Bible to be true through personal experience. At this point a skeptic would answer, "what of Muslims' experience, or Mormons experience, etc"? A very valid question.

So then my secondary reason for accepting the Bible is that it is superior to all other religious books in morality and dealing with true human nature. It is the only book, and Chrisitanity the only religion that teaches us we cannot work ourselves to God or salvation. The Bible's prophecies have come to pass, and there can be a very good case for future porphectic fulfillments found in Revelation. Acheology, [true] SCIENCE, History, etc all line up with the Bible. Every time there is a theory that contradicts the Bible, in time the Bible emerges vindicated (ex. Belshazzer, the Census in the days of Jesus' birth, etc).

The Bible gives us answers to the questions all mankind has, (meaning of life, life after death, etc) answers questions that evolutionists cannot (such as originins, languages, etc), in addition to this the thousands of manuscripts which so closely agree that we have when compared to all other ancient books, the dead sea scrolls, and all such things speak to the legitimacy of the scripture being written when it was claimed to have been written (ex. the Book of Daniel ch. 11).

Furthermore, the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God, and in the gospel Jesus endorses the Old Testament as such. Thus if the Bible is in error, if it is tainted, whether it be in Genesis 1-3, Genesis 6, or anywhere else, then it must be questioned as a whole.

This entire debate is a debate of Biblical authority and inerrancy, no matter how many times theistic evolutionists deny that. The FACT of the matter is that if there are errors in the Bible, yet one still accpets it as the word of God, then EVERY passage is debateable as to whether it is truly God's Word, or simply mans opinion.

To quote John MacArthur to Hugh Ross "If you don't believe Genesis 1, exactly where do you jump in? Genesis 3, Genesis 6? At what point to you begin to believe the scripture"

As I've said before If we can't be sure of the creation story, and in fact hold it as an impossibility, using that same hermenutic, what keeps us from denying:

-The existence of a literal Adam & Eve (huge reprocussions to the gospel, see Romans 5)
-How sin entered the world (and also death)
-the Flood (which Pel you already deny also, if I'm not mistaken)
-Sodom & Ghomorrah
-Lot's Wife
-The battle of Jericho (walls falling down flat)
-Elijah on Mount Caramel
-the virgin birth
-the resurrection

Basically the SAME logic and hermenutic used to DENY the authenticity of Genesis 1 can be used anywhere else in the Bible for anything else we want to apply it to, until we end up with the same ideas that Not4Sale has, that the bible is full of errors and mans interpretaions, so we pick and choose what is God's word, and what ins't. Its post modern secular christianity. Everything is relative to the reader of the text, and there is no absolute truth.

People who make these claims, CLAIM to believe in an absolute truth, but how, and using what logic?

If Genesis 1 is in error, how can we believe that Jesus endorsed the beginning as being with Adam & Eve. Especially those who don't even believe there was a man called "Adam"? So then how can we be sure that that scripture is true? In fact how can we know Jesus said ANY of those things attributed to him? Now because of our skepticism we go Thomas Jefferson on the Bible, not literally, but the way we interpret it. WE decide which content is true, and which content is false.

Again, this isn't about creation and evolution, it is about Biblical inerrancy and authority. Just call a sapade a spade.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Then go debate Pel if his position is so obviously wrong that its laughable.

Here's whats going to happen if I debate Pel. The debate is going to move OFF of the Bible and to Carbon dating, the magnetic force of the earth, and all such things. And I have no problem admitting I'm not up to debating those things right now.

However we don't have to have perfect knowledge of all such things to know that the theory of evolution is AGAINST what the Bible teaches. I'm not arguing against the theory of evolution, which Pel can very skillfully present, but I'm arguing that the theory isn't Biblical, and is in fact against the Bible. That is the issue.

Thus, I don't want to debate Pel at this time because the debate wouldn't be based on the Bible, but will be based on things outside of the Bible, and I again admit, I'm out of my league at this point on those things as mentioned above.

I like Pelathias, I don't think hes an enemy, and I'm sure he feels the same way about me. However I think he's wrong in this area because of what the Bible teaches, he thinks I wrong in this area because of what "science" teaches. However, true science doesn't prove evolution at all (neither does it prove creation) both are matters of faith. And if I'm going to place faith in someones Word, it will be the Word of the God that saved me, and has miraculously come through at some tough times in my life, rather than atheisitc agenda driven scientists.

Again, I don't know why we say "God CAN do anything." in one breath, and turn around and say 6 day creation is "preposterous, God could NEVER do that".