Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

Jason what do you think is happening? Where are all these dates coming from? You think scientists invent dates?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by 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.

...
This thread
Is evolutionism a religion




So they replace our scriptures with their religious claims

And what about YOUR religious claims? Care to come back to the Bible?

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]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jason what do you think is happening? Where are all these dates coming from? You think scientists invent dates?

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

How is that any more unprovable than saying the Earth is thousands of years old?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What do you want me to do with it? You have one out of context accusation...which is all you and your buddy Coadie have, accusations. When you lack logic, facts, truth, you resort to accusations

First of all this debate is NOT about biblical authority and accuracy. It's about the scientific data which you are ignorant of.

I disagree. This isn't about science, this is about faith in what God's Word does say. Can science PROVE evolution? If not (and it cannot) then its about faith, not science.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Second, as far as the bible is concerned it's really more of a debate between hyperliteralists who are inconsistent themselves because where as they demand we take Genesis 1:1 literal, literally 6 days, they don't always take everything else literally.

Bologna. Prax you well know that there are literal and figurative scriptures. Do you think God literally has wings? Do you think I take EVERY scripture literally. I've seen your reaction when trinitarians misrepresent your views, so please don't misrepresent mine. I will try to return the favor.

The only leg that theistic evolutionists have to stand on concerning Genesis 1 is that it is figurative/poetic, which is a very weak point. Genesis 1 is not presented as figurative or poetry, it is not referred to in other scripture as anything but a literal account, and the methods which define Hebrew poetry are lacking from the creation account.

This isn't about hyperliteralism, its about what does the Bible say, and really I don't think its that difficult to discern the creation account.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I never denied the authority of the bible. I never said the bible was full of errors. That is a lie you both have lied about because you can't handle either the biblical points I made nor Pel's scientific data.

1)I never said you DID directly deny the authority of the Bible, same for Pelathias. I have GREAT respect for both of you. I do believe that the logical end of believing in theistic evolution IS to deny the Bible, not explicitly and blatantly, but implicitly and subtly. IOW I know neither of you would CLAIM to deny the Bible, but atheists would absolutely love your position becuase it is against Biblical inerrancy and authority.

2)I'm not seeing many Biblical points, what Biblical points aren't we handaling, especially relating to the topic?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Twisp

How is that any more unprovable than saying the Earth is thousands of years old?

Exactly. Its no different. The issue is one of FAITH not science.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Do you drive a car? Does it work? Science explains how gas fumes ignited expand and push those pistons. That's not "faith in science", that's really dumb to even say. That is just the typical response by ignorant Christians and I mean that without malice but many Christians are just plain ignorant. They live in the stone age.

Exactly. I'm not arguing against SCIENCE. How a car works is demonstratable. It is real science. Science is not evil, in fact I would argue that God invented science through creation (I assume you'd agree).

HOWEVER, evolution ISN'T science. It isn't demonstratable, there is no proof, no scientific method, no proof of anything changing from one kind to another. Evolution isn't science, it is faith.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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.

Haeckel was a rival of Charles Darwin and an adamant opponent of Natural Selection. Haeckel was such an ardent Lamarckian that when he translated "On the Origin of Species" into German he slanted and transformed many of Darwin's thoughts so much that most German scientists ended up just reading the original in English.

Haeckel called his "treatment" of Darwinism and Natural Selection "Darwinismus" to differentiate it from "Darwinism" proper. Darwin had even cautioned Haeckel on the embryo thing but Haeckel brushed him aside.

Show us Darwin's quote "that a human baby was proof in the womb." You can't and won't even try. You're just foaming and the mouth again.

Eugenie Scott is a generally respectful agnostic even though she has to deal with an angry torrent of hate and bile from the likes of you. It seems that anyone who has the misfortune of even speaking with you ends up "flaming" some how. You've got a real gift for injecting insults into your bizarre and rampaging rants.

And, on the matter of "Genetics refute haeckels in every way" - though Haeckel's famous paraphrase, "Ontology Recapitulates Philology" has been proven to be inaccurate (even Darwin himself said so before "genes" had ever been discovered - see that last link above), there is evidence that the embryological development of an organism at least contains patterns of "recapitulation" on the genetic level. This is the field that is often abbreviated as "Evo-Devo" - Evolutionary Developmental Biology."

http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/research/evo_devo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...mental_biology

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Apparently you haven't read THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION



according to Dawkins review

Apparently you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" or anything that Behe has written at all. See that last post of mine where Behe EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMS both "common decent" and the accuracy of the scientific view of the fossil record. He is EMPHATIC.

Indeed, Behe has made his views clear that he believes in an ancient earth and even accepts common descent. Consider what Behe said in an online letter-to-the-editor with the journal Science just a few years ago:

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God." (Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism by Michael Behe)
And consider what Behe said in Darwin's Black Box:

"As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg 5)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05...the002259.html

[pelathais]

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.

Quite a number of believers and believing scientists don't really "get a kick" out of the ignorance displayed by Fundamentalist literalism, they seem to just feel sad for those folks.

Since neither you nor coadie has had the courage to even try and address your faulty views on the Bible's use of genealogical genre - why don't we all agree that the genealogies are not literal?

DO YOU AGREE?

If not, then MAN UP!

"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)."

Literally, these genealogies contradict on such a fundamental level that you'd have to throw out the entire Bible if you stick with your's and coadie's interpretation.


Fact: You guys just don't pay attention to the Bible. It's just some sort of fetish for you. You don't even pay attention to what is written on the pages of this Book.