Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

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.

Prove it.

First please explain to me how carbon dating anything even something that is 200 years old, is all based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old

If I can use a dating technique to date something we already know is 200 years old then your assertion, as unfounded as is, seems to be very shaky

Second, maybe you are the one operating on a priori that the earth can't be older than...what? 10k years, therefore it does not matter what scientific facts one presents it has to be wrong no matter how much proof they offer

[pelathais]

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.

It is NOT based upon "an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old!"

Radiometric dating is based upon the "assumption" that reality exists and that the rates of nuclear decay are uniform throughout the environment.

Do atoms exist? Do isotopes of certain atoms decay at regular and predicable rates? That's what YOU have to disprove. So Jason, "Do atoms exist?"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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.

Again it's about science. Evolution, chemical dating, geology, anthropology..those are all science. Science has already proven Evolution, but I suspect you don't really know what evolution means so you won't see the proof. Evolution has many proven facts under it's belt. It also has a lot of areas that are still scientific unknowns and therefore we call them theories or hypothesis

Bologna. Prax you well know that there are literal and figurative scriptures.

Oh no.. I KNOW that. That is MY point, not yours. MY point is YOU choose to take Genesis very literal and in fact not only do you take it literal you add to it commonly accepted Christian ideas into the text.

My point is you lie, both you and Coadie, when you assert I or others reject the bible as an authority or as inerrent when we don't look at Genesis 1 with a literalist view. Which you have proven my point about picking and choosing. Again it's NOT about inerrency or authority, that is a false accusation. It's about literalist interpretation which you choose to stand on despite admitting not all scriptures are to be taken literally

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.

You've already misrepresented me, both you and Coadie so I am returning the favor. You can try, from here on, to correct your false accusations and then perhaps we can have a more intelligent discussion, ok? But you apparently completely missed the point about literalness.

I will repeat. You brought the issue up, you said and implied I denied the bible authority and inerrancy. That is not the issue. The issue is instead LITERAL interpretation

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.

Show me the proof. What you have in other accounts is God created. I never denied God created., See you and Coadie keep lying about what I said. You took a non-literalist argument on my behalf to simply say that your assertions about evolution and the big bang are not necessarily contradicted by Evolutionist Christians and TURNED THAT INTO my denying the bible authority and inerrency!

That is what you did. That is how Coadie operates too.

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.

NO it's NOT about authority or inerrency it's about whether Genesis should be taken literally. That is the issue. Don't lie and say I deny the authority of the bible or its inerrency.

Tell me how "the evening and the morning were the first day" how that is literal when there was literally (according to the literalist), no moon or sun until the forth day. Genesis is literally using our language and if it literally means an evening and morning there must have been an earth rotating while circling a sun.

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.

You implied it...in fact you made it a point to BUMP what you posted and put in all BOLD LETTERS what you claimed the issue is..that is about authority and inerrency. My position does not and DID NOT go against bible inerrency. I never made one argument that the bible contained errors. Again the issue is about literalness vs Interpretation

I will quote you

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bump for Praxeas

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=236

Read that where you called a spade a space asserting the issue was bible authority and inerrancy as IF I made one negative point about the bible authority and inerrency and I did not

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=236

Read that where you called a spade a space asserting the issue was bible authority and inerrancy as IF I made one negative point about the bible authority and inerrency and I did not

Unfortunately Prax, the "answer" to your challenge here is usually something like:

"Well, MY theology and MY hermeneutics are THE VOICE OF GOD!"

It's as if one's ego has enveloped the Bible itself and forces everything in the Bible to conform to their own private interpretation. Just look at how none of these guys who demand that we interpret the genealogies literally can even answer the "Zerubbabel Question."

The only way they can even try is to deny that Zerubbabel existed. What does that say of their "literalism?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

... 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.

The Bible itself tells us when the language is metaphorical. If the accounts don't line up exactly with reality - don't try and change reality, look for a deeper meaning. You're missing so much of the message when you demand such a wooden literalism for every statement.

Why can't YOU answer the "Zerubbabel Question?"

Why can't answer the question about how to LITERALLY interpret Matthew 27:9-10? What's with that? "Jeremy" said that? But in REALITY we KNOW it was Zechariah. Using our KNOWLEDGE of REALITY - how can we reconcile Matthew's apparent "goof?"

Or, as you and caodie appear to demand, should we just throw out the Bible all together because we find these "mistakes?"

My approach is to NOT assume it's a mistake (like the unbelievers) AND to not just ignore a statement that's a part of a message from God to me (like you and coadie).

You guys are ignoring God's message just because your ego demands that everybody else accept your thoughts as "divine."

(And I'm just picking out easy and obvious problems with a literal approach for you).

[Jason B]

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=236

Read that where you called a spade a space asserting the issue was bible authority and inerrancy as IF I made one negative point about the bible authority and inerrency and I did not

Ok Prax, please clarify how you believe in Biblical inerrancy, while not accepting the creation account in Genesis 1.

[Jason B]

Article on Carbon dating (I haven't read yet, but am about to), perhaps Pel will post a short rebuttal

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

The article includes this quote:
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Just sayin' its not as if Coadie and myself are on an island. And even if we were God's word is not defined by popular opinion, else we'd all be trinitarians.

Also:
"Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion."

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

Evolution says no way. Mother earth had homo sapiens classified as animals that evolved from apes.