Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Prax and jfrog (with whom I certainly have some disagreements) -

hehe

[coadie]

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.

Of course they invent dates.

The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.

So the unlucky camper burried by volcanic rock at mt St helens will be 1.6 million years old.

The Machivellian Principles of deception stiil work today.

Who all thinks Mr St Helens rocks/lava flow were formed 1.3 billion years ago?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

More insanity.

God's word does provide names and geneology.

Why don't you provide names and geneology leading up to Adam?

Is it because the bible has details and standards the Crackpot religion of darwin can't meet?

In Fact God knew what he was doing when Luke wrote the geneologies. He knew the futre folks would come along and try to put a darwinian twist and spin on the scriptures.

So names and records between Adam and God is what you should try to focus on.
If you have nothing, it gives us no option but to toss your historical records in the trash.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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




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?

I don't make deals with liars. Liars like you can't be respected.

The false religion of Adam coming from apes is the issue.
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.The Common ancestry theory you cling to says this is a lie.

Adam was created in God's image and you show us pics of bone fragments you claim are Adam's ancestors.

Your need to call names is demonstrates your psychological pathology when caught fudging and making up the fairy tales of evolution.

Your claim as an evolutionist that man evolved from apes seems to tell us you lie and claim the bible is false.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

sigh...Im gonna say this one last time. It's not a matter of ACCEPTING. Its not about authority or inerrency. It's about IN TER PRE TATION.

You keep taking my acceptance but different interpretation and turning that into me not accepting it.

Last time.

The issue is one of IN TER PRE TATION. I don't take Genesis as a literal account of creation. I do take to to be about creation.

And I already gave an example of the whole "evening/morning" issue. It's not meant to be taken literal. By literal I mean, "There is no room for interpretation":
Just because something is not a literal account of creation does not mean it isn't an account of creation

You can't dance around the evening and morning part.
A Jewish day begins at sunset. At the beginning of the evening.

Obviously I don't need an interpretor. Some folks like yourself struggle with reading comprehension

9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I use scripture to interpret scripture. If I used The religion of Evolution, (to interpret scripture) we would see a need to call out the 10 commandments as false.

Exodus 20 matches exodus 19, Genesis 1 and the story of the flood.

Genesis 7:4
Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

I enjoy several evolutionist apologists confirm that the THEORY of Evolution is a foundation of a religion and actually calls for a special revelation and "interpretation" of the bible.


I of course don't take these zealots litterally. it is name calling and emotion and not empirical evidence or science.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Now Jason. You say that a number with the word "day" always means a literal day in the old testament. How can we know that is true. Even if it is true in every other example then how can we know that Genesis 1 isn't the 1 example we have where a number with the word "day" means a figurative day. The problem with your biblical interpretation is you are trying to extrapolate the meaning of a number with the word "day" from other scriptures. Extrapolation is the same problem you have with radiometric dating. I say that if you will not let scientists extrapolate then you shouldn't extrapolate either, especially when it comes to scripture.

Someone who can say it much better than me. 4 videos, but very short (about 15 minutes each)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...lical-creation

also see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

More insanity.

God's word does provide names and geneology.

Why don't you provide names and geneology leading up to Adam?

The genealogies in the Bible contradict and don't make any sense if taken literally. For example:

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).

Because you can't even begin to address this problem and because I've been rubbing your nose in it for over a year now, it seems that you must actually agree with me but you are just too dishonest to admit it.

Originally Posted by coadie

Is it because the bible has details and standards the Crackpot religion of darwin can't meet?

Your interpretation of the Bible (Fundamentalist literalism) doesn't even meet grade school standards of logic and reason. Is this the reason that you refuse to even attempt to answer any questions?

You're a loser coadster. Your sad and pathetic "attempts" at defending an untenable position have already embarrassed almost everyone one this board out of the YEC position. Jason's just come upon this recently and is still getting up to speed. Soon, he'll be ashamed he ever posted anything with the word "coadie" in it that didn't include "brain dead."

Originally Posted by coadie

In Fact God knew what he was doing when Luke wrote the geneologies. He knew the futre folks would come along and try to put a darwinian twist and spin on the scriptures.

So names and records between Adam and God is what you should try to focus on.
If you have nothing, it gives us no option but to toss your historical records in the trash.

No, it's the "names between Adam and Christ" that I am focusing on. AND! It is the names between "Adam and Christ" that you are ignoring.

It's right there in the Word of God. Answer the "Zerubbabel Question." You said your LITERALISM renders this infallible. Yet it plainly does not.

As far as "having nothing between 'Adam and God'" I have provided volumes in the past year or so. You're just either too stoned or too stupid to see it. Put down the crack pipe coadie. Wake up! Life can be hard but it is still generally what you make of it. Sober up, get off the sauce and pray through. Clean up your mind and summon up the courage to look reality right in the eye!

Real faith in God will almost certainly follow.

[coadie]

Michael Denton says,

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."A reader of the Michael Denton's book says,

"Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinuous."

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.


The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Click the picture to see an enlargement. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. That was a lie. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I don't make deals with liars. Liars like you can't be respected.

The false religion of Adam coming from apes is the issue.
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.The Common ancestry theory you cling to says this is a lie.

Adam was created in God's image and you show us pics of bone fragments you claim are Adam's ancestors.

Your need to call names is demonstrates your psychological pathology when caught fudging and making up the fairy tales of evolution.

Your claim as an evolutionist that man evolved from apes seems to tell us you lie and claim the bible is false.

The different Bible genealogies cannot be interpreted literally because they all conflict and even contradict.

For NORMAL people who may be reading this: These "contradictions" do NOT render the Bible void nor even harm the doctrine of Divine Inspiration. ANCIENT PEOPLE saw the contradictions and even preserved them! Why?

Because they did not see any "CONTRADICTIONS" at all. It's just like Matthew 27:9-10. This "ERROR" (the "word of Jeremy" was actually "the word of Zechariah") wasn't seen as an error because the ancient handled and classified their literature in a way that is very different from us today.

coadie will have you ripping the Gospel of Matthew right out of your Bibles. DON'T! It's still the Word of God even if YOU don't understand it today.

coadie: Answer the questions or log out. You have no credibility and no standing.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Someone who can say it much better than me. 4 videos, but very short (about 15 minutes each)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...lical-creation

also see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video/ondemand

And yet Ken Ham flubs almost all of his personal appearances and public questions. I saw him in Cherry Hills, Colorado, a while back along with Chuck Missler. The people - an all Christian crowd - were underwhelmed, to say the least.

Missler went on about UFOs and "giants" that "wrecked the moon." Then Ham droned on about "Jesus Ponies."



A "Jesus Pony"

It was humiliating to be a "believer" that day.