Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by coadie

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.

So the "half formed" extremeties have remained half formed.
I can see why Behe became angry when Denton raised questions no one previously dared.
In a religion, like "Darwinism" people need to be quiet.
Pelthais is a know it all and can't splain this either.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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"

.

I noticed. The way you assault and castigate scripture, being a believer as we know it is not your cup of tea.

Like they say, the evolutionists shake their fist in God's face and refuse to give Him the glory for creation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Of course they invent dates.



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

No, the gentleman's driver's license in his pocket establishes his age. The "rocks" that buried him will show a variety of dates because they were formed at different times. I suppose that radiocarbon dating on the human remains would provide reliable dates, if we could find the guy.

Meanwhile, two bodies were found on a ridge across from the volcano. These were two geologists who were firmly convinced of the veracity of radiometric dating. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...years_ago.html

Some of the rocks in the debris were xenoliths. These are rocks transported from elsewhere. They are of a different composition from the rocks around them. Others were molten when the volcano blew and will show evidence of having been.

Because of the jumbled nature of this type of terrain, every textbook that you will ever read (or if you're coadie, every picture that you will look at) tells the geologists that these deposits are NOT suitable for radiometric dating wherever they are found.

Ironically, it was just this caution by real geologists that attracted people like Ken Ham and ICR to Mount Saint Helens. They realized that they'd be able to make some use of the "jumbled terrain" and provide even more confusion.

Honesty seeks to settle confusion. Dishonest people, like Ken Ham & Co., seek to gain from it. Only a disturbed Orwellian like coadie would find it all a source of glee.

Originally Posted by coadie

The Machivellian Principles of deception stiil work today.

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

Many of the rocks in the mud flow were probably formed at a time as distant as that.

The "flow" from Mount Saint Helens was a MUDFLOW - not a LAVA FLOW. Any recently formed rocks were "ejecta" from the throat of the volcanic vent. Everything else that "FLOWED" that day was formed sometime BEFORE May 18, 1980.

Otherwise, it would NOT HAVE EXISTED on May 18, 1980, and been available to FLOW down the Mountain.

**** An older discussion about dating techniques and the discredited "RATE Project" can be found here. You may also want to scroll back a few pages from that post and peruse the material.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, the gentleman's driver's license in his pocket establishes his age. The "rocks" that buried him will show a variety of dates because they were formed at different times. I suppose that radiocarbon dating on the human remains would provide reliable dates, if we could find the guy.

Meanwhile, two bodies were found on a ridge across from the volcano. These were two geologists who were firmly convinced of the veracity of radiometric dating. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...years_ago.html

Some of the rocks in the debris were xenoliths. These are rocks transported from elsewhere. They are of a different composition from the rocks around them. Others were molten when the volcano blew and will show evidence of having been.

Because of the jumbled nature of this type of terrain, every textbook that you will ever read (or if you're coadie, every picture that you will look at) tells the geologists that these deposits are NOT suitable for radiometric dating wherever they are found.

Ironically, it was just this caution by real geologists that attracted people like Ken Ham and ICR to Mount Saint Helens. They realized that they'd be able to make some use of the "jumbled terrain" and provide even more confusion.

Honesty seeks to settle confusion. Dishonest people, like Ken Ham & Co., seek to gain from it. Only a disturbed Orwellian like coadie would find it all a source of glee.



Many of the rocks in the mud flow were probably formed at a time as distant as that.

The "flow" from Mount Saint Helens was a MUDFLOW - not a LAVA FLOW. Any recently formed rocks were "ejecta" from the throat of the volcanic vent. Everything else that "FLOWED" that day was formed sometime BEFORE May 18, 1980.

Otherwise, it would NOT HAVE EXISTED on May 18, 1980, and been available to FLOW down the Mountain.

That is even worse little buddy.
We give the "experts" materials that are fresh and recent and they are off so far.

One of the tests of integrity is to do double blind studies.
So we still see a dead camper from Mt St Helens mis dated.

If we give you some rock, you can tell us how old it is and where it came from. If you can't your theory has proven to be a waste and not testable.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, the gentleman's driver's license in his pocket establishes his age. The "rocks" that buried him will show a variety of dates because they were formed at different times. I suppose that radiocarbon dating on the human remains would provide reliable dates, if we could find the guy.

Meanwhile, two bodies were found on a ridge across from the volcano. These were two geologists who were firmly convinced of the veracity of radiometric dating. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...years_ago.html

Some of the rocks in the debris were xenoliths. These are rocks transported from elsewhere. They are of a different composition from the rocks around them. Others were molten when the volcano blew and will show evidence of having been.

Because of the jumbled nature of this type of terrain, every textbook that you will ever read (or if you're coadie, every picture that you will look at) tells the geologists that these deposits are NOT suitable for radiometric dating wherever they are found.

Ironically, it was just this caution by real geologists that attracted people like Ken Ham and ICR to Mount Saint Helens. They realized that they'd be able to make some use of the "jumbled terrain" and provide even more confusion.

Honesty seeks to settle confusion. Dishonest people, like Ken Ham & Co., seek to gain from it. Only a disturbed Orwellian like coadie would find it all a source of glee.



Many of the rocks in the mud flow were probably formed at a time as distant as that.

The "flow" from Mount Saint Helens was a MUDFLOW - not a LAVA FLOW. Any recently formed rocks were "ejecta" from the throat of the volcanic vent. Everything else that "FLOWED" that day was formed sometime BEFORE May 18, 1980.

Otherwise, it would NOT HAVE EXISTED on May 18, 1980, and been available to FLOW down the Mountain.

**** An older discussion about dating techniques and the discredited "RATE Project" can be found here. You may also want to scroll back a few pages from that post and peruse the material.

So under the man is a layer of basalt from the eruption 400 years BD. He is in a mud layer and the next eruption comes along with another basalt layer.

This is how we can get a 600 million degree error in dating the man.
I spoke with a real geologist today. he believes in a young earth. He is into petroleum and what do you do? work in fast food?

[Cindy]

I read most of the first 8 pages of this thread. It hurts my brain.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I noticed. The way you assault and castigate scripture, being a believer as we know it is not your cup of tea.

Like they say, the evolutionists shake their fist in God's face and refuse to give Him the glory for creation.

This is what I meant by your EGO forcing its way into the Word of God.

I "castigated" YOU! I said the Bible is "The Word of God."

Do you often confuse yourself with God Almighty, coadie?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...Jason, the Zerubbabel question has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution and so if we were discussing evolution in purely scientific terms then you would be right about it being a red herring.

However, you didn't want to discuss evolution in purely scientific terms. Why? Because that discussion would be rather short seeing as you have admitted to not currently knowing any scientific evidence against evolution. Of course the problem isn't really that you don't know of any, the problem is that there isn't any. But please don't go out on some half hearted attempt to prove me wrong about that. Instead lets discuss what you feel more comfortable discussing, the scriptures.

In fact, let's discuss your literalist interpretation of the bible and your claim evolutionists do not believe in biblical inerrancy. I mean that is your biggest argument against evolutionists right? So to discuss this I want to bring forth Zerubbabel as an example of you not believing biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) and if I'm right (actually if Pel is right) then I say you are a hypocrite for accusing others of not believing in biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) when you don't either.

So Jason, do you care to prove that you aren't a hypocrite on this issue by addressing the Zerubbabel question?

It is the other way around. Evolution theory is a theory. it is no ones duty to disprove it. it is the adherents duty to prove it.

We are all aware of may ways evolution has fallen short in being proven or even testable.

The human One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome is dramatically different from that of our "nearest living relative," the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee - up to 50% different. The The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is so different, that if it had occurred in an Referring to any chromosome other than a sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes.autosomal One of the threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosome, such a change would represent that seen between chickens and humans over a period of 310 million years. Described as being "horrendously different," the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence change is virtually unexplainable over the 6-7 million years between the hypothesized chimp-human split.

An old earth is a distraction. We have no explanations why the differences are not only vast, they have never been observed to happen.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

So under the man is a layer of basalt from the eruption 400 years BD. He is in a mud layer and the next eruption comes along with another basalt layer.

No. Even the children's books on Mount Saint Helens give a better picture than this. Since we don't know where the deceased is buried, we can't really know what exactly is under his remains.

Mount Saint Helens is a stratovolcano and so the lava - if there is lava present during an eruption, will be very viscous and stiff. This is what forms the distinctive "cone" shape of the stratovolcano. This is also why their eruptions tend to be more explosive and dangerous to people miles away.

There are some basaltic lava flows relatively high up on the mount from about 2,000 years ago. It's almost a certainty that no one was camping that close given the volcano's activity. Some areas had already been closed.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is how we can get a 600 million degree error in dating the man.
I spoke with a real geologist today. he believes in a young earth. He is into petroleum and what do you do? work in fast food?

Wednesday night's my night to cook and yes, sometimes that means "fast food." Post some of the papers or links to articles that your "YEC" geologist has written. I suspect that you're just making him up as well.

... like the "6 languages" you speak. Or the kidney transplant you performed. ... on and on it goes with you.

Here's an article written by an actual petroleum geologist. He started out as a "Young Earth Creationist." Then he had to find oil. That required some real geology.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This is what I meant by your EGO forcing its way into the Word of God.

I "castigated" YOU! I said the Bible is "The Word of God."

Do you often confuse yourself with God Almighty, coadie?

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


Did God say what scripture says He said?


31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So did God say the Words attributed to Him in Genesis 1 or not?

If we apply the false religion of darwinism to what God says, we force an interpretation that fits a godless creation.

People lacking in education like yourself think we need interpretations.

If Darwin and other of his ilk had not invented their notions, would you have reason to believe you have a superior revelation and need for special interpretation?

Darwin has brrought a lot of death to the world in the last 100 years.

He has fed so much drive to eradicate inferior races. It is religion. it is demonic.