Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

In his 1868 book Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (The History of Natural Creation) Ernst Haeckel suggested that he had made various comparisons using human, monkey and dog embryos. The drawings he produced consisted of nearly identical embryos. On the basis of these drawings, Haeckel then suggested that the life forms involved had common origins.
But the true state of affairs was very different. Haeckel had produced a drawing of just a single embryo, and then produced human, monkey and dog embryos from this by making very small changes. In other words, it was a hoax.
That was the supposed “scientific work” (!) that Darwin citied as a reference in his book The Descent of Man. In fact, some people realized that Haeckel’s illustrations were a distortion even before Darwin wrote his book. Following the exposure of the fraud, Haeckel himself admitted the huge scientific fraud he had perpetrated:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index...makale_id=1889

This hoax exposed in 1874 and still in textbooks 120 years later.

The devil wants lies about his counterfeit creation story.

No wonder these people are worried about Zerubabel. They are creating a distraction

Now for the really ugly story. Haeckel was an influence in Germany and an article in German about them trying to get a real ape to mate with a real Negro woman because these darwinists thougt she was closer in species similarity.

The minds of these pagan evolutionists are evil continually.

No wonder Christians with discernemnet avoid this horror.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jason. (coadie sent me a Photoshopped "thumbs up" - only the "thumb" wasn't the digit that was "up").

You will never completely answer the "Zerubbabel Question." There are some elements that can be added if we look at all the genealogies together. We can also learn something about how kinship and tribal identity was determined in ancient Israel.

But we can't solve the issue with a "LITERAL" accounting showing a "Father-to-son" relationship in each named "generation." Literalism dies here. And this is just one example ... one that COADIE! brought up.

Right. We all know that not every Father and Son are named in genologies. It is not uncommon for several people to be skipped. That doesn't make them figurative or symbolic, they are still literal, they are just not exhaustive.

[Praxeas]

Oh, another question: If creation was done in 6 literal days, when was the earth created?

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to a literalist reading one has to conclude the earth was already created before the first day

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

You may need an interpreter ... because 24 hours is what constitutes a day.

It's how we measure the unit we call day.

If you don't believe that God did not do what he did in 6 human days then you a no more a creationist than Darwin.

Zerubbabel much?

The day in Genesis was broken into evening and morning with no reference to hours.
Exodus 31:17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Right. We all know that not every Father and Son are named in genologies. It is not uncommon for several people to be skipped. That doesn't make them figurative or symbolic, they are still literal, they are just not exhaustive.

I am sure it is a non issue for them.. The gap between Archaioptraex the first birdie and the next group was 70 million years they claim.

Now that is a gap.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'd like to summarize this nonsense.

First, there's Pel who knows everything. Robert Bayer had the bible memorized, Pel has everything memorized. He's like Dr. Reid on Criminal Minds.

Second, there's Jason the fundamentalist. Jason doesn't just thump the bible, it is his personal two-edged sword. He takes it all literally and sees symbolism in nothing.

Third, there's Coadie. Coadie is a master of copying and pasting and hoping someone will think he's really that smart.

Fourth, there's DAII who calls "Bull" on Coadie, here and everywhere else.



However, ALL of you believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Why don't we just leave it at that and be happy campers.

Then there's NOT OF WORKS who is.....oh, nevermind.

J/k NOW your alright with me, been missing you round here.

As for the last statement, I would say in my opinion BECAUSE we all believed that God created, that there is a God who has sent His Son Jesus Christ to atone for our sins, I don't believe this to be a salvational issue.

I DO believe that evolution (whether atheistic or theistic) is against the Bible. I believe it is a direct contradiction of the Bible, and for someone to say they are a believer, but deny the Genesis account of creation undermines the Bible.

I think that is the kind of stuff that unbelievers eat up. "How can you say the Bible is God's Word, CHRISTIANS don't even believe what it says." I know you guys see it differently, I think you are wrong. I know the feeling is mutual.

I really respect Pel, Prax, and everyone else who is on the opposite side of the fence.

This is a pretty upfront conversation, very interesting, and I believe good for everyone. Iron shaprens iron. I am glad that Pel, Prax and others offer their arguments on here, it prods me to more study and helps me to be more equipped when I speak to someone in "real life".

So please everyone realize, despite things said, we should all be treating each other as Christians, not enemies. (In particular Coadie and Pel could stand to swing their discussion back to the arguments, away from the personal attacks)

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

The day in Genesis was broken into evening and morning with no reference to hours.
Exodus 31:17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

So millions of solar "years" ... a another unit we use today ... could have transpired from morning to evening ... of course without sun or moon to help in distinguishing both morning and evening ....

Must we assume one side of the universe was light and the other side darkness when this "morning and evening" transpired on day 2 ... given the earth was rotating on it's axle?

But still literally six days?

Zerubbabel is hollerin' at ya.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh, another question: If creation was done in 6 literal days, when was the earth created?Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to a literalist reading one has to conclude the earth was already created before the first day

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You left out the first verse. I suspected you had taken a scissors to the chapter and missed the first verse which answers the question very nicely.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh, another question: If creation was done in 6 literal days, when was the earth created?

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

According to a literalist reading one has to conclude the earth was already created before the first day

What in that text forces us to say the earth was already created? The Bible begin with "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" And then the state of the earth is given, void and without form.

At the very BEST all one could do is use the gap theory and say "see right there between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 millions of years"

But even then one is obligated to admit that God created everything else in 6 days.

Furthermore there isn't anything in the text which demands we divorce verse 1 (or verse 2) from verse 3.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You left out the first verse. I suspected you had taken a scissors to the chapter and missed the first verse which answers the question very nicely.

You didn't answer the question. So you are admitting the heavens and the earth were already created, before the so called 6 literal days of creation? or were you just obfuscating again with another red herring?