Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Can't they get you a new book?

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E...roductId/19164

Below are listed a number of such modern textbooks which have used Haeckel's embryo drawings in the fashion stated above. The list includes an analysis of each textbook, with documenting graphics:

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philo...textbooks.html
Fairy tales for adults lie to the little children.



http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...s/Haeckel.html

What do you know? I happen to have Raven & Johnson's but I gotta reboot to access those drives so I'll be right back..

And speaking of "drooling idiots" - you do realize that your buddy "harunyahya.com" is a jihadist who "found Allah" in a mental institution, don't you?

I suspect he produced this list in the hopes that his Turkish and Arabic readers would never find out his fraud in these English textbooks. Miller & Levine is so ubiquitous, I think I may have one of theirs as well...

brb.

From your own link to Miller & Levine:

"As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past."

They go on to admit to a goof in using drawings - NOT by Haeckel but based on Haeckel. In their new edition they have replaced those with actual micrographs and drawings based on that.

This is the "Evolutionary Development Biology" that I schooled you on yesterday.

[coadie]

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.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
So wse have plants on the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
sunshine the 4th day. Just in time for the plants.

Not 2 billion years after the plants evolved.

Prax and pelthais and Danny don't realize the order on the scripture was from God.

They say old earth and sun light before plants. Call God a liar. The buible says plants before

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


The bible is correct and it doesn't fit with the Darwiniac scriptures.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by DAII

Jason, I don't a dog in this fight but when you resort to this ....

It sounds like the guys that say this:

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)Acts 2:38 is not the plan of salvation preached at Pentecost
2)Baptism doth not save
3)tongues were the initial and only evidence of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, 10 and 19
4) the invocation of Jesus name baptism is the apostolic model and applies to blood of Calvary

DA, I completely disagree. In the things you listed it goes against the plain teaching of scripture, namely justification by faith. All of those arguments can be rebutted with a use of scripture.

The arguments I am presenting are not rebutted with scripture, but with science (and claims of misinterpretation).

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I don't see it Prax. All I see is in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That seems to be saying the creation of the earth is the beginning of the creation week.

PS-Rangers are kicking Yanks behinds!

You caught it also.

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.

The way it was listed is that the creation of the earth is within the 6 days.

Heaven earth sea and contents. Not very complex scripture to understand. They still need an interpretor and I don't.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

God doesn't need days. God doesn't get tired. God wasn't looking at the Sun to know when His work day was over.

Strawman, Prax. No one is claiming God got tired. What we are claiming is that God has the right to define days, and His Word defines a day as having a period of light and darkness.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I don't see it Prax. All I see is in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That seems to be saying the creation of the earth is the beginning of the creation week.

PS-Rangers are kicking Yanks behinds!

Please show me WHERE God created the earth then? Where did God go "Let there be earth!"

Jason come on..."I don't see it" is just as bad as saying the bible is full of errors when it's right in front of your face...by verse 6 the earth was already existing. God takes the earth and makes dry land appear out of the waters

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Question for Jason and Coadie, how old IS the earth?

I would say it is less than 10,000 year old. Personally I would say just over 6,000 years old.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Please show me WHERE God created the earth then? Where did God go "Let there be earth!"

Jason come on..."I don't see it" is just as bad as saying the bible is full of errors when it's right in front of your face...by verse 6 the earth was already existing. God takes the earth and makes dry land appear out of the waters

Prax, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created....the earth". Its not that difficult, that tells us where the earth comes from and when it was created.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What do you know? I happen to have Raven & Johnson's but I gotta reboot to access those drives so I'll be right back..

And speaking of "drooling idiots" - you do realize that your buddy "harunyahya.com" is a jihadist who "found Allah" in a mental institution, don't you?

I suspect he produced this list in the hopes that his Turkish and Arabic readers would never find out his fraud in these English textbooks. Miller & Levine is so ubiquitous, I think I may have one of theirs as well...

brb.

From your own link to Miller & Levine:

"As you read this, you may wonder why evolution should be limited to changes tacked on at the end of the process of development. So did evolutionary biologists, and Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded. In fact, evolution can affect all phases of development, removing developmental steps as well as adding them, and therefore embryology is not a strict replay of ancestry. Nonetheless, many of the stages that embryos pass through can indeed be understood as remnants of their evolutionary past."

They go on to admit to a goof in using drawings - NOT by Haeckel but based on Haeckel. In their new edition they have replaced those with actual micrographs and drawings based on that.

This is the "Evolutionary Development Biology" that I schooled you on yesterday.

So you still support the haeckel hoax because it is for a great cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5S...eature=related

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Strawman, Prax. No one is claiming God got tired. What we are claiming is that God has the right to define days, and His Word defines a day as having a period of light and darkness.

I never said anyone claimed God was tired. I was making a point regarding time, days and evenings. Humans did not exist. Days did not literally exist. Perhaps what Pel says is true or perhaps this was just man looking back in hindsight and describing what God did the best way they knew how. But God is not governed by Days..in fact why couldn't God create it all in one Day? Why couldn't God just keep creating? It seems there are 6 acts of creating/making and restings until a final rest where He ceases completely