Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No I'm not saying that. I know that there are things dated older than 8,000 years. My point is that dating isn't completely accurate. It is based on assumption. It is especially prone to error when dating fossils.

Fossils are NOT dated directly - if they are actual "fossils" - lithified remains. That's why you get some rather wide ranges in the dates ("+ or - so many years"). What is dated are the volcanic layers, if any, that are present above or below the particular fossil find.

The only "assumption" made here is that 1) Atoms exist, and 2) That atomic nuclei decay at the same observed rates in the environment.

You have yet to address your false claim about "assumptions" from last night.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

In archeology if a coin is found or a pot, through other features, possibly even inscirption we can make a more educated date. But when someone finds a snail shell and calls it 60,000 old thats bogus. (Just an example off the top of my head).

I would argue that we cannot even nail down hard dates for many contemporary things (such as NT manuscripts) yet we accept when someone says a spoon is 40,000 years old. Cavemen used it to eat fruity pebbles.

Your analogy to finding, say a distinctive amphora (pottery) from the Minoan culture and being able to date it with an "educated date" can also be applied to fossils.

Fossil types appear and disappear throughout the geologic column. If someone turned up in a pawn shop with a certain type of trilobite fossil, the guy behind the counter could consult a record of fossils and date that particular fossil to a particular era. This would be analogous to your "educated date" of pottery remains.

Just what NT manuscripts are you puzzling over? One problem here is that it's only been 2,000 years since the New Testament actually occurred. 2,000 years, unfortunately, is often the "+ or -" in radiocarbon dates. It's too recent for a lot of radiometric dating techniques.

Thermoluminescence is available - but just tell someone that you want to "burn" a portion of their 1,400 year old manuscript. Radiocarbon requires the destruction of a sample as well. That's a hard sell. Most people would just tell you that they'd rather wait for more info or new techniques to be invented.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Coco, you're obfuscating now, next you'll be telling me the word bible is not in the bible

It was your pathetic argument.

We are facing difficult times. The evolutionists are observing the world learning about their lack of empirical evidence for the crackpot notions of common ancestry and evolution.

The total argument of evolution is falling appart and it can't be stopped.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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



Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality.

Yes and God said he created it. After creating plants, he created the sun as a source of light for plants.

Why are you arguing with scripture that doesn't fit your belief system?

Your "belief system" doesn't fit the reality of plants, light wave nor the cosmos that God has created for us to behold - and to investigate.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your "belief system" doesn't fit the reality of plants, light wave nor the cosmos that God has created for us to behold - and to investigate.

No I don't believe man came from apes.

I also know that your notions that reptiles formed feathers and wings is about as crazy as it gets.

Coelecant isn't extinct and still doesn't have feet. It was a lie. And you are very mad at it being exposed.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes, that water was already there. All God did was DIVIDE IT and bring forth dry land. So where did God create the planet? What verse? Im not asking when did God bring forth dry land or create the sky...

What was that light? Yes it says light before Sun but it does not say what that light was. In fact

oh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

Jesus is the light...is that what you believe that Jesus was literally sun light before there was a sun?

I dont think that is the context of John 1, however in Revelation 21 there is again no sun, and the "Lamb is the light" I think that is much closer to what is spoken of in Genesis 1.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Was Paul speaking literal?
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand; therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.
Rom 13:13 Let us walk becomingly, as in the day; not in carousings and drinking; not in co-habitation and lustful acts; not in strife and envy.

Context Prax. The context is obviously figurative, the command is literal. Obviously living in righteousness isn't limited to a single night or a single day, it is a lifelong commitment. Helping me come to this conclusion are several other scriptures which also affirm that a christian "walks in the light" "walks even as he walked" etc.

The same CANNOT be said of turning Genesis 1 into a figurative account. There is NOTHING in the Bible which speaks of the creation week as anything BUT historical fact, not figurative/symbolic.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Glencoe World History text book, (certainly not a religious book at all) copyright 2003 says this in the introduction:

The most common definition of history is "a record of the past." To create this record, historians use documents (what has been recorded or written) such as pottery, tools, and weapons; and even art works. History in this sense really began five thousand to six thousand years ago, when people first began to write and keep records." page XX

The cave paintings at Lascaux are around 20,000 years old. They are the record of a people that lived and flourished at that time. The oldest "writing" currently known are some tortoise shells that date to 8,600 years ago found in China.

Since they are older than your 6,000 years, that's a problem. Another often overlooked problem is that they are the product of a human civilization that isn't even known or mentioned in the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The cave paintings at Lascaux are around 20,000 years old. They are the record of a people that lived and flourished at that time. The oldest "writing" currently known are some tortoise shells that date to 8,600 years ago found in China.

Call Glencoe and tell them.

Furthermore, what PROOF is there that they date to 8,600 years ago. Is that a 100% accurate date. There is NO proof. It is all based on assumption and "educated" guess.

You can speak about dating methods, about scietific finding, etc, but there will remain no proof that a tortise shell dates 8,600 years. Also, how is that possible without decay, especially to preserve the writing?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Since they are older than your 6,000 years, that's a problem.

Not really, because theres no proof they're older than that. But then again, lets just say its legit. They dated it to the exact year. How does that PROVE the earth is BILLIONS of years old? We're not even into hundred thousands and we're already reaching for tortise shells.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Another often overlooked problem is that they are the product of a human civilization that isn't even known or mentioned in the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10.

Please explain.

[Jason B]

Ok guys, I've gotta check out for the night, been on here WAY too long. Appreciate the lively discussion and back n forth.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Glencoe World History text book, (certainly not a religious book at all) copyright 2003 says this in the introduction:

The most common definition of history is "a record of the past." To create this record, historians use documents (what has been recorded or written) such as pottery, tools, and weapons; and even art works. History in this sense really began five thousand to six thousand years ago, when people first began to write and keep records." page XX

That's a rather broad and ambiguous statement, but we can go with it - with the provisos already described ("man" is much older than 6,000 years).

So then, just what records are represented from "five to six thousand years ago" and just what do they say?

They testify of a world that is much older than the written records. You'll have to get some of these ancient writings, and copies are fortunately available at reasonable prices.

Read up. It's fascinating. A lot of people start with Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts. That's the "ANET" acronym that you see in a lot of historical footnotes.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

It was your pathetic argument.

We are facing difficult times. The evolutionists are observing the world learning about their lack of empirical evidence for the crackpot notions of common ancestry and evolution.

The total argument of evolution is falling appart and it can't be stopped.

Is that why you 'quote' (misquote) Michael Behe to "disprove" common descent when Behe himself believes in common descent and Natural Selection?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05...the002259.html

You can't seem to get anything correct.