Has evolutionism become a leading religion? - Page 6

coadie · #51 10-14-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.

The crackpot religion of Darwinism says the first human male and the first human female existed over 50,000 years appart. That logic says that the first female human had sons and daughters that were not human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

summary. Eve was first human. Her male offspring were not.

crakjak · #52 10-14-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

You sure make a lot of assumptions. Fancy your faith in dating techniques that can't be proven and verified?

Your post is another sign that the topic is evolution and for sime wild reason you are onto the old earth iissues.
Get back on topic and go back to discussing evolution as a religion.

You and pelthais seem to not be able to control your selves and always pounce on old earth issues. Afraid of biochemistry?
Hyperventilating on the old earth imaginations doesn't prove evolution.

The geologic colum issue doesn't help your cause because we all know almost none of the planet has been dug up and your assumptions are too numerous to list.

Coadie,

Have you read Gerald Schroeder's book, "The Science of God", you can't just fluff off all of science as fraudulent? Schroeder uses the original Hebrew language of scripture to bring science and scripture together. You cannot use scripture alone to define God in the creation, there is plenty of junk science, but there is also plenty of junk theology.

Schroeder is a physicist, and he is a Hebrew scholar, very interesting studies, he presents God as the Creator. He believes science shows us how God created. He is a brilliant scientist as well as a brilliant biblical scholar.

Other books by Schroeder: "The Hidden Face of God", helps us to see God in the creation of man. "Genesis and the Big Bang", brings the six days of creation and the 14 billion year age of the cosmos together. "God According to God", uses scripture in the early languages, and ancient scholars to help see God more clearly.

Does he have it all correct? Maybe not, but I believe he has many things about right.

Sabby · #53 10-14-2010, 10:43 AM

Don't remember the exact date, but a couple of years ago a federal court threw out a Creationism challenge in the public schools because the "scientific data" collected in their opinion was overwhelmingly AGAINST creation in 6 days (new earth theory). The presentation (what I heard from Sekulow) for our side (Creationism) was weak and too poorly put together in argument for it to have a favorable outcome. It's made it difficult to put up a Creationism challenge for balance in the classroom because of precedence and past practice. If it's to go to court again an entirely DIFFERENT tact will need to be used...
This is a plea to ANY christians in the LEGAL profession attempting to slay the dragon. Be totally prepared to rebut any and every argument in opposition with OVERWHELMING credible scientific testimony.
God bless our Christian lawyers and God give them them the wisdom to deal with the "children of mammon" as wisely as "a serpent", yet harmlessly as "a dove" while proclaiming TRUTH in the courts.

jfrog · #54 10-14-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

Have you ever considered written historical records?
\
"even the rocks cry out" looks like your palls are listening to rocks and ignoring written sources of info.

That doesn't apply to gravity or the depth of the ocean. Try again coadie.

jfrog · #55 10-14-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

The crackpot religion of Darwinism says the first human male and the first human female existed over 50,000 years appart. That logic says that the first female human had sons and daughters that were not human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

summary. Eve was first human. Her male offspring were not.

If you could bother to read... you would know this post of yours was a complete lie.

coadie · #56 10-14-2010, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak

Coadie,

Have you read Gerald Schroeder's book, "The Science of God", you can't just fluff off all of science as fraudulent? Schroeder uses the original Hebrew language of scripture to bring science and scripture together. You cannot use scripture alone to define God in the creation, there is plenty of junk science, but there is also plenty of junk theology.

Schroeder is a physicist, and he is a Hebrew scholar, very interesting studies, he presents God as the Creator. He believes science shows us how God created. He is a brilliant scientist as well as a brilliant biblical scholar.

Other books by Schroeder: "The Hidden Face of God", helps us to see God in the creation of man. "Genesis and the Big Bang", brings the six days of creation and the 14 billion year age of the cosmos together. "God According to God", uses scripture in the early languages, and ancient scholars to help see God more clearly.

Does he have it all correct? Maybe not, but I believe he has many things about right.

Quote:

fluff off all of science as fraudulent

Where did you come up with that?

Gerald Schroeder's book? He is a physicist. He didn't study biochemistry.

Why would I read about stars to find out that DNA is the fingerprint of information being passed along in life?

planetary sciences not the same as plant science.

I will mess with you. With out google, can you explain junk DNA? Can you live without it?

coadie · #57 10-14-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

If you could bother to read... you would know this post of yours was a complete lie.

I suspected you wouldn't understand it. You don't have enough science or math to get it.

jfrog · #58 10-14-2010, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

I suspected you wouldn't understand it. You don't have enough science or math to get it.

HAHA!

jfrog · #59 10-14-2010, 12:06 PM

You should really go find some new arguments we haven't refuted here yet coadie. Actually on second though... Don't, because you can't even comprehend the evidence you try to present in your argument.

Twisp · #60 10-14-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coadie

I suspected you wouldn't understand it. You don't have enough science or math to get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

HAHA!

Seriously, dude, you need to get more math and science in you. I have math and science if you need it, you can just dissolve it in a drink and down it. You will have more math and science in you in 24 hours, tops.