Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So you agree the earth was created before the first day?

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.

[Praxeas]

Another interesting thing. Bible archeologists, not necessarily evolutionists, use scientific discoveries all the time to give light to bible stories, sodom and gomorah, the flood, the Egyptian captivity

[coadie]

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

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.

[pelathais]

Concerning coadie and Jason's accusation that "Haeckel's fraud" is "in textbooks to this day..."

I've only been able to access 2 of the listed textbook.

From Raven & Johnson:

"This hypothesis,
proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel,
is referred to as the “biogenic law.” It is usually stated as
an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological
development (ontogeny) involves the same
progression of changes that have occurred during evolution
(phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally
true when stated in this way because embryonic stages
are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic
stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic
stages of that vertebrate’s ancestors. Thus, the
pharyngeal slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the
gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather,
they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when
they were embryos."

From Raven & Johnson, Chapter 60, Vertebrate Development, pp. 1229.

They include a mention of Haeckel's idea in order to refute it, as did Miller & Levine.

Typical coadie; get's his stuff from an Insane Asylum in Istanbul from the lips of a murderous jihadist.



http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com...s-harun-yahya/

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

It does appear that there was some period of time involved that the writer was intending us to see between "... God created the heavens and the earth..." and "... God said, Let there be light..."

I've heard this argument before, my problem with it, is that several times in Genesis and in the books Moses wrote, when He wanted the reader to know that a significant amount of time passed he wrote "and in the process of time, it came to pass".

Yet there is no indication whatsoever of time passing between verse 1,2 or 3.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Concerning coadie and Jason's accusation that "Haeckel's fraud" is "in textbooks to this day..."

I've only been able to access 2 of the listed textbook.

From Raven & Johnson:

"This hypothesis,
proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel,
is referred to as the “biogenic law.” It is usually stated as
an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological
development (ontogeny) involves the same
progression of changes that have occurred during evolution
(phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally
true when stated in this way because embryonic stages
are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic
stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic
stages of that vertebrate’s ancestors. Thus, the
pharyngeal slits of a mammalian embryo are not like the
gill slits its ancestors had when they were adults. Rather,
they are like the pharyngeal slits its ancestors had when
they were embryos."

From Raven & Johnson, Chapter 60, Vertebrate Development, pp. 1229.

They include a mention of Haeckel's idea in order to refute it, as did Miller & Levine.

Typical coadie; get's his stuff from an Insane Asylum in Istanbul from the lips of a murderous jihadist.



http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com...s-harun-yahya/

How many schoools have you visited to search textbooks?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Another interesting thing. Bible archeologists, not necessarily evolutionists, use scientific discoveries all the time to give light to bible stories, sodom and gomorah, the flood, the Egyptian captivity

Yes. However the dating methods are not always accurate, but certainly archeology goes a long way in vindicating the Bible against many skeptics claims.

Again, I'm not against, science, I'm not against archeology. What I am against are theories which are against the Word of God. Evolution isn't demonstratable science, its not science at all, it is simply a theory, which quite frankly will not be proved even in our lifetimes with all the technology we have, or forever, because it is not possible. It is a theory accepted by faith.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

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.

Made. Im asking which Day specifically did God create the planet. On the 6th day God divides the waters and brings forth dry land. That means there was already a globe of water, a planet in existence. Show where that globe was created, which day. You can't

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Separation?

Where do you see in the text God creating the earth? It already exists. There is no "God set, let there be an earth"

Already answered this, about 3 times now.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

God instead spends the "creation" account terra forming. Also what do "heavens" refer to? Did God already create the sky and the galaxy before forming the stars and sun and moon?

Heaven=atmosphere, sky if you will.

That is my very point, you must reject the order of creation (not LS' version, Genesis version ) in order to affirm evolution of any kind, and of any definition.

The Bible plainly says light before the sun. Plant life before the sun. Sky before the moon an stars. Basically all of Genesis 1 is AGAINST the order of the evolutionary process.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I wouldn't say they can't be used for dating purposes. I would be open to the possibility that we cannot nail down the age of the earth to the year through geneologies, though I'm not saying its all together impossible.

I certainly think geneologies are helpful for dating. Particularly the one in Genesis 5, and the 11 chapters worth in Chronicles.


Irregardless there is a HUGE difference between the thousands of years and the millions of years were talking about here, which isn't answered if someones great grandparent isn't mentioned in a list on geneologies.

Furthermore, the Bible itself warns of endless discussions on geneologies. So appearently Paul, under inspiriation of God, knew that there would be attacks waged on God's word through geneologies. Not saying your particularly attacking His Word thorugh geneologies, just that I don't think its a slam dunk point, or even all that relevant.

What Paul was instructing Timothy (and Titus) to avoid the dependency of some to base their faith on "fables," genealogies, commandments of men and other things that "turn from truth."

1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 1:14 and Titus 3:9.

Can't you see how Fundamentalist Literalism fits that description so completely.