Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

"Chickens are descendants of DINSOARS" 59:00th minute.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

"Chickens are descendants of DINSOARS" 59:00th minute.

Modern birds (including chickens) are known to be the avian descendants of avian/theropods like Archaeopteryx.

Those creatures with the mixed avian and theropod characteristics were the descendants small theropods, i.e. "dinosaurs."

Spend some time investigating this topic. You're a smart guy. Relax your "clench" instinct, settle in and go for it, kind of like enjoying a fast ride at an amusement park. You'll have more fun and get way more out of the experience if you lighten up and relax.

Your "laughter" sound hallow and forced. Start here: http://www.asa3.org/

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Spend some time investigating this topic. You're a smart guy. Relax your "clench" instinct, settle in and go for it, kind of like enjoying a fast ride at an amusement park. You'll have more fun and get way more out of the experience if you lighten up and relax.

I plan to. I've got a Hugh Ross book "Creation and Time", and have a John MacArthur book "Battle for the Beginning" on the way. I've had the Hugh Ross book for about 4 years, never read it.

I do certainly believe in a 6 day creation, personally I believe that to disbelive that is to disbelieve the Bible no matter how someone spins it.

Really the issue isn't creation and evolution, it is quite frankly a battle for biblical inerrancy, authority, and even credibility.

I appreciate the compliments [smart guy] you've given me here and before, I dropped out of high school (I did eventually go back and graduate), my life was a mess before I came to God, and I had no interest in either science or history (or math or anything really of educational or social value) so I'm catching up on alot of things I wish I'd have paid more attention to. We have some really strong agreements in some areas, and some really strong disagreements in some areas (this one is the most blatant).

Anyway, I think creation, and by extension the creation/evolution debate is going to be the next big study I get into. So if you have suggested authors or resources let me know. I don't digest material real fast, and I've already got two books on deck, but if its something really worth my time let me know. I do prefer books over links because I like to highlight and make notes.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Modern birds (including chickens) are known to be the avian descendants of avian/theropods like Archaeopteryx.

Those creatures with the mixed avian and theropod characteristics were the descendants small theropods, i.e. "dinosaurs."

Spend some time investigating this topic. You're a smart guy. Relax your "clench" instinct, settle in and go for it, kind of like enjoying a fast ride at an amusement park. You'll have more fun and get way more out of the experience if you lighten up and relax.

Your "laughter" sound hallow and forced. Start here: http://www.asa3.org/

Yeah I hate that. It's even worse when you know someone is intelligent but are using mockery to cover for their lack of understanding on a topic

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yeah I hate that. It's even worse when you know someone is intelligent but are using mockery to cover for their lack of understanding on a topic

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Both Prax and Pel have commented on my "laughter". Guys I didn't mean anything insulting by it. It wasn't a cover, the way the guy said chickens are descendents from dinosoars (he then followed it with, thats why he likes eating chicken, because they used to eat his ancestors) I though was both ridiculous and comical. Nothing contrived, hallow, or forced.

And I rip on coadie for his typos... look at mine! "Hallow?" Did I mean "shallow" or "hollow?"

But it is sort of shallow Bro. unless you want to take me up on the one-on-one offer.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And I rip on coadie for his typos... look at mine! "Hallow?" Did I mean "shallow" or "hollow?"

But it is sort of shallow Bro. unless you want to take me up on the one-on-one offer.

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

Philip Johnson and A guy by the name of Denton have dissembled evolution theory withoput reference to the bible many years ago.

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis is a controversial 1985 book by Michael Denton

Every chapter is loaded with items that the Evoas have run from and been found unable to deal with.

Why Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and the "Intelligent Design" movement

Children in the evolution movement will jump over to Panda's thumb , regurgitate the atheist talking points and attack but still avoid the issues.

The empirical evidence that they can't provide relagates their wishfull thinking to the dung heap of pseudo science.

They can only proved bone chips and fossils and very few of those. None of them have linneages attached nor soft tissue and dna. They are not traceable and just placing them on "the Big Tree" is circular reasoning.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

Let me ask you this, upon what basis do you conclude that the Bible "lines up" with objective truth?

You have to use your own reasoning to establish that conclusion. You've worked much of it out yourself. Even if someone else placed your first Bible into your hands and taught you in Sunday School, I trust that over the years you have been thinking, reading and working things out. How can you KNOW that you've reached the correct conclusions concerning your faith in the Bible?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I wondered what "hallow" meant in regard to my smilie, but I just quoted it as such.

As for the one on one, not yet. I feel like as long as we're discussing the issue based on the Bible thats fine, but as for getting into some of this other stuff, I am admittedly not prepared at this point for a formal style debate. My issues with yours and Praxs' evolution is that it doesn't line up with scripture. Not necessarily carbon dating, fossil record, magnetic force, etc. I'm not able to speak much to those topics at this point. What I do know is that the Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. So I continue to stand by my comment that to deny that is to deny scripture. Perhaps not the whole of scripture, for I know neither you nor Praxeas denies the whole of scripture, but really you guys theories concerning creation are anti-biblical.

Haeckels drawings of embryos

This is what textbooks claim is Proooof.

Darwin said that a human baby was proof in the womb. It had a long tail and was evolving from a fish to a normal human.

Eugenie Scott is a flaming atheist that speaks in the video, She is both wrong and defensive.

Picking and tricking sketches to support the theory is another reason we see they are not scientific. Genetics refute haeckels in every way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk