Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I can't hear the discussion well enough to confidently jump right in on this guy. I am familiar with Hovind (I've seen him in person, gone through his entire video series and read a lot of his stuff) but I don't recognize the "professor."

I know that Hovind did a "debate" with a couple of guys who taught airplane engine mechanics at a trade school and lied when promoting video excerpts by claiming that they were "college professors." I don't know if this is the same outing.

This particular video was held at some university in california (i'm not sure which one) and was started between Micheal Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Kent Hovind. Then in the question and answer section is the panel of three professors.

Originally Posted by pelathais

With regard to your question about "WALES" being on land...

Yes, Wales is a country on land located on the Island of Britain between England and the Irish Sea.

LOL. Thats what happens when your listening to a debate, working, and posting on AFF all at once. Anyway, his comment referred to wHales living on land, is that something you would affirm?

Originally Posted by pelathais

Please remember: Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds.

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

Originally Posted by pelathais

Let me know if you want more info on this. Thanks.

If you don't mind.

Personally, regardless of whether or not Kent Hovind is a model Christian or not, there are SOME (not all) seeemingly very good arguments in the debate here. IOW his arguments cannot be dismissed simply because of his person.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

This particular video was held at some university in california (i'm not sure which one) and was started between Micheal Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Kent Hovind. Then in the question and answer section is the panel of three professors.

LOL. Thats what happens when your listening to a debate, working, and posting on AFF all at once. Anyway, his comment referred to wHales living on land, is that something you would affirm?

It would assume, since Michael Shermer was there (who I respect), that the "professor" in question was speaking loosely. Obviously, "whales" are sea creatures and would die if left on the land for any considerable period of time - even a few hours in most cases.

However, the ancestors of modern whales did live on land.

Here's a video series on Youtube - five parts. You'll have to click on through to Youtube to get Parts 2-5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KK...eature=related

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

...

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

If you don't mind.

Personally, regardless of whether or not Kent Hovind is a model Christian or not, there are SOME (not all) seeemingly very good arguments in the debate here. IOW his arguments cannot be dismissed simply because of his person.

From "where I stand" I see an otherwise smart guy spouting some rather ignorant statements.

How about this... get together some of the points that you feel are most compelling about Hovind's presentation and we'll have Prax set up a one-on-one.

That's what really shook me out of the YEC stuff - having to stand up personally in front of an audience or congregation and teach this stuff. It was humiliating. I have no desire to humiliate you, but if you'd like to go the route that I did... let me know.

I'm even willing to debate folks like Arlo Moehlenpah (who refuses to even talk to me in any forum that might be recorded or published - privately only!) or Steve Grohman (creationseminar.net), who I have yet to meet. These are the top two Young Earth Creationist guys in the UPCI and Apostolic fellowship and frankly, their arguments are pathetic. Maybe Steve's got something that he does in person that's not available on his website or in the videos, dunno. But frankly, most of our college educated young people backslide soon after hearing from these two guys.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Agreed. Beliving the Genesis account of evolution theory can hardly be called mindless. Beliving God created all things rather than that all of the universe, creation, and every thing we know to exist came from a big bang from a object smaller "than a period on this page" is quite ridiculous and mindless. Believing that chicken are decendants from dinosoars, that wHales lives on land, and a hundred thousand such myths is quite mindless. (I don't know exactly where you stand on these issues, but these are some of the things I heard while listening to the debate)

Believing in a Big Bang does NOT mean a Big Bang created and God did not. I never understood that logic...in fact it's non-sense

Consider Genesis. God caused the ground to grow vegetation. He didn't create fully formed trees and weeds etc out of the blue. He caused the ground to grow these things.

So, assuming there was a big bang (there are other theories), why couldn't God have done that? Why wouldn't that be creation? He created the big bang

BTW I doubt the evolutionists literally meant whales lived on land. He probably meant that whales started out as land based creatures

Whales are mammals. They breath air. They might have started out as creatures like seals who could live on land and sea. The evolutionists is not saying that a 3 ton whale used to flop around on land. Evolution would mean the whale started out as something different, perhaps smaller like a sea lion or bigger like an Argentinosaurus that lived and survived near the water like Elephants and Hippos do in Africa.

In fact I would argue, if there was a big Bang, that the Universe could NOT have happened with out God. God is the cause, the BB was the method.

Same goes for evolution. The "lizard" that eventually lost it's legs and turned into a snake would not have been able to do that without God. The animals that evolved to adapt would not have been able to without God.

In fact, the irony is that anti-evolutionists decry the odds of evolution happening and the...and yet if the odds are so astronomical and we still have tons of fossil data, why are we resisting the idea that God was involved?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Believing in a Big Bang does NOT mean a Big Bang created and God did not. I never understood that logic...in fact it's non-sense

Technically Prax, you are correct. A Big Bang doesn't mean that God didn't create through a big bang, EXCEPT that the Bible says he spoke everything into existence in 6days.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Consider Genesis. God caused the ground to grow vegetation. He didn't create fully formed trees and weeds etc out of the blue. He caused the ground to grow these things.

If we're considering Genesis that is exactly what it says. God created the all plantlife from nothing. Appearently fully formed. Just as Adam didn't start as a single cell or have a childhood. As for weeds, thorns, briars, I think if we're making the case from Genesis, then it can be asserted that those things are result of the fall.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So, assuming there was a big bang (there are other theories), why couldn't God have done that? Why wouldn't that be creation? He created the big bang

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it. Therefore the issue is not really creation, but the Bible itself. Of course we would [almost] agree that God could have created in anyway he decided. I say almost because as long as the assertion ISN'T that God created everything in 6 days we talk about how God COULD do anything, except of course create in 6 days, of course, God could NEVER do that. Impossible.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW I doubt the evolutionists literally meant whales lived on land. He probably meant that whales started out as land based creatures

I don't know, thats certainly what I got out of it. The clip is only about 1-2 minutes long, listen for yourself, see what you think.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Whales are mammals. They breath air. They might have started out as creatures like seals who could live on land and sea.

This isn't science, this is simply theory. To say a seal or seal like creature became a whale is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The evolutionists is not saying that a 3 ton whale used to flop around on land. Evolution would mean the whale started out as something different,

I realize that is what most evolutionists would say, that is the theory of evolution in a nutshell that living organisms transform into something else. Thats all well and good, but thats not science, and it is specifically against the Bible.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

In fact I would argue, if there was a big Bang, that the Universe could NOT have happened with out God. God is the cause, the BB was the method.

Yes Prax, you could argue that, but not from the Genesis account.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Same goes for evolution. The "lizard" that eventually lost it's legs and turned into a snake would not have been able to do that without God. The animals that evolved to adapt would not have been able to without God.

In fact, the irony is that anti-evolutionists decry the odds of evolution happening and the...and yet if the odds are so astronomical and we still have tons of fossil data, why are we resisting the idea that God was involved?

I don't think anti-evolutionists resist the idea that God was involved. More correctly stated they resist the idea that God created THROUGH evolution, especially when defined as secular modern macro evolutionsts define it. Evolution as a whole is much worse than a theory, it is a lie.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Very possible , except that the Bible says thats NOT how he did it. Therefore the issue is not really creation, but the Bible itself. Of course we would [almost] agree that God could have created in anyway he decided. I say almost because as long as the assertion ISN'T that God created everything in 6 days we talk about how God COULD do anything, except of course create in 6 days, of course, God could NEVER do that. Impossible.

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

What is the correct knuckle dragger geneology? Where are the intermediates and their names?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

What is the correct knuckle dragger geneology? Where are the intermediates and their names?

So you do acknowledge that the genealogies of the Bible cannot be taken literally, don't you?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

What is the correct knuckle dragger geneology? Where are the intermediates and their names?

Originally Posted by pelathais

So you do acknowledge that the genealogies of the Bible cannot be taken literally, don't you?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Bible does not say what you have asserted here. Your interpretation of the Bible causes you to say this.

Care to take a stab at the "Zerubbabel Problem?" If you want to take the Bible on a word-for-word literal basis, how can Zerubbabel be literally descended from BOTH of King David's sons, Nathan and Solomon on the patrilineal line?

Draw a chart. Work out a genealogical chart using the data given in 1 Chronicles 3; Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Show how these three chapters could possibly be in LITERAL agreement.

Touche' Pel. I've never heard of the "Zerubbabel problem". When I get into all this, I'll consider that.

So then, would it be accurate to say that you don't believe in Biblical inerrancy?