Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Speaking part is not an issue. The 6 days is the issue. Considering the bible says a day is like a thousand years to God then I'd have to cast doubt on whether that meant 6 literal days

Also a day is based on solar time table etc etc and there was no sun or moon till a few days later

Genesis doesn't say God created plant life fully formed.


The bible doesn't say "how" He did it.

Genesis does not elaborate on the hows and whats other than God spoke

Why is it ridiculous?

Where does the bible speak against speciation, micro and macro evolution?
What is "science"?

The genesis account only tells us God spoke


More assertions but no substance

The presented question "is evolutionism a religion"

It sure is. It is presented by yourself and others as an alternative to the biblical faith.

When you act like you have special revelation in Genesis intepretation, it tells me you want to express dogmatic supremacy for your personal creation fairy tales that we all know were not supported by observation.

Prax, your biggest fattest lie is common ancestry It is the foundation of Evolutionism dogma and you do not have a way to weasel and twist it into the scriptures.




How do you prove Godwas unable to place the sun and moon in the sequence He had written?

The historical account of Genesis classhes with your faith in a Darwinistic dogma. God doesn't lie and he doesn't lie in writing. Psychologists deal daily with people like your self that have been brainwashed by secular humanistic teachings and battle great errors in perception of reality and devote a lot of energy to fanatical illusions and dreams.

[B]Attacking the scriptures is how you explicitly tell us your religion has a better story of origins than does God's word in your head.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

How do you prove God was unable to place the sun and moon in the sequence He had written?

I never said God was unable to do anything.

The historical account of Genesis classhes with your faith in a Darwinistic dogma.

I don't have faith in a dogma. I leave that sort of stuff up to you pharisees and pray some day you'll put your faith in the savior and not in a dogma

God doesn't lie and he doesn't lie in writing.

I never said God lied. I never denied what is written.

Psychologists deal daily with people like your self that have been brainwashed by secular humanistic teachings and battle great errors in perception of reality and devote a lot of energy to fanatical illusions and dreams.

You still on crack Coadie? Nobody here takes you seriously or believes half your fanciful stories. Did you ever figure out those weird threads where nothing made sense? Where people posted stuff that just had nothing to do with the topic? They were all pretending to be Coadie and it was funny

Attacking the scriptures is how you explicitly tell us your religion has a better story of origins than does God's word in your head.

Ah from Crack to Lying. I didn't attack scriptures. I pointed out what they said and did not say.

But I noticed you didn't address a single thing I said specifically. You just launched into your usual insult laced diatribe full of inane assertions and obfuscations

[Praxeas]

Jason what do you think is happening? Where are all these dates coming from? You think scientists invent dates?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jason what do you think is happening? Where are all these dates coming from? You think scientists invent dates?

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

How is that any more unprovable than saying the Earth is thousands of years old?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Twisp

How is that any more unprovable than saying the Earth is thousands of years old?

Exactly. Its no different. The issue is one of FAITH not science.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

Prove it.

First please explain to me how carbon dating anything even something that is 200 years old, is all based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old

If I can use a dating technique to date something we already know is 200 years old then your assertion, as unfounded as is, seems to be very shaky

Second, maybe you are the one operating on a priori that the earth can't be older than...what? 10k years, therefore it does not matter what scientific facts one presents it has to be wrong no matter how much proof they offer

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

It is NOT based upon "an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old!"

Radiometric dating is based upon the "assumption" that reality exists and that the rates of nuclear decay are uniform throughout the environment.

Do atoms exist? Do isotopes of certain atoms decay at regular and predicable rates? That's what YOU have to disprove. So Jason, "Do atoms exist?"

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No, I don't think they invent dates. I do believe that their dating system is flawed because it is based on an unprovable assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

Of course they invent dates.

The concept of radioisotopic dating is fairly simple. The method used at Mount St. Helens is called potassium-argon dating. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or "variety" of the element potassium) spontaneously "decays", becoming argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40, in 1.3 billion years, would decay to the point that only 0.5 gm was left. Theoretically, given certain assumptions, one could measure the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample and calculate how old the rock is. When this is done, the age is usually very great, often millions of years.

So the unlucky camper burried by volcanic rock at mt St helens will be 1.6 million years old.

The Machivellian Principles of deception stiil work today.

Who all thinks Mr St Helens rocks/lava flow were formed 1.3 billion years ago?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Of course they invent dates.



So the unlucky camper burried by volcanic rock at mt St helens will be 1.6 million years old.

No, the gentleman's driver's license in his pocket establishes his age. The "rocks" that buried him will show a variety of dates because they were formed at different times. I suppose that radiocarbon dating on the human remains would provide reliable dates, if we could find the guy.

Meanwhile, two bodies were found on a ridge across from the volcano. These were two geologists who were firmly convinced of the veracity of radiometric dating. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/201...years_ago.html

Some of the rocks in the debris were xenoliths. These are rocks transported from elsewhere. They are of a different composition from the rocks around them. Others were molten when the volcano blew and will show evidence of having been.

Because of the jumbled nature of this type of terrain, every textbook that you will ever read (or if you're coadie, every picture that you will look at) tells the geologists that these deposits are NOT suitable for radiometric dating wherever they are found.

Ironically, it was just this caution by real geologists that attracted people like Ken Ham and ICR to Mount Saint Helens. They realized that they'd be able to make some use of the "jumbled terrain" and provide even more confusion.

Honesty seeks to settle confusion. Dishonest people, like Ken Ham & Co., seek to gain from it. Only a disturbed Orwellian like coadie would find it all a source of glee.

Originally Posted by coadie

The Machivellian Principles of deception stiil work today.

Who all thinks Mr St Helens rocks/lava flow were formed 1.3 billion years ago?

Many of the rocks in the mud flow were probably formed at a time as distant as that.

The "flow" from Mount Saint Helens was a MUDFLOW - not a LAVA FLOW. Any recently formed rocks were "ejecta" from the throat of the volcanic vent. Everything else that "FLOWED" that day was formed sometime BEFORE May 18, 1980.

Otherwise, it would NOT HAVE EXISTED on May 18, 1980, and been available to FLOW down the Mountain.

**** An older discussion about dating techniques and the discredited "RATE Project" can be found here. You may also want to scroll back a few pages from that post and peruse the material.