Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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.

Haeckel was a rival of Charles Darwin and an adamant opponent of Natural Selection. Haeckel was such an ardent Lamarckian that when he translated "On the Origin of Species" into German he slanted and transformed many of Darwin's thoughts so much that most German scientists ended up just reading the original in English.

Haeckel called his "treatment" of Darwinism and Natural Selection "Darwinismus" to differentiate it from "Darwinism" proper. Darwin had even cautioned Haeckel on the embryo thing but Haeckel brushed him aside.

Show us Darwin's quote "that a human baby was proof in the womb." You can't and won't even try. You're just foaming and the mouth again.

Eugenie Scott is a generally respectful agnostic even though she has to deal with an angry torrent of hate and bile from the likes of you. It seems that anyone who has the misfortune of even speaking with you ends up "flaming" some how. You've got a real gift for injecting insults into your bizarre and rampaging rants.

And, on the matter of "Genetics refute haeckels in every way" - though Haeckel's famous paraphrase, "Ontology Recapitulates Philology" has been proven to be inaccurate (even Darwin himself said so before "genes" had ever been discovered - see that last link above), there is evidence that the embryological development of an organism at least contains patterns of "recapitulation" on the genetic level. This is the field that is often abbreviated as "Evo-Devo" - Evolutionary Developmental Biology."

http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/research/evo_devo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...mental_biology

[coadie]

Originally Posted by coadie

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

Quote:
Behe: Once I read Denton's book I was amazed that people believed in evolution when there was this clear argument against it.

The embryo's had been modified in how they were drawn so the superstition would not suffer.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The embryo's had been modified in how they were drawn so the superstition would not suffer.

Taking to "answering" your own posts now because you can't answer the questions that others bring up?

Haeckel was a Lamarckian and rival of Charles Darwin.

See: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=31862&page=18

Scroll down and pick up with post #177.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Taking to "answering" your own posts now because you can't answer the questions that others bring up?

Haeckel was a Lamarckian and rival of Charles Darwin.

See: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=31862&page=18

Scroll down and pick up with post #177.

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin attempted to create a powerful, subservient army of ape-men by crossing human females with male apes. "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat," Stalin was quoted in Moscow newspapers. The leadership was quick to respond, with the Politburo ordering the Soviet Academy of Science to build a "living war machine" in 1926.

Man is not distinguished from [the animals] by a special kind of soul, or by any peculiar and exclusive psychic function, but only by a higher degree of psychic activity, a superior stage of development." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin attempted to create a powerful, subservient army of ape-men by crossing human females with male apes. "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat," Stalin was quoted in Moscow newspapers. The leadership was quick to respond, with the Politburo ordering the Soviet Academy of Science to build a "living war machine" in 1926.

Can you at least paraphrase the words you plagiarize ... if you refuse to source?




I know it's tough keeping up with a man of Pela's caliber but have some pride, chap.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by DAII

Can you at least paraphrase the words you plagiarize ... if you refuse to source?




I know it's tough keeping up with a man of Pela's caliber but have some pride, chap.

That link shows an ape trying to know a woman. Shame on you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../i4/stalin.asp

He developed a critical mind and revolutionary bent. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections

Must have clashed with that religion in the school of theology.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

That link shows an ape trying to know a woman. Shame on you.

Shame on you, you plagiarist. (Again!)

And Stalin's idiocy was due to the fact that his people didn't even understand evolution. Stalin also drove his best evolutionary biologists out of the country - men like Theodore Dobzhansky.

Dobzhansky had a lot to say that could have helped Stalin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

Trying to cross breed different species is a display of complete ignorance on the subject of biological evolution.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by coadie

That link shows an ape trying to know a woman. Shame on you.

This isn't about me ... or some shady beastiality website you visited and copy and pasted from ...


More misdirecting and obfuscation ... another RABBIT TRAIL ... as the quote is found on various websites ... point being you're UNORIGINAL and have no game.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Taking to "answering" your own posts now because you can't answer the questions that others bring up?

Haeckel was a Lamarckian and rival of Charles Darwin.

See: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=31862&page=18

Scroll down and pick up with post #177.

Rivalry is irrelevant to the discussion, the fact is that Haekels work is to this day used as support for evolution.