Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

Evolution says no way. Mother earth had homo sapiens classified as animals that evolved from apes.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Ok Prax, please clarify how you believe in Biblical inerrancy, while not accepting the creation account in Genesis 1.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

...Jason, the Zerubbabel question has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution and so if we were discussing evolution in purely scientific terms then you would be right about it being a red herring.

However, you didn't want to discuss evolution in purely scientific terms. Why? Because that discussion would be rather short seeing as you have admitted to not currently knowing any scientific evidence against evolution. Of course the problem isn't really that you don't know of any, the problem is that there isn't any. But please don't go out on some half hearted attempt to prove me wrong about that. Instead lets discuss what you feel more comfortable discussing, the scriptures.

In fact, let's discuss your literalist interpretation of the bible and your claim evolutionists do not believe in biblical inerrancy. I mean that is your biggest argument against evolutionists right? So to discuss this I want to bring forth Zerubbabel as an example of you not believing biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) and if I'm right (actually if Pel is right) then I say you are a hypocrite for accusing others of not believing in biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) when you don't either.

So Jason, do you care to prove that you aren't a hypocrite on this issue by addressing the Zerubbabel question?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...Jason, the Zerubbabel question has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution and so if we were discussing evolution in purely scientific terms then you would be right about it being a red herring.

However, you didn't want to discuss evolution in purely scientific terms. Why? Because that discussion would be rather short seeing as you have admitted to not currently knowing any scientific evidence against evolution. Of course the problem isn't really that you don't know of any, the problem is that there isn't any. But please don't go out on some half hearted attempt to prove me wrong about that. Instead lets discuss what you feel more comfortable discussing, the scriptures.

In fact, let's discuss your literalist interpretation of the bible and your claim evolutionists do not believe in biblical inerrancy. I mean that is your biggest argument against evolutionists right? So to discuss this I want to bring forth Zerubbabel as an example of you not believing biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) and if I'm right (actually if Pel is right) then I say you are a hypocrite for accusing others of not believing in biblical inerrancy (as you have defined it) when you don't either.

So Jason, do you care to prove that you aren't a hypocrite on this issue by addressing the Zerubbabel question?

It is the other way around. Evolution theory is a theory. it is no ones duty to disprove it. it is the adherents duty to prove it.

We are all aware of may ways evolution has fallen short in being proven or even testable.

The human One of the two sex chromosomes that determines maleness in mammals, carried and passed down from males to males.Y chromosome is dramatically different from that of our "nearest living relative," the Two living species of ape in the genus Pan, including Pan troglodytes, the Common Chimpanzee, and Pan paniscust, also known as Bonobo or Pygmy Chimpanzee.chimpanzee - up to 50% different. The The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is so different, that if it had occurred in an Referring to any chromosome other than a sex chromosome. Humans have 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes.autosomal One of the threadlike "packages" of genes and other DNA in the nucleus of a cell. Different kinds of organisms have different numbers of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 46 in all: 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes. Each parent contributes one chromosome to each pair, so children get half of their chromosomes from their mothers and half from their fathers.chromosome, such a change would represent that seen between chickens and humans over a period of 310 million years. Described as being "horrendously different," the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence change is virtually unexplainable over the 6-7 million years between the hypothesized chimp-human split.

An old earth is a distraction. We have no explanations why the differences are not only vast, they have never been observed to happen.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

It is the other way around. Evolution theory is a theory. it is no ones duty to disprove it. it is the adherents duty to prove it.

We are all aware of may ways evolution has fallen short in being proven or even testable. ...

Your "Fundamentalist Literalism" is what can't be proven - and you don't even try. You just make absurd assertions and then when questioned - you tumble like a house of cards.

Why don't the genealogies in the Bible add up, coadie? Why do they contradict? Why won't you answer this after bringing up the genealogies yourself in the first place?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Evolution says no way. Mother earth had homo sapiens classified as animals that evolved from apes.

Why don't you answer the "Zerubbabel Question?" I'm just a simple fallible homo sapien, but you claim your view is "infallible."

YOU brought up the genealogies to try and support your view. I showed that they couldn't possibly be taken literally. Man up, dude.

Either that, or tear those "awful contradictions" out of your Bible.

Me? I like the Bible just the way it is. I don't need to lie to try and defend it. I don't need to avoid any embarrassing questions or duck and hide when the tough questions are asked. You guys ought to try and live a life of faith and belief. It's a whole lot better than pretending to be a "know-it-all."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The points I made in the post you bumped are solid. The "Zerubbabel Question" is nothing more than a red herring when the topic is creation.

No. It demonstrates that the genealogies CANNOT be taken literally. Moreover, since I'm hardly the first person to notice the problems in the genealogies (See the Talmud, for example) it's quite apparent that the genealogies were NEVER intended to be taken literally.

If you can't (or won't) answer the Zerubbabel question - then tear the genealogies out of your Bible. They contradict one another and couldn't possibly be literal.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?

You never answered the question.

Bogus Jason. You've never asked me that question. I might miss somethings along the way but just inserting a claim like that is silly.

And, can you show me where in the Bible anyone named " ˈa-dəm " is even identified? Go back and reread Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Where is anyone said to be in possession of "THE NAME" Adam? Even in Genesis 3:9 (NIV) when God Himself calls out to the man, He doesn't say that the man's "NAME" is "Adam."

Nowhere. You're just reading the Bible through your own cultural bias; or the King James translator's cultural bias. Consider the first occurrence of the word "Adam" in the KJV:

Genesis 2:19 (CLICK the link in the left and read the Bible).

Now, consider another translation:

Genesis 2:19 (NIV)

In the Hebrew, it is always "the man" - literally. Your problem here is that you aren't even asking questions about the Bible ("Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?").

You're asking questions about somebody else's Sunday School coloring book. Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No. It demonstrates that the genealogies CANNOT be taken literally. Moreover, since I'm hardly the first person to notice the problems in the genealogies (See the Talmud, for example) it's quite apparent that the genealogies were NEVER intended to be taken literally.

The geneologies ARE to be taken literally. Would you posit that Jesus was only figuratively the Son of David? Or just symbolically Jewish? I believe the genologies are literal.

As for the "Zurubbabel question" I personally don't know, I haven't looked into it. My ignorance of a subject doesn't prove the Bible is in error. I'm far from knowing everything. If someone is basing their faith on my ability to answer all arguments their being foolish. To me its the same argument as Belshazzar, the Roman census, and the king named in Isaish 20:1. All these things in the past were thought to be slam dunk arguments against biblical inerrancy, and in time the Bible (as always) emerged vindicated.

Originally Posted by pelathais

If you can't (or won't) answer the Zerubbabel question - then tear the genealogies out of your Bible. They contradict one another and couldn't possibly be literal.

What a ridiculous statement. Because I don't understand something doesn't mean I throw it out. Its not I who has disregarded the plain reading of scripture in favor of ever changing atheistic scientific theories. Its not I who deny certain miracles in the Bible, and accept others which are convenient for me to accept. I don't understand how Lot's wife turned to salt, it sounds far fetched to me, but I believe it happened, because I believe the testimony of scripture and the power of God. Same goes for creation. God could do anything he wanted. And He told us exactly what He did do, but then we read it and say "God didn't do that or even worse God COULDN'T do that."

Originally Posted by pelathais

Bogus Jason. You've never asked me that question. I might miss somethings along the way but just inserting a claim like that is silly.

I think the post was on page 23 of this thread, it is the one that asked about belief in several miracles of the Bible. I reread the post, which was in response to you, and did bring up Adam and Eve, I can see how reading it my question was more of a statement. But it is there if oyu want to read it, however its a mott point since you answered it here:

Originally Posted by pelathais

And, can you show me where in the Bible anyone named " ˈa-dəm " is even identified? Go back and reread Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Where is anyone said to be in possession of "THE NAME" Adam? Even in Genesis 3:9 (NIV) when God Himself calls out to the man, He doesn't say that the man's "NAME" is "Adam."

Nowhere. You're just reading the Bible through your own cultural bias; or the King James translator's cultural bias. Consider the first occurrence of the word "Adam" in the KJV:

Genesis 2:19 (CLICK the link in the left and read the Bible).

Now, consider another translation:

Genesis 2:19 (NIV)

In the Hebrew, it is always "the man" - literally. Your problem here is that you aren't even asking questions about the Bible ("Do you believe there was a man literally created by God named Adam?").

Was his name ADAM, I personally believe the answer to be yes. Scripture always refers to him as ADAM. It is not unusual for other writers of scripture to referr to past events and people by name. Nowhere is the first man called any other name than ADAM.

But lets say just for the sake for the sake of argument the first man was simply called "MAN". Either way the first human being was specially created by God (not evolution or evolutionary process) and that man sinned. By ONE MANS SIN death came, so that by ONE MANS SACRIFICE salvation came. You cannot do away with ADAM without doing away with the gospel. Romans 5. Whether his name was ADAM or not is irrelevant, though again, we have no reason to believe he was named anything else.

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're asking questions about somebody else's Sunday School coloring book. Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!

How much does the Bible matter when you don't believe:
1)God created using the method and order given in Genesis 1
2)the first man was called Adam
3)there was no worldwide flood
4)the genologies in the Bible are not literal

And these are ONLY the things you've mentioned. Personally I would assume that you also doubt the Sodom and Gomorrah story, Lot's wife, Balaams talking donkey, the account of Jericho, possible even the plagues on Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea. I don't know your position on those things, but everytime I mention them you normally don't comment on them.

The impression your giving off to me is that you only believe in certain miracles in the Old Testament (but not most) and in the miracles of Jesus, including His ressurrection. I don't know. But having the stance you have on the Bible, it makes me wonder why you would say
" Get back to the Book that matters - the Bible!"

Just talking as friends here Pel, I know its a lively discussion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

The geneologies ARE to be taken literally. Would you posit that Jesus was only figuratively the Son of David? Or just symbolically Jewish? I believe the genologies are literal.

As for the "Zurubbabel question" I personally don't know, I haven't looked into it. My ignorance of a subject doesn't prove the Bible is in error. I'm far from knowing everything. If someone is basing their faith on my ability to answer all arguments their being foolish. To me its the same argument as Belshazzar, the Roman census, and the king named in Isaish 20:1. All these things in the past were thought to be slam dunk arguments against biblical inerrancy, and in time the Bible (as always) emerged vindicated....

Just talking as friends here Pel, I know its a lively discussion.

Jason. (coadie sent me a Photoshopped "thumbs up" - only the "thumb" wasn't the digit that was "up").

You will never completely answer the "Zerubbabel Question." There are some elements that can be added if we look at all the genealogies together. We can also learn something about how kinship and tribal identity was determined in ancient Israel.

But we can't solve the issue with a "LITERAL" accounting showing a "Father-to-son" relationship in each named "generation." Literalism dies here. And this is just one example ... one that COADIE! brought up.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jason. (coadie sent me a Photoshopped "thumbs up" - only the "thumb" wasn't the digit that was "up").

You will never completely answer the "Zerubbabel Question." There are some elements that can be added if we look at all the genealogies together. We can also learn something about how kinship and tribal identity was determined in ancient Israel.

But we can't solve the issue with a "LITERAL" accounting showing a "Father-to-son" relationship in each named "generation." Literalism dies here. And this is just one example ... one that COADIE! brought up.

Right. We all know that not every Father and Son are named in genologies. It is not uncommon for several people to be skipped. That doesn't make them figurative or symbolic, they are still literal, they are just not exhaustive.

[Jason B]

Article on Carbon dating (I haven't read yet, but am about to), perhaps Pel will post a short rebuttal

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

The article includes this quote:
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Just sayin' its not as if Coadie and myself are on an island. And even if we were God's word is not defined by popular opinion, else we'd all be trinitarians.

Also:
"Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion."