Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[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?