Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Actually no one was present at Creation. It was not observable.
That explains why you panic when I help you remember you have no empirical evidence to provide either.

If "no one was present at Creation," then we MUST look for a purely naturalistic explanation for our current existence.

You're quite the materialist at heart, aren't you coadie? You don't believe in miracles. You don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead (see the last post) and now you've expressed the notion that there was no Creator either.

Have you ever considered faith in Jesus Christ? I wasn't there at the resurrection, nor the creation of the world, for that matter; yet I believe. Open your heart coadster.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

So the evoas "assumed it was extinct" 60 million years ago.
1 It shows who makes assumptions when you have no facts

No, looney tunes. They made that "assumption" not because "they had no facts." They made that assumption because THEY HAD NO FISH!

When they did finally find a coelacanth they weren't "afraid." They celebrated. They rejoiced! "Look at the marvel of life!" they exclaimed.

Originally Posted by coadie

2 It proves one more time that you have no continuous fossil record but rely on hunches as to what it contains if you did.

Still fretting about the whoopin' you took over the fossil record? Lighten up. Give yourself a break. You were (and are) simply misinformed and far, far off base.

Originally Posted by coadie

3 The fish didn't change Nope

"The fossils of the coelacanth are believed to be indicative of the order's place as a transitional evolutionary link due to the presence of leg-like structures. Extant specimens of two species of the genus Latimeria have been discovered, allowing study of evolutionary changes within the Coelacanthiforme order."

Fishes of the World by Joseph S. Nelson. pp. 601. ISBN 0-471-25031-7.

There are observable "changes" between the fossil coelacanth and the living specimens.

Originally Posted by coadie

4 The flippers never did turn into feet did they? Ooops Busted again.

"Flippers" would be those appendages which were "feet" and then evolved into limbs adapted for the seas. Whales, dolphins, seals and etc. all have "flippers." You're sort of wandering on us again, bro. Better open a window. We're talking about "fins" here, not "flippers."

And, just to cite one example, not all proto-mammals evolved into placental mammals. Some of them evolved into marsupials; a "sort of a mammal," but not quite fully the same as a mammal. Life takes us all down different paths.

For some lines of lobed fin fish, the path remained in the sea. For others, the path lead into puddles and marshes and required movement across land from a drying water hole to another wetter environment. This was the realm of the "lung fish." Coelacanth shares the "lobed fin" characteristics with "lung fish" but they never developed... a lung.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijSbKhcbvwg

Remember? This is where you busted a vein last time and had to take a little "vacation."

Originally Posted by coadie

5 We see no progression toward fins becoming arms and legs for "400 million years"

... in the lines of lobed fin fish that remained in the sea. You forgot that last part so I added it for you. I am your friend, coadie.

Originally Posted by coadie

A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs.

Sorry they never did turn into limbs. Never.
Fairy tales claim they did.

Not for the coelacanth. They remained in the sea. Developing limbs and feet would have been a bit senseless. They would soon have to buy scuba gear to remain in the seas. Life just doesn't work that way. It's almost as if there were some kind of "power" or force guiding and giving life the adaptability it needed to survive. Makes you kind of wonder about the bigger questions, doesn't it?

But there were others who "moved on" from the seas and adapted to life on the land.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I'm not sure, but I would assume so. Again, you attack the person and ignore the material.

Uh... my point is that there is no "person." That's hardly an "attack" on anybody.

"Dr. Cary Parker, oceanographer at the Woods Hole Institute in Massachusetts" is a FICTIONAL character in a series of novels.

Yet again for you - and this will be the last time I tell you, I cannot hear your videos. There is no "material" there for me to address, just a loud and garbled noise that frustrates me.

I went looking for something, anything! that the guy named on the screen might have published so that I could engage your material. You can't earn a real doctorate without publishing something. The only thing I found was a character in fiction.

Jason, there's a reason why I hang out in places like this and not, say, on some chat channel or Youtube. It's because I can engage in the text based discussions. Instead of just posting what some flim-flam artist is selling at a conference somewhere and saying, "Yeah! That's good!" why don't you take a stand on the evidence?

What was it that this guy said that really resonated with you? What arguments did he make that you internalized and can now restate in your own words?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

creationism doesnt have to cram anything, we just take Gen 1, Gen 5, Exodus 20 at its plain and simple reading.

And yet the entire work that the Creator performed testifies that your private interpretation is simply wrong.

How could Jesus say that the sabbath had been "created for man" when man was only a matter of a few hours old when the first sabbath came around? The man wasn't worn out from a whole week's worth of labor.

Why is there no "evening and morning" for the seventh day? Is it because, as some Young Earth Creationists have said, "God has ceased from all creative work and is now still 'resting'?" How does this line up with the words of Jesus Christ in John 5:17? Here Jesus is very clearly applying a figurative interpretation to the "seventh day" of Genesis 1.

And, yet another question that you Fundamentalist Literalism adherents won't answer: Which account of creation is literally true? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? For example, either animals were created before the man (Genesis 1) or they were created after the man (Genesis 2). Both can't be literally correct, so how do you tell which is the correct order?

Just from my observation, you guys seem to have chosen the account that follows the same chronology as biological evolution (Genesis 1). Are you guys closet evolutionists?

[Jason B]

Pel, first off hope all is well, i see the comment that you've been at the hospital alot lately.

Originally Posted by pelathais

And yet the entire work that the Creator performed testifies that your private interpretation is simply wrong.

Keep saying it Pel, it woun't make it true. Obama keeps telling us how everything is Bush's fault, repetition of an assertion doesn't add to its truthfulness. There is no private interpretation here.

Originally Posted by pelathais

How could Jesus say that the sabbath had been "created for man" when man was only a matter of a few hours old when the first sabbath came around? The man wasn't worn out from a whole week's worth of labor.

This is a nonsensical argument. A complete disregard for the context of the scripture, and the obvious place that principle played out throughout history.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Why is there no "evening and morning" for the seventh day?

Is it because, as some Young Earth Creationists have said, "God has ceased from all creative work and is now still 'resting'?"

Perhaps because human history is started, there is nothing said of the eighth day, ninth day, or any other day thereafter. Is that the stength of your argument, because the seveth day is not specified to have amorning and evening, it must not have had one? What kind of hermenutic are you using to arrive at that conclusion? Seeing how Genesis 1 plainly defines a day as having both a morning and evening 6 straight times, what make you say the 7th day was any different from the first 6, EXCEPT that nothing new was created.

In fact, using your theories, that wouldn't make sense at all, for then for billions of years everything is evolving (under God's guidance) and then the 7th day comes, and nothing else happens, no more evolution, no more mutations, no more anything.

As far as the explaination of "God rested from his work" I think the obvious paralell is found in hebrews 4, where we cease from our own works, and enter into his rest. I think the most simple explaination is that God didn't create anything new on the 7th day, but completed creation in the first 6. Obviously God wasn't tired, obviously God doesn't sleep or slumber, and obviously God has continously been involved in His creation every since. I think your trying to take a non issue and champion it as proof for your theories attempting to line the Bible up with what you are convinced is true, instead of accepting what the Bible so plainly says.

Originally Posted by pelathais

How does this line up with the words of Jesus Christ in John 5:17? Here Jesus is very clearly applying a figurative interpretation to the "seventh day" of Genesis 1.

I don't see your point, like I said God's never been tired, sleepy, or univolved in creation. Maybe you can clarify how Jesus statement in John 5:17 in some mystical way teaches an earth billions of years old.

Originally Posted by pelathais

And, yet another question that you Fundamentalist Literalism adherents won't answer: Which account of creation is literally true? Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? For example, either animals were created before the man (Genesis 1) or they were created after the man (Genesis 2). Both can't be literally correct, so how do you tell which is the correct order?

I've answered this before, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2. Genesis 2 concludes the creation week, then reverses and spends more time on the creation and duty of man. You have to really reach to make it a contradition. But lets just fool around for a minute, and lets assume your correct, and just for arguments sake lets say Genesis 1 & 2 do contradict. How exactly does that confirm your theory the earth is billions of years old?

It doesn't, again, your whole TACTIC is to ATTACK the scripture. Instead of giving arguments based on scripture, your give arguments based on science. When I ask you for scripture, you don't give affirmative answers from scripture, you attempt to discredit the scripture. You attempt to make the scripture full of errors, inconsitencies, and fables.

This is why Genesis 1 isn't simply about interpretation, its not interpretation where the problem comes in. You not offering any evidence or exegesis for Genesis 1. You continually attack the scripture itself, and essentially call anyone who accepts the plain reading and meaning of scripture foolish.

The Theistic evolutionist position must make a strawman argument, as though all young earth creationists take EVERYTHING in the Bible literal. Not so. CONTEXT should define how we take something in the scripture. Obviously God doens't have phyiscal wings. Obviously the parables are not historic events. There is plenty of figurative language and scripture in the Bible. The problem is there is basically NO figurative/symbolic/poetic/allegorical language in Genesis 1, NOR is it treated as anything EXCEPT a literal historical account anywhere else in scripture.

You once made a statement that you switched to your view because you couldn't answer the arguments presetned to you. You then followed with something along the lines of "when I realized I couldn't defend my position, I rejected my fundamentalism, not the Bible." But pel, I'm telling you, what you are doing isn't rejecting fundamentalism based on scriptural issues (ex. 1-step vs. 3 step), but your in essence rejecting the Bible (not fundamentalism) in favor of skepticism and naturalism.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Uh... my point is that there is no "person." That's hardly an "attack" on anybody.

"Dr. Cary Parker, oceanographer at the Woods Hole Institute in Massachusetts" is a FICTIONAL character in a series of novels.

Yet again for you - and this will be the last time I tell you, I cannot hear your videos. There is no "material" there for me to address, just a loud and garbled noise that frustrates me.

I went looking for something, anything! that the guy named on the screen might have published so that I could engage your material. You can't earn a real doctorate without publishing something. The only thing I found was a character in fiction.

Jason, there's a reason why I hang out in places like this and not, say, on some chat channel or Youtube. It's because I can engage in the text based discussions. Instead of just posting what some flim-flam artist is selling at a conference somewhere and saying, "Yeah! That's good!" why don't you take a stand on the evidence?

What was it that this guy said that really resonated with you? What arguments did he make that you internalized and can now restate in your own words?

I didn't even know the guys name. I was just watching the video and posted the link.

I'd have to go back and check out the video to see what the guy was saying, I've forgotten already.

As for posting video, they are not necessarily for you to watch if you don't want to, just for the interest of anyone who does. You know many people read these thread who never post.

I'm with you on the videos though as far as making an argument. I personally don't care much for when posters just post a link or a video on a thread instead of engaging in discussion.

Thus, again, the videos are simply for the viewing pleasure and consideration of anyone interested enough to watch them.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I've been at the hospital a lot recently. There's a lot going on here. I was kind of looking for Jason to respond with an "affirmative" before I spent a lot of time on it.

I hope everything is ok

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

...
Keep saying it Pel, it woun't make it true. Obama keeps telling us how everything is Bush's fault, repetition of an assertion doesn't add to its truthfulness. There is no private interpretation here.

While criticizing Obama will keep you on my good side, the comparison fails. The creation itself does testify to BILLIONS of years.



This is a star which is about 20,000 light years away. In 2002 it suddenly became one of the brightest stars in the galaxy. The Hubble Space Telescope was turned and focused on this star.

Over a period of months these pictures were taken. The pictures show the star exploding and the light illuminating material that had been sloughed off by this star for many, many thousands of years prior to the explosion. Astronomers call this an "light echo."

These pictures show events that happened 20,000 years ago.

This next picture is of the galaxy known as M51 - "The Whirlpool Galaxy." M51 is about 23 MILLION light years away.



This next pic is of the same galaxy taken in 2005. Here we see a star within this galaxy has gone supernova. This event took place 23 MILLION years ago.



I could go on but I just got a call to get to the hospital. Please remember my family in prayer. I anticipate seeing something more wonderful than m51 this evening.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Keep saying it Pel, it woun't make it true. Obama keeps telling us how everything is Bush's fault, repetition of an assertion doesn't add to its truthfulness. There is no private interpretation here.

Pel hasn't just been saying it. You have. Pel has presented scientific arguments based on facts and evidence. You've said "Pel is wrong, but I don't know why" essentially. Pel has made assertions with evidence. You've made assertions without.,

See, you mentioned hermeneutics earlier right? Hermeneutics is a "scientific" way of examining what the bible has to say.

One of those principles is the cultural/historical method. It considers the culture and history of the time it was written. To whom and where and when. Those things can affect HOW the text is to be interpreted

Im just curious if you really do follow the principles of hermeneutics then because it has implications here. You're "method" seems to be "I have a literalist reading of Gen 1 and therefore I reject the scientific data though Im not able to explain scientifically how it's wrong".

However if you tried to defeat the scientific data and facts you might have to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 needs to be interpreted in light of the historical data same way we do with the hermeneutic principle of the historical/cultural method

This is a nonsensical argument. A complete disregard for the context of the scripture, and the obvious place that principle played out throughout history.

Perhaps because human history is started, there is nothing said of the eighth day, ninth day, or any other day thereafter. Is that the stength of your argument, because the seveth day is not specified to have amorning and evening, it must not have had one? What kind of hermenutic are you using to arrive at that conclusion? Seeing how Genesis 1 plainly defines a day as having both a morning and evening 6 straight times, what make you say the 7th day was any different from the first 6, EXCEPT that nothing new was created.

Actually the seventh day was not created for man. The Sabbath (meaning rest) was made for man, given to man when Moses gave the law. God didn't create the 7th day. Days did not end on the 7th day. It was just the day God suspended His work

In fact, using your theories, that wouldn't make sense at all, for then for billions of years everything is evolving (under God's guidance) and then the 7th day comes, and nothing else happens, no more evolution, no more mutations, no more anything.

No more direct involvement in creating the modern human race. Remember God's creative acts ended with man

In fact, think about this. Despite God ceasing to create, He has continued to this day to form a new human being in the wombs of all the pregnant women around the globe

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

While criticizing Obama will keep you on my good side, the comparison fails. The creation itself does testify to BILLIONS of years.



This is a star which is about 20,000 light years away. In 2002 it suddenly became one of the brightest stars in the galaxy. The Hubble Space Telescope was turned and focused on this star.

Over a period of months these pictures were taken. The pictures show the star exploding and the light illuminating material that had been sloughed off by this star for many, many thousands of years prior to the explosion. Astronomers call this an "light echo."

These pictures show events that happened 20,000 years ago.

This next picture is of the galaxy known as M51 - "The Whirlpool Galaxy." M51 is about 23 MILLION light years away.



This next pic is of the same galaxy taken in 2005. Here we see a star within this galaxy has gone supernova. This event took place 23 MILLION years ago.



I could go on but I just got a call to get to the hospital. They're taking my nephew off of life support in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Please remember my family in prayer. I anticipate seeing something more wonderful than m51 this evening.

Wow. Im praying