5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[In situ]

Which is why I don't believe in the deceptions of atheist or those who dillute their faith with the lies of evolution.

Taking into account all the other statements you made so far about your faith and what reason you have to believe in God and the Bible, or anything else for that matters, this then translates into that your have deluded your own mind with all kinds of deceptions and self-deceptions about the real world. In other words, you live in a fantasy world of your own. The fact that other people, that also live in the very same deluded fantasy world as you, reassure you it is true what you believe, and thus helps you to maintain your fantasy world, does not make your fantasy world any more true...

 

[In situ]

Those who actually UNDERSTAND science understand its limitations.

Do you consider yourself to belong in that category?

 

[In situ]

Someone says your ancestors were monkeys, you seem to believe the unknown.

This is a false assertion; it has been proven as a fact, based on observations, to be the case that monkeys and humans shares a common ancestor. The observation that proves this is that we all are primates. Do you dispute the fact that monkeys and humans all are primates?

 

[In situ]

The bible has never been proven to be false.

Just one example; the vocal cord, or shall I say the lack of it, of a snake makes its impossible for it to utter any thing that would even resemble a human word - not even a chimpanzee has a vocal cord to be able to speak as we human does... if you claim snakes can speak then what you say is that our understanding of physics is wrong...

What did I say about living in your own fantasy world... ?

 

[In situ]

Why don't bookstores place Them in the FICTION section, then?

Good, question. But some people should also ask why the Bible is not placed in the science section as well...

 

[In situ]

Are you saying the year 1 AD started the day after the death of Christ? Christianity did not start before Christ? And it's only mentioned as the name given to the early church.

Seriously asked; do you have a problem with comprehending English? If not, how on Earth did you conclude this utterly silly things?

 

[In situ]

That's one of the few things you said that I agree with. I've said the same thing many times.

What about that science has ruled out the possibility of an afterlife. Do you agree with that as well?

 

[In situ]

I evaded the question that was an answer to my question. Care to answer the original question?

If God came to the Earth, would you believe?

So you did not understand that the question you got as an answer was actually a rhetorical question supposed to make you reflect on the validity of your own question. Instead you produced a long answer to the question, failing to see it was rhetorical and, in effect, avoiding addressing the real issue; the logical fallacy of your own question.

 

[In situ]

He did. And, mans heart was still so evil they crucified him on a cross. Some who were healed still chose not to believe in Him. What makes you think your capable of believing in Him? Regardless of you seeing, hearing or experiencing a miracle?

You do know what a circular proof/reasoning is, don't you, and why do you think it would be valid in this case?

 

[In situ]

Unfortunately, you will kneel before him and call him Lord regardless of your beliefs now, but when you die and are judged according to the law He gave.

Unfortunately, for you, you cannot say you know this for a fact since physic has ruled out the possibility of an afterlife. Hence no judgments or kneeling after death...

But even if that was not so, you cannot still know these things...you may believe it to be true, but knowing is showing....and you, or anyone else, have show nothing so far that can be accepted without doubt.

Secondly, this is of course your own interpretation of the Christian god. I know many Christians that does not share your view on this, simply because they think it is incompatible with a loving god.

 

[driewerf]

The only question in the video that seems "difficult" to answer is the question regarding the Big Bang, and that's because it tries to phrase the question in a way to suggest that the Big Bang was an atheistic creation ex nihilo. The Big Bang isn't inherently atheistic, and many ministries encourage people not to use it as an infallible argument for God's existence because of the chance that it wasn't the actual creation event of the Universe (at least not with the term Universe used to describe everything material that exists). It may not have been an ex nihilo event at all.

If the video takes that route, then the makers are even more dishonest than I thought.
Even without discussing the validity of the BB T, to portray it as an atheist creation myth shows their ignorance or dishonesty.

The BBT was first formulated by Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest. Yep, a member of the christian clergy.
It was endorsed by the pope Pius XII. (By the way, while defending his theory, Lemaitre opposed the pope's claims that this was a proof of creation, to quote Wikipedia:
please read the entiree quote

When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[18] While a devoted Roman Catholic, he was against mixing science with religion.

Fred Hoyle --known for his atheism-- opposed the BBT because he thought it was a sneaky move from christians to reintroduce the idea of a creation. He showed himself here a very bad scientist.

So the truth is very different from "the BBT is an atheist creation myth".


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[In situ]

How about personal testimony of miracles?

I fail to see how this possible can be classified as a miracle per the definition given before by Christian consider what is regarded to be a miracle as this can be given a perfectly naturalistic explanation based on current, well known and understood, knowledge in human physiology and psychology...

 

[In situ]

You DO realize that those who have had experience with miracles or the supernatural look at you and see you as a person clinging to his disbelief dispite being surrounded by the truth, right?

And what precisely is to be regarded as a supernatural event in the testimony you referred to?

 

[In situ]

If the Bible always proves itself to be free from error,

That word IF again.... What IF I was rich..... What IF ...

Only the claim that the Bible never has been proven wrong is a claim that should be regarded with highly skepticism. One just need to refer to the internal inconsistency of the Bible to realize it proves itself wrong thus the Bible does not even need "external" help to invalidate itself...

For instance, did Saul of Tarsus, later Paul the Apostle, see the light or did he heard the voice of the Lord? The witness account seams not to be able to decide what it was Saul experienced, even thou the meeting was accounted for twice in the new testimony. Or did Saul perhaps see the Lord twice? Nothing in the story says he did. To resolve the inconsistency in the story Saul must had seen the Lord twice at two different occasion but that is contrary to the doctrine taught by the Christian theology in where Saul is said to have meet the Lord only once.

Now, this is not what I call being error free....

provided its not interpreted in error; how much more believable is it to the error stricken History of Science.

Two faults does not make one right...

 

[In situ]

People who don't believe in molecules to man are somehow intellectually inferior to those who worship at the altar of Darwinism?

You, sir, are a living testimony to Psalms 14:1. Blessed is the Lord who in His wisdom has given us the tools to recognize the unteachable.

People who are prepared to judge other fellow human beings solely based on a subjective belief and asserted truth that have no support or evidence in our shared objective reality are indeed, in my opinion, intellectual inferior to those that withhold their judgment or conclusion until objective evidence supports it.

Your judgement above is quite offensive, not only to the person you gave it to, but toward every other person that does not share your point of view. You basically declare yourself to be correct and everyone that disagree with you to be, not only, wrong but also dumb. At minimum this is utterly arrogant...

Your personal problem is, as I see it, that you do not acknowledge that you can be mistaken or wrong. It seams to me that you have delude your own mind with scripture to maintain your position of enlightened superiority to everyone else. I doing so it implies you fail to acknowledge that your beliefs about the content and truth of of the Bible is, in fact, not the factual content or truth of our shared reality. This attitude leads you to be arrogant toward other human beings in where you can disregard and disrespect their point of views, with no more "evidence" than references to asserted "truths" in scripture...

 

[BarryDesborough]

People who are prepared to judge other fellow human beings solely based on a subjective belief and asserted truth that have no support or evidence in our shared objective reality are indeed, in my opinion, intellectual inferior to those that withhold their judgment or conclusion until objective evidence supports it.

Your judgement above is quite offensive, not only to the person you gave it to, but toward every other person that does not share your point of view. You basically declare yourself to be correct and everyone that disagree with you to be, not only, wrong but also dumb. At minimum this is utterly arrogant...

Your personal problem, as I see it, is that you refuses to acknowledge that you can be mistaken or wrong. It seams to me that you have delude your own mind with scripture to maintain your position of enlightened superiority to everyone else. I doing so it implies you fail to acknowledge that your beliefs about the content and truth of of the Bible is, in fact, not the factual content or truth of our shared reality. This attitude leads you to be arrogant toward other human beings in where you can disregard and disrespect their point of views, with no more "evidence" than references to asserted "truths" in scripture...

After years of trying to get these sort of people to give a coherent account of themselves, and failing, I have two hypotheses. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

1) Fundyism offers the illusion of always being in the right. It presupposes it and makes itself immune from the possibility of being in error (at least in the mind of the fundy). This is attractive to certain personality types. Either that, or it inculcates such an attitude in its victims.
2) This does not necessarily apply in this case, but I have discovered that for certain people, fundyism is a refuge from a reality that has become too painful to cope with. Their lives have fallen apart so completely, for various reasons, that this is the only way they can hold it together enough to continue living.

 

[In situ]

William Lane Craig is indeed the most prominent christian apologist

Prominent? I, and many with me, find Craig disgusting in his apologetic defense of the violence in the Bible. Such apologetic kind of invites people to do horrifying things to other human beings and still regard it as morally justified to do so...

These are the rotten apples in his apologetic basket he tries to sell to everyone. In my opinion, Craig lacks a proper empathy for other human beings. Which leads me to this:

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1st Corinthians 13:2

​

There is no love behind that mans words...

 

[In situ]

Sounds like my kinda guy!

So if Craig is your man then would you agree it ever can be morally justified to slaughter children? Craig thinks so at least....

 

[In situ]

Do you believe all Scripture should be interpreted poetically? I hope not, because in Genesis 1, God tells us what He did, how He did it, where He did it, when He did it, what order He did it in, and how long it took Him to do it.

It is still a myth, with no supporting evidence, just like the thousands of other creation myths that exists...

 

[AV1611VET]

So if Craig is your man then would you agree it ever can be morally justified to slaughter children?

I've asked this before ... I'll ask it again.

You're the squad leader in enemy territory.

You're at the edge of a clearing, and a little boy: dirty, clothes ripped, bleeding and crying for his mother is coming toward you holding a cute teddy bear in his arms.

You order HALT! in his language, but he keeps walking toward you and won't stop.

What do you do?

(Please answer this.)