5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[KWCrazy]

2 Corinthians 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin that they cannot even see the light of God; to think that they who are damned by their iniquity can pass judgment upon the Creator of all that is good in the world? What arrogance! What a disgusting display of deluded self importance! It's just like the pathetic people who waited in the airports to spit on our returning soldiers in the 60's and 70's because THEY didn't have the mentality to understand why the men had gone to war instead of dodging the draft and hanging out with the drug addicted hippies.

This line of argument CANNOT be taken seriously. I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

 

[TLK Valentine]

2 Corinthians 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Convenient -- keeps the meaning of the Gospel away from those pesky nonbelievers... last thing anyone would want is to share it with them, lest they believe.

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin that they cannot even see the light of God; to think that they who are damned by their iniquity can pass judgment upon the Creator of all that is good in the world?

What simplicity.

What arrogance! What a disgusting display of deluded self importance!

We can't all be as humble as you, friend.

It's just like the pathetic people who waited in the airports to spit on our returning soldiers in the 60's and 70's because THEY didn't have the mentality to understand why the men had gone to war instead of dodging the draft and hanging out with the drug addicted hippies.

People who didn't believe in the war protesting people who did -- didn't care for their methods, but are you that afraid of dissent?

This line of argument CANNOT be taken seriously. I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

What are you afraid of? Hard questions?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

2 Corinthians 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin that they cannot even see the light of God; to think that they who are damned by their iniquity can pass judgment upon the Creator of all that is good in the world? What arrogance! What a disgusting display of deluded self importance! It's just like the pathetic people who waited in the airports to spit on our returning soldiers in the 60's and 70's because THEY didn't have the mentality to understand why the men had gone to war instead of dodging the draft and hanging out with the drug addicted hippies.

This line of argument CANNOT be taken seriously. I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

Have a nice day!

 

[kellhus]

2 Corinthians 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin that they cannot even see the light of God; to think that they who are damned by their iniquity can pass judgment upon the Creator of all that is good in the world? What arrogance! What a disgusting display of deluded self importance! It's just like the pathetic people who waited in the airports to spit on our returning soldiers in the 60's and 70's because THEY didn't have the mentality to understand why the men had gone to war instead of dodging the draft and hanging out with the drug addicted hippies.

This line of argument CANNOT be taken seriously. I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

I just lol'ed so hard.

 

[Belk]

2 Corinthians 4:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin that they cannot even see the light of God; to think that they who are damned by their iniquity can pass judgment upon the Creator of all that is good in the world? What arrogance! What a disgusting display of deluded self importance! It's just like the pathetic people who waited in the airports to spit on our returning soldiers in the 60's and 70's because THEY didn't have the mentality to understand why the men had gone to war instead of dodging the draft and hanging out with the drug addicted hippies.

This line of argument CANNOT be taken seriously. I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

The exact same vanity that you have to judge Gods actions as good. Odd how using my "God given free will" is meet with such sneering contempt simply because I reach a different conclusion then you.

 

[kellhus]

Let's talk about how KWCrazy is covered in the vile darkness of her own sin.

 

[Belk]

Let's talk about how KWCrazy is covered in the vile darkness of her own sin.

*cough* His *cough*

 

[TLK Valentine]

I just lol'ed so hard.

I never stop finding a use for this clip...

Let me laugh even harder - YouTube

 

[kellhus]

*cough* His *cough*

Meh, can't see profile icons from my phone.

 

[In situ]

You are talking to a fundamentalist, he's not even honest with himself.

It is a borderline thing; if one still believe what oneself says is true then from that perspective it is not a dishonest belief. Denial has a strange psychology behind it with all kind of weird rationalizations. The accusation of ridicule that AV brings forward is not uncommon among fundamentalists, some may not express but many feel that they are mocked or ridiculed about the criticism they get. Why? I believe it is because of the reason I already mentioned...

I have no problem with fundamentalist "ridicule" the theory of evolution, in fact I find it quite entertaining to listen to Kent Hovind's talks - he is a good speaker and pretty funny. My point is, if ones standpoint is so easily felt to be ridiculed then perhaps once standpoint is ridicules as well.

It ought to be thought about...

 

[In situ]

I've never seen so much blasphemy in one thread.

Doesn't the Bible demands blasphemers to be killed?

 

[In situ]

What vanity have these atheists; so covered in the vile darkness of their own sin

It is always interesting to notice how fundamentalist dwells on the topic of sins. I feel no guilt, but what do you feel guilty about? How many times a day do you feel guilt? How many times should you, in your own view, have felt guilt but did not? How many times per day do you, and I, break all Gods laws? (James 2:10)

What is between me and, a possible almighty judging, God is between me and God and that is non of your business to judge about - ever!


But you think you are saved just because you have faith (Romans 10:9,10)?

Then you are wrong; even Demons believe, but they will got to Hell... Their exists two types of faith, the one that saves and the demonic one. Your faith need to be completed with actions (James 2:19-22) in order to grant salvation and that action is love (Galatians 5:6). To love is to be kind, to be patient, to trust and hope, to forgive, not to anger easy, not to dishonor others, not to be selfish, not to keep records of others wrong doings (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). If you fail to do this, if you fail to love, then you have nothing, not even your salvation because you faith is only a demonic faith... and demons does not get saved...

Therefor, to have faith in Jesus is not enough, you must also love! The scripture is crystal clear on this point...

Therefore, and obviously, nobody, or very few, can achieve all this. In fact almost every one will got to Hell according to scripture, "saved" Christians or not. This simply Because we are fallible as human and we are not able to achieve the standards set by the new testimony...

But God promised to infuse his children with power so Christian should be able to express this love, but we do not see this power of love with Christians... isn't that strange? What does that mean? Maybe it means their is no such power infusion from God... Maybe only the real truly righteous will be saved? Maybe God left use alone again and intend to kill all sinful humans once again? What does it mean if their is no power infusion of love from God? Maybe God does not exist at all? Or maybe God does exist, but then we all, Christian or not, should truly fear Gods judgments as very few actually will be saved. But then neither you or me is among the saved simply because we both failed to complete faith with the action of love... (Galatians 5:6) Or maybe the Bible isn't Gods Holy Words but was just written by fallible men that wanted to witness about God or use God as an excuse for horrific and terrible things they did. Or maybe even God does not exists at all and the Bible is just old myths and made up stories... Take your pick...

What makes most sense to you?

Just asking....

 

[ReverendDG]

Did the literal meaning of the word elude you somehow? God means 'good'. In all the time I have debated atheists I have never been asked for a definition for the core term, 'God'. There's a reason for that and it's a self evident fact, the refection of God's glory in nature.

god means "good"?
where did you get that from? from what i gather, the word comes from gothic influence, it like most english words stems from a proto indo-europian word meaning "to invoke(in the name of), or to pour on(like a molten idol) the word would be something like godas,guda, gupa, gudo.
the closest we come across is from sanskrit the word huta, which means sacrificed to.

god is a word that comes from "pagan" origins, good or evil has nothing to do with the word.

no one asks you to define it because you can magic up any meaning you want for the word.

 

[ReverendDG]

Doesn't the Bible demands blasphemers to be killed?

in the OT it does but christians as they will tell you over and over again, don't follow the mitzvas in the OT.
so according to christians no, the bible doesn't demand they kill blasphemers, it does give some scary descriptions of what happens to them though!

mostly you suffer in the fires along with satan and death, then you get snuffed out by god.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Did the literal meaning of the word elude you somehow? God means 'good'. In all the time I have debated atheists I have never been asked for a definition for the core term, 'God'. There's a reason for that and it's a self evident fact, the refection of God's glory in nature.

That seems to be an oversight on the part of the atheists then. Could you please provide a definition now?

 

[In situ]

in the OT it does but christians as they will tell you over and over again, don't follow the mitzvas in the OT.

I know the type of reaction that will come to this, but if somebody claims the Bible is indeed Gods Holy True Words and at the same time claims God is an eternal being and has instituted absolute moral laws (i.e. unchangeable laws) and then start shout "Blasphemy!" as soon they are criticized about the moral in these laws then I like to point out the obvious contradiction to these fundamentalist, i.e. God, from the fundamentalist point of view, seams to have change his mind about what should be considered absolute or alternatively God is a moral relativist as well.

(And if fundamentalists start to refer to apologetic to defend the absolute moral laws then my question is: why is it that Gods perfect and infallible Words needs clarifications by humans? Is apologetic inspired/dictated by God? If so, why does it in turn fail to be agreed on? In general terms: why can't an infallible, perfect and all wise God be clear and straight forward to us humans? And why do fundamentalist tend to cry blasphemy when such question are asked? Is it because fundamentalist cannot answer these question, and instead they take the easy way out?)

 

[In situ]

That seems to be an oversight on the part of the atheists then. Could you please provide a definition now?

Besides for the gods that actually are evil.... like Loke...

 

[ReverendDG]

I know the type of reaction that will come to this, but if somebody claims the Bible is indeed Gods Holy True Words and at the same time claims God is an eternal being and has instituted absolute moral laws (i.e. unchangeable laws) and then start shout "Blasphemy!" as soon they are criticized about the moral in these laws then I like to point out the obvious contradiction to these fundamentalist, i.e. God, from the fundamentalist point of view, seams to have change his mind about what should be considered absolute or alternatively God is a moral relativist as well.

(And if fundamentalists start to refer to apologetic to defend the absolute moral laws then my question is: why is it that Gods perfect and infallible Words needs clarifications by humans? Is apologetic inspired/dictated by God? If so, why does it in turn fail to be agreed on? In general terms: why can't an infallible, perfect and all wise God be clear and straight forward to us humans? And why do fundamentalist tend to cry blasphemy when such question are asked? Is it because fundamentalist cannot answer these question, and instead they take the easy way out?)

lol i can answer it easily enough, since i've had the question answered.
according to christians, god gave the laws of moses to israel to follow so they wouldn't sin, but found it didn't work, they still sinned.
so he sent his son to them, and the people of isael had him killed, so instead jesus told his disciples to make disciples of the whole world instead.

something along those lines.

thing you have to remember is that to them the bible is inspired/dictated by god, so they will never answer the question because they believe the bible is perfect according to their convoluted beliefs.

mostly they will wonder why you asked, in their minds, such a dumb question.

 

[ReverendDG]

Besides for the gods that actually are evil.... like Loke...

you mean loki? he really wasn't evil per se.
at least not in the norse sources, he is a very complex character who was distorted as evil, most likely due to christian influences that made parallels to satan.
of course christian missionaries taught that all other gods were either demons or imaginary.
but loki held many traits that were shared by satan, he was a trickster, a being related to fire, could shapeshift. loki in later stories, much like satan was the enemy of gods and man alike.

it could be argued of course that christianity had a high level of influence on later myths like ragnarok, it very much parallels the christian apocalypse.
most of the material about the norse religion was 10th century or later, long after much of the norse people were christianized, up to the 13th.

so there is little we can gather as evidence that isn't influenced by christian iconography.
but most early stories have loki helping the other gods, using his powers to help odin or thor.
my favorite story is how sleipnir was born, the norse had a weird view of how sex or reproduction worked.
i mean really, how the heck do you come up with an eightlegged horse?! have they never seen a horse before?

 

[good brother]

Awesome. For 3 years GB's been here getting his tuckhus handed to him on evolution and when AV wastes yet more server space and is called on it, GB decides that's an opportune time to crawl out of the woodwork and post this comment full of derision and high dudgeon, but utterly bereft of facts, evidence or a salient point.

Kudos.

Yeah, uh huh. I think you're just mad that I pointed out the rather obvious fact that evolutionists are completely devoid of any true argument when faced against the steep and treacherous cliff of the truth. For the first how many responses to the OP, all the evo-clingerons did was to laugh and try to avoid and ignore the fact they have no true response or rebuttal to the argument presented. The clingerons know their precious religion of evolution won't stand up to the truth and they showed it when they began the discussion by mocking the messenger instead of actually talking about the points presented. Very similar to what you have done here, Incognito.

As far as me "crawling out of the woodwork", I just came to the realization a long time ago that if one wrestles with pigs, both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

As far as not having a salient point or being utterly bereft of facts, why don't you go back and read the entire quote? In my full response I quoted the first half dozen or so clingerons who did nothing to offer up a rebuttal to the OP, but spent their time vested in shooting the messenger.

As far as me supposedly getting my "tuckhus" handed to me, that never happened. At all. Not one time did any clingeron ever present such a valid argument for evolution that my faith in God as my Creator wavered even for a moment. There has never been such an argument that could do that. So, my "tuckhus" is perfectly fine, right where it should be and I have never had someone hand it to me.

God bless you.

In Christ, GB