5 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[In situ]

you mean loki?

No I meant Loke, as that is what he is called in all modern Scandinavian languages. Loki is Old Norse, a form still used in English. The linguistic error was thus deliberate erroneous on my part, biased on my own native language. (English seams to be using old West Norse names of the mythological beings the Vikings believed in).

But thanks for pointing it out; I will try be more carefully next time.

he really wasn't evil per se.

If fundamentalist are allowed to make up their own interpretation of an imported foreign mid east religion, then I am more than justified to make up any interpretation I want of my native mythology; Loki was responsible for killing Balder because he was jealous. Loki went to great length to do this, and that act on Loki's part was evil according to myself.

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.

Loki, and his "special nature", had an important role to play in how the world developed and is part of the explanation why the world is like it is today. What else is the purposes of gods and other mythological beings? However, I am still free to pull a moral judgment on Loki's actions.

but loki held many traits

And which, according to the Old Norse mythology, was hardly appreciated all the times by the other gods of Asgard, thus can be considered to be action of evil, or wrong doings, even by the other gods of Asgard. After all, the other AEsir punished him quiet hard for what he did to Balder.

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 is Christian that asserts absolute moral laws and separates god from evil as two distinct things, I do not. Nor I am aware of that this is done in the Old Norse mythology, or was done by Vikings in general. Perhaps you are mistakenly presuming I makes an absolute distinction between god and evil?

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.

Well, I would, reasonable, believe the old pagan beliefs and Christianity is very much mixed together in one big mess called modern Christianity. Christians, I suspect, would tend not agree and might dispute this connection to paganism, but looking at European history and development I see no reason why this should not be the case.

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.

I agree, but my point is that 'god' does not imply 'good' in all cases. Christians does not have a exclusive right on how to define the word 'god'. Christians may define a meaning of god with the Cristian God, but not with gods in general....

That said, both the Bible and Christian refers to "other gods" as evil as well, namely other gods than their own. Has it escaped anybody hearing, at least at one time, a fundamentalist accuse atheists for worshiping their own gods, thus implying they worship an evil god.

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?

I am sure the Vikings seen a hammer many times, still they Believed Thor's hammer behaved similar to a boomerang... And what is the problem with Sleipnir having eight legs? How else would you explain that Sleipnir could runs as fast he did if being a Viking living at 800 AD? And what is the problem that Saehrimnir is magically reproduced every morning? Don't you believe in magic as the rest of the world did at that time? Even until late 19th century it was widely believed that living being was magically created now and then.

The point is; you are "biased" with knowledge...

P.S. Is there any special reason for why you do not capitalize the first word in your sentences and names? D.S.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

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

When I read blather like this, this quote often comes to mind:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

-Charles Darwin

It would seem Mr. Darwin had to deal with pious religionuts too. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

 

[good brother]

When I read blather like this, this quote often comes to mind:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

-Charles Darwin

It would seem Mr. Darwin had to deal with pious religionuts too. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

All you do here is reinforce the notion that evo-clingerons have no argument by which to upset the truth so they automatically attempt the shoot the messenger.

God bless.

In Christ, GB

 

[Loudmouth]

All you do here is reinforce the notion that evo-clingerons have no argument by which to upset the truth so they automatically attempt the shoot the messenger.

Reminds me of this cartoon.

We present mountains of evidence, and you continue on as if nothing was ever presented.

 

[In situ]

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.

So you name your fellow human beings that do not agree with you "dirty pigs". That is very respectful and kind of you... You must really be loving your neighbor with all your heart, just like Jesus told you to do...

Btw, Pigs are actually very clean animals - if not hold in small cages by human...

 

[In situ]

All you do here is reinforce the notion that evo-clingerons have no argument by which to upset the truth so they automatically attempt the shoot the messenger.

God bless.

In Christ, GB

As long you call your fellow human beings "dirty pigs", nobody has to, or should, take you serious, not even your claimed beliefs in a loving God...

 

[In situ]

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.

I have rebutted all five points, not even remotely addressing the messenger, in this thread... did you read that post?

 

[In situ]

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.

The theory of evolution is not anti-theistic per se, but clearly it goes against a literal view of creation as proposed by YEC's. What is the problem to incorporate scientific facts, i.e knowledge, in your belief system and acknowledge that the Biblical message is that God is behind it all?

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.

I can prove evolution to be a fact. If you were to accepted such proof, what would that mean to you? Would it mean that you would had to stop believe in God? If so, why?

 

[good brother]

So you name your fellow human beings that do not agree with you "dirty pigs". That is very respectful and kind of you... You must really be loving your neighbor with all your heart, just like Jesus told you to do...

Btw, Pigs are actually very clean animals - if not hold in small cages by human...

As long you call your fellow human beings "dirty pigs", nobody has to, or should, take you serious, not even your claimed beliefs in a loving God...

I see you offered no rebuttal, just personal attacks. And for the record, I never called anyone a "dirty pig", you did. I stated the obvious point that wrestling with a pig will make one dirty and that pig enjoys it.

And another thing, I don't know where you live or where you come from, but I grew up in Iowa, in the United States of America. For years it has been the biggest pork producing state in the nation. IN. THE. NATION. I have seen pigs in cages and pigs out in open pastures. Both like the mud. In fact, I have never seen a pig that doesn't prefer muddiness to cleanliness. Don't tell me some Wikipedia article you read about some animal you probably haven't even touched in real life, let alone seen.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

All you do here is reinforce the notion that evo-clingerons have no argument by which to upset the truth so they automatically attempt the shoot the messenger.

God bless.

In Christ, GB

It's unfortunate you're unfamiliar with the evidence. You could always read a book.

 

[In situ]

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.

Like already stated, I know the standard answer; it implies that God is not unchangeable and all knowing as he is claimed to be - or, if God really is, God just want to mess around with us humans, perhaps to have a good laugh at us, which would imply God is wicked or evil or both of it. There is no easy answers to contradictions...

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.

That is how you see it. But in my opinion these contradiction creates cognitive dissonance and that is why apologetic exists in the first place.

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

It is known as rationalization.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

-Charles Darwin

When you push a product like Charles Darwin pushed -- you'd better say something like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

We present mountains of evidence, and you continue on as if nothing was ever presented.

Our faith removes your mountains to the sea -- that is, back to where you guys say it all started.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

When you push a product like Charles Darwin pushed -- you'd better say something like that.

Well, facts and TruTh tend to "push" themselves. Here we are 153 years later, and it's one of the most robust theories around. Aren't you glad god created wise men?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Our faith removes your mountains to the sea -- that is, back to where you guys say it all started.

Can you demonstrate this claim? A YouTube link, perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you demonstrate this claim? A YouTube link, perhaps?

Soitenly:

[youtube]9ObDgBLFo9w[/youtube]

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Soitenly:

[youtube]9ObDgBLFo9w[/youtube]

We all know evolution is based on mountains of evidence. I'm asking if you have a video (just one) where a mountain is moved because of prayer?

 

[In situ]

I see you offered no rebuttal

Then you did not read my rebuttal post or plainly denies/ignores it...

just personal attacks.

I then conclude you have not read this thread carefully and now just making things up out of thin air. I have posted many times in this thread, and I urge you to show that all those post are personal attacks, or have the decency to retract this claim.

And for the record, I never called anyone a "dirty pig", you did. I stated the obvious point that wrestling with a pig will make one dirty and that pig enjoys it.

You are not to dishonor other people and get away with it so easily by masking it with the fact that you did never say this directly. Words means things, and your words imply things; you "realized" your opponents, which you do not agree with, are pigs which lives under dirty conditions. This is what your own words symbolize. This means you symbolize other people as dirty pigs - why else would you use those words?

Nor are you to get away with false accusation that my "attack" on you as person is groundless, because evidently you are the one that both tries and even continues to inflames things. Because you could not avoid to add yet another, but this time personal, insult of me with your last words in your reply.

In any case, if you intentions was not to say all this then next time be more careful with your choice of words... because, as I said, words means something.

And another thing, I don't know where you live or where you come from, but I grew up in Iowa, in the United States of America. For years it has been the biggest pork producing state in the nation. IN. THE. NATION. I have seen pigs in cages and pigs out in open pastures. Both like the mud. In fact, I have never seen a pig that doesn't prefer muddiness to cleanliness.

Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about pigs, and animals in general, and how they clean them self then.

Like I said pigs in cages becomes dirty because they walk in their own excrement. But whats make you think mud is dirty is beyond me - in fact mud (in the form of clay) is in many case sterile. And as another fact, mud has a cleaning property... you did not know that, did you? That is why pigs likes to roles around in "dirt"....

Many birds, as well as many mammals, also clean them self in dust and "dirt". Did you know this, and do you consider these birds and mammals to be dirty as well?

Pigs also get "dirty" when they search for food but humans get dirty as well when working. Does this make human non-clean as well? Or is an animal consider clean, by you, only if it uses soap and water to clean itself?

The fact is that almost every animal spends substantial time in cleaning them self, including pigs and humans, simply because otherwise they get unhealthy or deceased and ultimately dies from not cleaning them self.

Don't tell me some Wikipedia article you read about some animal you probably haven't even touched in real life, let alone seen.

You continue to dishonor and insult other people, so kind and Christian of you. But to address your claim; I grew up with farms and have hands on experience with livestock and done all things you can imagine someone does at a farm (including butchering animals), but I also consider myself an educated man and in most case, 99% of the time, I use my head knowledge. So, no, I don't use Wikipedia no more than for references, I may even add to the content of Wikipedia. Do you?

But why do you ask this, if not intended to insult, yet another time?

 

[TLK Valentine]

When you push a product like Charles Darwin pushed -- you'd better say something like that.

Can't even bring yourself to admit the man was right, can you?

 

[good brother]

Words means things, and your words imply things; you "realized" your opponents, which you do not agree with, are pigs which lives under dirty conditions. This is what your own words symbolize. This means you symbolize other people as dirty pigs - why else would you use those words?

Nor are you to get away with false accusation that my "attack" on you as person is groundless, because evidently you are the one that both tries and even continues to inflames things. Because you could not avoid to add yet another, but this time personal, insult of me with your last words in your reply.

In any case, if you intentions was not to say all this then next time be more careful with your choice of words... because, as I said, words means something.



Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about pigs, and animals in general, and how they clean them self then.

Like I said pigs in cages becomes dirty because they walk in their own excrement. But whats make you think mud is dirty is beyond me - in fact mud (in the form of clay) is in many case sterile. And as another fact, mud has a cleaning property... you did not know that, did you? That is why pigs likes to roles around in "dirt"....

Many birds, as well as many mammals, also clean them self in dust and "dirt". Did you know this, and do you consider these birds and mammals to be dirty as well?

Pigs also get "dirty" when they search for food but humans get dirty as well when working. Does this make human non-clean as well? Or is an animal consider clean, by you, only if it uses soap and water to clean itself?

The fact is that almost every animal spends substantial time in cleaning them self, including pigs and humans, simply because otherwise they get unhealthy or deceased and ultimately dies from not cleaning them self.



You continue to dishonor and insult other people, so kind and Christian of you. But to address your claim; I grew up with farms and have hands on experience with livestock and done all things you can imagine someone does at a farm (including butchering animals), but I also consider myself an educated man and in most case, 99% of the time, I use my head knowledge. So, no, I don't use Wikipedia no more than for references, I may even add to the content of Wikipedia. Do you?

But why do you ask this, if not intended to insult, yet another time?

You are the one who said I said people are dirty pigs, not me. Then you changed the definition of dirt to mean excrement. Again, you said that, not me. And are you not familiar with analogies or metaphors or similes? I was not saying the people are pigs. I was saying.... oh... just look up what I said as a "figure of speech".

Jesus called a group of people a "brood of vipers" and told another group that their father was the devil. Obviously I am not trying to validate name calling, but Jesus used those descriptors to prove a point as I used that saying to prove a point.

I will not continue this discussion about pigs and their lack of cleanliness anymore.

Good day and God bless.

In Christ, GB