A chalange to belivers in Evolution

[Garnett]

To all but AV1611VET.

Kids ask "why?" all the time. It's connected with their use of the word "no".

Ask any parent and they'll tell you the first word their child used was "no".

For a baby, pretty much powerless in the grand scheme of things, unable to affect change in their environment, "no" is the greatest power they've experienced.

If they say "yes" when they're ask "baby want to eat?", "Baby want the red shoes?", their environment continues around them as it would have done had they done nothing, but by saying "no" they influence that environment. They have power over it. "No" is the first time babies can assert themselves. It also servess to prolong interaction with the person asking the questions, usually a parent, and therefore someone the child wants to interact with.

"Why?" is an extention of this. "Why? " can be asked of any statement. Loosly interpretated it can be asked of any question ("why do you ask that?"). It is an extention of that desire to interact and have attention.

This most simplest of learnt behaviour is the best the advocates of Creationism are wheeling to bear on the Theory of Evolution.

That this AV1611VET is a parody seems certain. Nbody over the age of 5 still needs to implement these tactics for attention. What speaks volumes is the silence from any reputable Creationist speaking up to tell AV1611VET to pipe down.

This surely shows once and for all and clearer than most how bereft of sincere proponents, and devoid of legitimacy the argument for Creationism is.

 

[Goatboy]

I can beat ANY evolution or materialistic theory just with one question

WHY ?

No, what you can do is become a solipsist.
(Hey, everyone should have an ambition)

You haven’t beaten a theory by saying “why” since eventually the response will just be pared down to BECAUSE.

Still, any materialistic theory eh?

My Gin and Tonic tastes better made with lime.
Why?
Because the zestiness, counterpoints the bitterness of the tonic and combines synergeticaly with the sweet, sweet, Gin.
Why?
Because. -glug
Why?
Because. -glug
Why?
Because. -glug
Why?
Because. -glug
Why?
Because. -glug
Why?
Because. -glug
(While in principle the above could persist into infinity, after about 6 G&T’s the answer becomes “Because if you say “why” again I’ll stand on your throat”, at which point the “Because” argument usually carries the debate).

 

[AV1611VET]

let's debate.

Thank you, Kangitanka --- I accept.

• EXPLAIN EVOLUTION IN LIGHT OF A 6000-YEAR UNIVERSE

Nobody needs to explain evolution "in light of" a 6,000 year old universe, since our universe does not fit your age description. The evidence points to a much much much older universe. It also points to a much much much older earth. No, Im not rewording your statement, Im demonstrating the fallacy of your question. So, there we go. #1 is taken care of. Let's move on to #2, shall we?

I did not say the universe was 6000 years old. Where did that word "old" show up in my premise? I have always agreed that it is n-millions of years old, but has only been in operation for 6000 years.

• SINCE GOD PRONOUNCED HIS CREATION "VERY GOOD", WHY THE NEED FOR EVOLUTION?

Two points-
1- If this question is directed at an atheist or at anybody who does not believe in the bible, it is non-sensical. Bringing "God" into a conversation with non-believers falls on deaf ears. And of course, you know why...Because- read this carefully- they dont believe in your god!

In other words, you're not qualified to answer, right? In that case, I have to ask why atheists are even here on a Christian forum, if they're going to use that conjecture?

2- Last time I played billiards, I looked upon the racked up balls and thought how nice they looked, so orderly, so..."good"...to use your term. So, the set up was "good" (or even "very good"), and yet the initial configuration was not the point.

Good for billiards --- the "initial configuration" I'm talking about though is the central point in my question. God created the universe and pronounced it "very good".

In billiards, the goal is to take that "initial configuration" and destroy it completely. In Creation, it wasn't meant to even be "scratched" - (pun intended).

Likewise, although things may have been "very good" in Genesis, that in and of itself does not indicate that things couldnt (or shouldnt) change.

That statement "very good" has the idea of "perfect". Any change in perfection creates non-perfection. Put another way: the template was broken.

Alright. #1 and #2....answered. On to #3-

• SINCE JESUS DIDN'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, WHY SHOULD WE?

Several points
1- Most people who accept evolutionary theory dont "believe" in it. You may "believe" in your god, but those who accept evolutionary theory do not "believe" in evolutionary theory. It would be more correct to say that they accept evolutionary theory as the current best model that explains the diversity of species on this planet. In the future, be more careful how you word your questions.

My question was worded just fine. Your point seems to be that most people who accept evolutionary theory don't "believe" in it --- contrary to Jesus --- right?

2- You are taking Mark 10:6 completely out of context. Jesus isnt discussing science, he is discussing a law concerning marital states. Misrepresenting the NT you claim to believe in is bad form.

I didn't say He was. Let's take a closer look at Mark 10:6---

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

It doesn't say: ...from the beginning of evolution...

3- Mark 13:19 only says that goddidit. Im not sure how this is supposed to be a theological blow against evolutionary theory.

Again, shall we take a closer look at Mark 13:19---

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

4- Mark 10:6 says absolutely nothing about evolution or the lack thereof. Jesus is only indicating that humans have always been "male and female".

That was a typo, which I went back and corrected.

5- Finally, the evidence at hand points to evolutionary theory as being the best current model explaining the diversity of species on this planet.

Again, no it doesn't. You're taking just what God said in Genesis 1:31 about His creation --- viz., that it is "very good" --- and applying it to evolutionary theory.

Even if Jesus was quoted in the gospels as saying "Evolutionary theory is WRONG!", evolutionary theory would STILL be the best current model explaining the diversity of species.

Right there is the bottom line: your word over Jesus. I'll let Paul handle that one---

...let God be true, but every man a liar...

So there you go. Several people have answered your questions. I didnt reword any of them.

You didn't, huh?

Explain evolution in light of a 6000-year universe.

Nobody needs to explain evolution "in light of" a 6,000 year old universe...

I was very careful NOT to put the word "old" in there.

I dont believe I twisted anything around or misrepresented your statements, and I havent turned around and asked you any questions.

There you go. Now be happy and quit complaining about how nobody will answer you

No comment.

 

[Freodin]

That statement "very good" has the idea of "perfect". Any change in perfection creates non-perfection. Put another way: the template was broken.

Then how would you explain that God commanded his perfect creation to change the state in which he created it - and only after having given this command declares it "very good"? (Genesis 1:27-28 and 31)

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how would you explain that God commanded his perfect creation to change the state in which he created it - and only after having given this command declares it "very good"? (Genesis 1:27-28 and 31)

You lost me on that one, Freodin. I don't see your point.

God declared His creation "very good" in verse 31, after the command; thus the command was fully-intended to be conveyed as was.

 

[Freodin]

You lost me on that one, Freodin. I don't see your point.

God declared His creation "very good" in verse 31, after the command; thus the command was fully-intended to be conveyed as was.

So a creation that deliberately includes change can still be considered "very good".


I guess that answers your question.

 

[AV1611VET]

So a creation that deliberately includes change can still be considered "very good".

What exactly changed? Can you give me a before-and-after scenario?

 

[Freodin]

What exactly changed? Can you give me a before-and-after scenario?

(I don´t have access to my english online bible right now, so I´m just giving the verses. Sorry for any inconvenience.)

Gen 1:27 God creates two humans, male and female. That is a state. Number of existing humans: 2. Number of existing humans at the end of the day when God declares that "very good": 2.

According to your quote "Any change in perfection creates non-perfection" any change in that "perfect state" would create non-perfection.

But even before God declared that existing state to be "very good", he commanded these two humans to change that state: be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

So God declares a state that he himself has decreed to change as "very good".


Now you might object that this does not in any form imply Evolution - that is correct.

But it negates your assumption that any changing state cannot be considered "very good" or "perfect" from a theological point of view.

 

[Tomk80]

AV1611VET, master of the non-sequitur.

 

[Freodin]

AV1611VET, master of the non-sequitur.

Sorry, but that is JohnR7. He is still unbeaten in this field.

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry, but that is JohnR7. He is still unbeaten in this field.

Oh, I agree that John is the emperor in this respect. But surely you can't deny that AV1611VET has gained a high level of expertise in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it negates your assumption that any changing state cannot be considered "very good" or "perfect" from a theological point of view.

The only thing changing is numbers --- not the "state". The animals had to "be fruitful and multiply" as well --- so did the flora.

Failure to do so would have been imperfection.

 

[Freodin]

The only thing changing is numbers --- not the "state".

That seems a rather arbitrary line you are drawing. What defines a "state"?

The animals had to "be fruitful and multiply" as well --- so did the flora.

Failure to do so would have been imperfection.

Exactly! So you have answered your question.

 

[AV1611VET]

That seems a rather arbitrary line you are drawing. What defines a "state"?

One could argue that the first time water turned to steam, a state has been changed and therefore, creation was imperfect.

One could say that as soon as food was eaten, it was changed in state, and therefore creation was imperfect.

This could get quite ludicrous.

Again, my simple point: God pronounced His creation "very good" --- so why the need for evolution?

 

[Dimitree]

Have you ever had that moment of insight when, despite your best arguments, your best debating, your best rationanlizations, you have had that moment of insight that just blows all the rest away?

I just had one.

Let us, for the moment, assume God exists. God= Omnnipotent. God=Omniscient. God=Omnipresent. God=Eternal

Good enough for a rough beginning of the description of God?

I hope so, because Omnisicience and Omnipotence, by themselves, are hard enough to fathom.

Now, let me turn your question around on you...
Given the attributes of God (if you accept the omnimax theories of God).....
WHY?
Why did God create the universe?
Why did God create the earth?
Why did God create life?
And (most importantly) WHY did God create humans?

Answer me this and we will have a true debate, because all of your answers will fall flat and make no sense at all.

I don't have to answer all these questions becaouse all of them are answered in the Bible
Read the Bible and you will find the answers to ALL

 

[Freodin]

One could argue that the first time water turned to steam, a state has been changed and therefore, creation was imperfect.

One could say that as soon as food was eaten, it was changed in state, and therefore creation was imperfect.

This could get quite ludicrous.

Again, my simple point: God pronounced His creation "very good" --- so why the need for evolution?

Hm... as I have shown - and you have seen for yourself - a changing creation does not mean that it is not "very good".

As such, the question for a "need" for evolution is rather irrelevant: God created a world where evolution happens. That does not mean he needed to create it in this way, just as he did not need to create a world with water or fruit-bearing trees.

Evolution happens. That is a fact. If you believe that God created the world, you would have to accept that he did it in this way.

 

[Dr.GH]

WHY ?

Why not?

 

[Tomk80]

I don't have to answer all these questions becaouse all of them are answered in the Bible
Read the Bible and you will find the answers to ALL

They're not. For example, in the bible it is taught how we should act towards God, what God's rules and laws are etc. But why God created us is never made clear. Did you actually read the bible yourself?

 

[Freodin]

I don't have to answer all these questions becaouse all of them are answered in the Bible
Read the Bible and you will find the answers to ALL

So let´s see.

2 Chron 19:8
" Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. "

Hm, does not answer these question.

What about ...

Ephesians 5:28
"So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. "

No, does also not answer the questions.


So, perhaps instead of propagting a 1000 pages book as "answer", you, as the self-proclaimed expert, could give us a hint and tell us where to look?

Come on, be a friend!

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution happens. That is a fact. If you believe that God created the world, you would have to accept that he did it in this way.

Sorry, my friend, if Jesus would have posted this in His Word, then I would have believed it; but the fact of the matter is: He doesn't believe it Himself, and neither do I.