Dismantling theistic evolution with 10 questions

[Jet Black]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.

excellent, so that makes anything he says orders of magnitude better than anything you say. thanks for confiming that for us.

 

[Hydra009]

Do those that die in childbirth go to heaven or hell?
Hell. (Refer 1 Cor 7:14, Rev 21:27)

Thanks, Colossians. I sometimes forget how much better it is to not believe in this kind of theology.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys,

I agree. This belongs in the CO section.
(Gluadys implies that her agreement is a weighty event.)

Well, at least as weighty as your questions.

See my answers in Origins Theology.
No thanks.

Why? Afraid of answers you don't want to hear?

 

[Nathan David]

All gods are attributed with volition and desire.

That doesn't mean God has those attributes. And it sure doesn't mean you understand his motives.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Question 6 concerns the pinnacle of creation, man, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ:
"If evolution took its own course, then how is it that man is in God's image?

Souls are what makes human in God's image. And no, they would not have evolved. At least a TE could easily argue that.

For if that which has formed by chance is in God's image, then God is a necessarily undefined. How could God's Son be guaranteed of a predetermined ministry?"

Omniscience? Omnipotence?

ETA: And you are presupposeing that strict determinism, if seen from God's POV, is not true. It _could_ be.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.
Whichever the case, they are not worthy of response.

(Emphasis mine) What else do you expect when you ask questions about Theistic Evolution?

 

[Vance]

Collosians himself is definitely the best argument against YEC'ism we have seen around here in a long time. A one-person wrecking crew of the whole concept of young earth creationism. If an atheist wanted to come on these boards and pretend to be a YEC in order to make YEC'ism look bad, he could not do a better job at it than Collosians.

Which makes me wonder . . .

 

[Split Rock]

To all the evolutionists sitting up there on the current viewers perch, when you start to contribute significantly more than your nervous one-liners, I will take you seriously.

Until then, be advised that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you're not.
Good night. It is late.

When you lose the smug attitude, perhaps the evolutionists will take you seriously.

AGREED!!

I love the part about "nervous" one-liners!

LOL! We are all sooooo scared of Colossians and his rapier wit!

 

[Mekkala]

All gods are attributed with volition and desire. These are the universals upon which this thread is based. Your point is focussed on packaging only, and is such is invalid.

Yet it's only your fallible interpretation that says that God's "volition and desire" must be to specially and magically create the universe in six days. To go from "volition and desire" to "six-day creation" is a pretty huge non sequitur.

 

[Mekkala]

To all the evolutionists sitting up there on the current viewers perch, when you start to contribute significantly more than your nervous one-liners, I will take you seriously.

Until then, be advised that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you're not.
Good night. It is late.

When you start to contribute significantly more than your pitiful yet caustic attempts at wit, we might start taking you seriously.

Until then, be advised that while Jesus Christ may or may not be Lord, you most certainly are not, and are very likely risking hellfire (if there is any, that is) by pretending to be.

 

[Physics_guy]

To all the evolutionists sitting up there on the current viewers perch, when you start to contribute significantly more than your nervous one-liners, I will take you seriously.

Until then, be advised that Jesus Christ is Lord, and you're not.

Never before have I seen someone with so little substance displaying so much arrogance. You wouldn't happen to be a politician, would you?

 

[Mekkala]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.
Whichever the case, they are not worthy of response.

There is perhaps one of your answers (a question) which I will respond to as follows:
Is a seven-year-old child accountable?
Yes.
How about three years old?
Yes.
How about a child in the womb?
Yes
Do those that die in childbirth go to heaven or hell?
Hell. (Refer 1 Cor 7:14, Rev 21:27)

Brilliant defense, Colossians.

"Ha! Betcha can't answer these questions!"

"Sure I can -- here are the answers."

*after several minutes of uncomfortably perusing the answers*

"Yeah, these answers are ****. Dunno why, but they're **** 'cause I don't like 'em."

 

[kingreaper]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.
Whichever the case, they are not worthy of response.

There is perhaps one of your answers (a question) which I will respond to as follows:
Is a seven-year-old child accountable?
Yes.
How about three years old?
Yes.
How about a child in the womb?
Yes
Do those that die in childbirth go to heaven or hell?
Hell. (Refer 1 Cor 7:14, Rev 21:27)

So lets try a checklist of the possible moral of a God

Moral (good), helps others for the sole purpose of causing them happiness, and any happinesss gained from its conscience= no moral being would create an intelligence with the oul purpose of being eternally tortured

Amoral (Selfish) everything it does is solely for its benefit= no amoral God would create a world, as a God can gain nothing from the existence of a world

Immoral (evil) harms others for the sole purpose of cauising suffering, and any happiness gained from its inverted version of a conscience= sure it would, it means it gets a new being to torture


Your immoral God cannot be trusted to keep his word and not torture true believers, so it is pointless worshipping him

 

[Philosoft]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.
Whichever the case, they are not worthy of response.

You have just forcefully expelled any remaining shred of credibility, charity, understanding and respect from my now-tattered opinion of you. Your posts project a superficial intelligence, yet your unwavering desire to use that intelligence to avoid, insult, belittle and otherwise be a shmuck borders on the obsessive. Should I reply to anything you might offer in the future, it will likely be a mockery of the above tripe.

I suspect my sentiments won't be unique.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe,

You answers are either not well thought out, poor parallels, superficial, evasive, returned questions, sarcasm, wit, diversions, or that which presumes evolution is true.

Then you should have no difficulty explaining even one alleged flaw in my responses.

How odd, you don't even bother, do you?

Whichever the case, they are not worthy of response.

Because you do not have one.
You really have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this forum except abuse, do you?

There is perhaps one of your answers (a question) which I will respond to as follows:
Is a seven-year-old child accountable?
Yes.
How about three years old?
Yes.
How about a child in the womb?
Yes
Do those that die in childbirth go to heaven or hell?
Hell. (Refer 1 Cor 7:14, Rev 21:27)

Well then, you have your answer then. If unborn children go to hell, so do the apes, chimps, just about everything down to the ameoba.

Going to get pretty crowded down there, don't you think?

Perhaps you could set your ego aside and address the other questions in a serious and respectful manner?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Collosians himself is definitely the best argument against YEC'ism we have seen around here in a long time. A one-person wrecking crew of the whole concept of young earth creationism. If an atheist wanted to come on these boards and pretend to be a YEC in order to make YEC'ism look bad, he could not do a better job at it than Collosians.

Which makes me wonder . . .

Well, making YEC look bad isn't all the difficult, or particularly new.

What is truly lamentable is that Colossians' self-serving arrogance will tend to, by association, give Christianity a bad name.

After all, there will always be newbs coming in who might mistake Col's abuse for actual wisdom.

It takes a couple of posts to see that Colossians really isn't trying to promote discussion, education, or really much of anything else except Colossians.

He can't even come up with a decent excuse to to address the answers given to him; too much pride to admit a mistake. How pitiful.

The best thing to do is to let him run his usual course: Lash out at people in a snit, declare victory for himself, and strut back under his rock until he decides to "stump" us again.

 

[Arikay]

You can tell when Col doesn't have a answer, because he drops into Ad Hom mode, which is most of his posts. You sometimes wonder if he even bothers to read posts, or if he typed up a bunch of "Your argument is flawed and you are stupid" posts before hand and then just copies and pastes them into his thread everytime someone replies.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can tell when Col doesn't have a answer, because he drops into Ad Hom mode, which is most of his posts.

You'll notice that he shifts into Ad Hom with his very first response, indicating he never had an answer in the first place.

You sometimes wonder if he even bothers to read posts, or if he typed up a bunch of "Your argument is flawed and you are stupid" posts before hand and then just copies and pastes them into his thread everytime someone replies.

The point doesn't seem to be a discussion, but for us to find Colossians as brilliant as he does himself.

 

[Mish]

Question 1 concerns the motive and fulfillment of your God:
"Presuming your God has volition and desire, and presuming he desired to create, how was such desire fulfilled in allowing matter to evolve through chance mutations? Would you find such an activity personally fulfilling yourself?"

Irrelevant, I do not pretend to know what pleases God. Personally, I like to see carefully laid and intricate plans come to fruition, so yes, I might like it. But this has nothing to do with God. I don't not believe that the mutations were by chance however, as a TE, I believe in guided evolution.

Question 2 concerns the semantic of "creation" and is corollary to question 1:
"How is it that God can be attributed with creating what we see today, if he allowed matter to take its own course?"

Because he started it all off, and knew where it was all going. God allegedly has a great plan, I believe that he does.

Question 3 concerns the assurance of result, and is corollary to question 2:
"How is it that any result at all was guaranteed?"

God was in charge

Question 4 concerns omniscience, and is counter-corollary to question 3:
"How is it that evolution can be said to have proceeded by chance, if the Creator knew the exact result before he began? Would not his beginning the process simply invoke a foreknown destiny, thus pre-nullifying the purpose of chance evolution?"

I don't believe that man came about by chance, but the process of evolution does work by "chance". God can interfere with evolution to make man without changing its effect on other animals.

Question 5 concerns time and is partner to question 1:
"Given that time is irrelevant and a non-entity to an eternal God, what satisfaction did he derive from his waiting for things to take place? At what point in eternity did they take place? How much of eternity preceded their beginning? Given that eternity is undefined, how is it you are sure we are even here?"

If God is timeless and unchanging, what satisfaction can he derive from anything? However, the rest of your question is meaningless, there was no time before the universe, so there was no before and after, which is OK because God does not exist in time. You keep on talking of satisfaction, why? God don't need no satisfaction.

Question 6 concerns the pinnacle of creation, man, and the incarnation of Jesus Christ:
"If evolution took its own course, then how is it that man is in God's image? For if that which has formed by chance is in God's image, then God is a necessarily undefined. How could God's Son be guaranteed of a predetermined ministry?"

Man is in God's image because God created man through evolution, he knew where it was going. The next point not important, given my answer.

Question 7 concerns spiritual accountability:
"At what point in the evolutionary chain is a creature considered accountable to God? Why is an ape not accountable? What determines the line to be drawn? When was the line drawn? When the line was drawn, was it drawn unilaterally?"

Its obvious, only human are accountable to God, and they are only accountable when God first manifests himself to them. We are the only species that are human. God "drew" this line when he made us in his image.

Question 8 concerns the composite fabric of man and is companion to question 7:
"At what point did man receive a spirit? What was the point of receiving a spirit if he was alive without one? If you say he has no spirit, then how can you also declare that he has an afterlife ahead of him? If you say he has no afterlife, then what is the point of his current life, and what is the point of your debating?

The first man recieved his spirit from God, we may as well call him "Adam", but only for conveniance, you are asking for a line to be drawn that is not nesseary, God knows who had the first soul, I don't need to. The reason to receive a spirit is not to live, but to be aware of God.

Question 9 concerns your motive:
"What is your deepest motive for rejecting a short, direct, creation, given that such is possible for God to have done? If you say "the evidence", if it were in fact true that God did create in 7 days, how would things look any different?"

Evidence, and yes, nothing would please me more than if the bible were proven to be literaly true. As the world stands though, it is not, and I am much agreived by that.

Question 10 will sound familiar:
"How do you know there is a God"?

I don't, I believe there is a God. Buy some semantics in a shop. However, the reason I blieve is that God revealed himsef to me.

Hope that helps

 

[h2whoa]

What is truly lamentable is that Colossians' self-serving arrogance will tend to, by association, give Christianity a bad name.

I would wholeheartedly concur with that.

I sincerely hope that you guys don't automatically associate Christians with Colossians' ilk.

h2