Dismantling theistic evolution with 10 questions

[Vance]

The ultimate problem with every one of those questions is that they anthropomorphize God and bring Him down to our puny level. This is ironic since it is the YEC's who say that TE's don't give God a large enough role in Creation. The truth is that they have trouble realizing that God is ultimately SO FAR beyond our comprehension that it is just silly for us to ask the "why's". He's GOD.

It is like my son, back when he was two, trying to understand my job as an estate planning attorney. No, that is even too close. More like my DOG trying to understand it.

God told us what we need to know for salvation, which are the truths contained in Genesis. We can also figure out the skeletal outline of how and when He did things through the study of His creation itself. But to think that we can fathom the infinite power and wisdom of the creator of "life, the universe and everything" is a bit hubristic.

(and no, the answer is probably not 42). :0)

 

[Colossians]

when you start to contribute significantly more than your nervous one-liners, I will take you seriously.
When you start to contribute significantly more than your pitiful yet caustic attempts at wit, we might start taking you seriously.
So not only do you not take my advice and make response befitting of the OP, you repeat the error I advised you not to do.

 

[Arikay]

Hey look, one more post by Col that doesn't address any of the actual posts. How redundant.

Col, Ill give you 100 blessings if you actually address the serious posts here and back up your statements.
I get the feeling I will be keeping the 100 blessings and we will get another "I'm smart your stupid." posts by Col, but lets see.

 

[Colossians]

The ultimate problem with every one of those questions is that they anthropomorphize God and bring Him down to our puny level.
You contradict yourself: you invoke a God into your schema on the basis of your puny perceptions that a God who can achieve such and such is required for your schema to work. Thus you have already tacitly imputed to God the very 'puny' aspects you think to rid Him of here.

Apart from such contradiction, your statement is ethereal: no application is possible. All you have done is preclude any imaginable aspect of God, and label the nothing that is left over, as "God".
An argument which posits that no evidence is evidence, is no argument.


The truth is that they have trouble realizing that God is ultimately SO FAR beyond our comprehension that it is just silly for us to ask the "why's". He's GOD.
Obviously He's not so far above comprehension to be understood as being above comprehension. So your point is recursive, and therefore, moot.

 

[Colossians]

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.
Question number 9 which dealt with this. See whether you can answer it.

To go from "volition and desire" to "six-day creation" is a pretty huge non sequitur.
Not only is it not a non sequitur, it is not even a sequitur. Sequitors do not usually manifest themselves as "in the beginning".

 

[Vance]

The ultimate problem with every one of those questions is that they anthropomorphize God and bring Him down to our puny level.
You contradict yourself: you invoke a God into your schema on the basis of your puny perceptions that a God who can achieve such and such is required for your schema to work. Thus you have already tacitly imputed to God the very 'puny' aspects you think to rid Him of here.

Apart from such contradiction, your statement is ethereal: no application is possible. All you have done is preclude any imaginable aspect of God, and label the nothing that is left over, as "God".
An argument which posits that no evidence is evidence, is no argument..

What you are saying makes no sense at all. I do not invoke a God into anything. I start with the fact that God created everything, without attempting to limit when or how he can bring about this creation. Then I look at the creation itself to see how He did it. I do not start with evolution and then add God in. I am completely open to however He might have created, and the evidence shows that He created through evolution.

You, on the other hand, hold fast to the idea that God MUST have created only one way, based on your own literal interpretation. Thus, you start with a "schema" as you put it, and then limit God to that.

And, no, you are wrong, I do not preclude God from anything. I see God in everything. When I see that evolution took place, I know that God made that happen. You, on the other hand, limit God to actions which must fit your idea of what a God would do. God can not create through natural processes He established, He MUST have created through an immediate supernatural event.

Do you believe that photosynthesis takes place on its own, without each and every step of each and every process micromanaged by God? If not, and you see it as a natural process put in place by God, then you are, according to your definition, precluding any imaginable aspect of God.

Just ridiculous statements.

The truth is that they have trouble realizing that God is ultimately SO FAR beyond our comprehension that it is just silly for us to ask the "why's". He's GOD.
Obviously He's not so far above comprehension to be understood as being above comprehension. So your point is recursive, and therefore, moot.

Well, your point is not even intelligible, and therefore, not worth responding to.

 

[Colossians]

KingReaper,

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

I was attempting to answer your individual points, when I gave up, realising there are too many nested errors for me to refute it adequately.
Suffice to say: amoral does not mean immoral. God is amoral, because morality promotes the knowledge of good and evil, and God being the substantive of all things, has no need of that. Neither did he think Adam had any need of it.
Adam, and you, disagreed with Him.


Your immoral God cannot be trusted to keep his word and not torture true believers, so it is pointless worshipping him
If He can't be trusted, why on earth he put the notion in your mind that trustworthiness is a positive?

 

[Colossians]

Vance,

I do not invoke a God into anything. I start with the fact that God created everything,
Eh.... right..

without attempting to limit when or how he can bring about this creation.
How is it you think He created without desiring to create?


Obviously He's not so far above comprehension to be understood as being above comprehension. So your point is recursive, and therefore, moot.
Well, your point is not even intelligible, ..
To you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hey everybody! Colossians has deigned to join us commoners again!

I answered your OP, Col, but you seemed a bit overwhelmed.

Now that you've had some time to think, care to engage in a discussion?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Vance,

I do not invoke a God into anything. I start with the fact that God created everything,
Eh.... right..

without attempting to limit when or how he can bring about this creation.
How is it you think He created without desiring to create?

Who said He didn't desire to create?
The issue is whether He created in the way you insist that he did?

Obviously He's not so far above comprehension to be understood as being above comprehension. So your point is recursive, and therefore, moot.
Well, your point is not even intelligible, ..
To you.

Hey, Col, I have a challenge for you:

A single non-abusive post.
A Christian could do it without breaking a sweat.
Think you're up to it?

 

[Vance]

Vance,

I do not invoke a God into anything. I start with the fact that God created everything,
Eh.... right..

Ah, brilliant response. Now you are calling a fellow Christian a liar. I am sorry that theistic evolution destroys all your carefully developed preconceptions about evolution and those who believe it and why. It must be very frustrating, I know. But you need not resort to calling people liars.

 

[ego licet visum]

We shall easily dispense with this convoluted and confused thought with 10 questions:


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?"

Do programmers/engineers become satisfied after one of their programs that mimics evolution creates a working product? Yes, they do. I would think that knowing enough about a system so that you can get incredible results with just a few changes to the system would actually be more satisfying that just creating everything instantly yourself with no thinking or work. Its like the difference between painting a picture and buying one.

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?"

Even if something indirectly does something, that does not mean they are not responsible for it.

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

Omniscience obviously.

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?"

Its still random, God just knows what is going to happen for two reasons :
A. Hes omniscient
B. Hes a cheater and made it that way.

Besides, whether or not the mutations that occurr produce random effects or not doesn't affect evolution.

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?"

I think therefore I am. I know I am here, thats all that matters. And I doubt God would be impatient. Perhaps he got the process started and enjoyed watching stuff happen on its own. Its like those crazy videos where they have a whole sequence of stuff happen that is completely useless but entertaining because of its creativity.

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?"

Omniscience.

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?"

God would draw the line where he wants it to be. Perhaps the physical aspects of humanity evolved, but the soul was "created" and that difference is the line.

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?

What purpose is the current life? Enjoy it, its all you will get. Whats the point of getting a soul? I don't know, I doubt souls exist but if they did I would say the point is along the lines of sentience, creativity, sophistication.... something like that.

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?"

Becaues its been disproven.

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

Doesn't apply to me. But I know that Genesis is false, because everything I have ever experienced involving geology, biology, archaeology etc... has been contradictory to it.

 

[Vance]

Doesn't apply to me. But I know that Genesis is false, because everything I have ever experienced involving geology, biology, archaeology etc... has been contradictory to it.

See, there, all you YEC's?! This is what you are causing. Now, how hard to you think it would be for ego to come to be a Christian with this belief in the absolute contradiction between the evidence about evolution and the age of the earth and the Bible? Why are you YEC's continuing to agree with atheists in this lie? I run smack into this "stumbling block" all the time in my efforts to spread the Gospel. I spend half my time trying to undo the damage done by YEC teaching.

(ego, sorry to use you as an example).

 

[ego licet visum]

lol. I can guarantee that it is not YECism that made me an atheist or is keeping me one. No one could convince me to be a theist other then myself, and at least for right now I know with 100% certainty that that is not an option for me right now. The fundamentalism that is tied with YECism that keeps me from trusting any Christians as much as I probably should when talking about theology.

P.S. no problem about the example.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I spend half my time trying to undo the damage done by YEC teaching.

Obviously you need to be spending ALL you time cleaning up the YEC mess!

Slacker.

 

[Vance]

Obviously you need to be spending ALL you time cleaning up the YEC mess!

Slacker.

. . . my own little corner . . .

 

[Nathan Poe]

. . . my own little corner . . .

Well, you do what you can with what you have....

Hey, Colossians is back on the viewing list! No doubt preparing to drop his next nugget of wisdom on us...

 

[ego licet visum]

Hey, Colossians is back on the viewing list! No doubt preparing to drop his next nugget of wisdom on us...

*puts on tinfoil hat

Bring it on.

 

[Colossians]

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.
Illogical: you tacitly declare that God does what it does not please Him to do
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.
Yes it does: images reflect that which they are the image of. And how do you know it has nothing to do with God? Did He tell you?
I don't not believe that the mutations were by chance however, as a TE, I believe in guided evolution.
Explain in very tangible terms, the mechanics of such ‘guiding’. (Hint: try to reconcile the inherent passivity of evolution with the inherent activeness of ‘guiding’.)




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.
See question 4 then.
God allegedly has a great plan,
Who alleged it?




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
What does that mean in practical terms? (Refer to my response to you at question 1.)




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,
Then how can it be said that he evolved?
God can interfere with evolution to make man without changing its effect on other animals.
Now how could that be the case when man is supposed to have evolved from those animals, with the result that those animals no longer exist? Further, once you break the rule once, you have broken it for all concerned. If you change history even by one second, you alter millions of lives and events.
See also whether you can answer the question “Would not his beginning the process…….?”





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?"
there was no time before the universe,
No? Then how was there a before? You’re saying that the universe came into being in zero time? How can a physical system arise in zero time?

God don't need no satisfaction.
No. But he’s no Mick Jagger either.





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.
Either it was going on its own, or He was doing everything: you can’t have it both ways. Knowing where something is going is not the same thing as determining where it is going. Again, see response at Q1.




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 begging.




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",
How did you find this out?

The reason to receive a spirit is not to live, but to be aware of God.
Pretty hard to be aware of God if you are not alive.







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?"
nothing would please me more than if the bible were proven to be literaly true.
Do you think that perhaps the reason you would be pleased by this is that God designed you to be pleased by it? Accordingly, do you think that it might indeed be literally true, but that you have been indoctrinated by those who would not derive the same pleasure as you would?





Question 10 will sound familiar:
"How do you know there is a God"?
I don't, I believe there is a God…. However, the reason I blieve is that God revealed himsef to me.
So you believe he revealed himself to you, or you know he revealed himself to you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.
Illogical: you tacitly declare that God does what it does not please Him to do
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.
Yes it does: images reflect that which they are the image of. And how do you know it has nothing to do with God? Did He tell you?
I don't not believe that the mutations were by chance however, as a TE, I believe in guided evolution.
Explain is very tangible terms, the mechanics of such ‘guiding’. (Hint: try to reconcile the inherent passivity of evolution with the inherent activeness of ‘guiding’.)

And what are the motive and fulfillement of your God, Col?

Speaking on behalf of the rest of the thread, Col, I'm a bit curious as to what God may or may not have told you, and what makes you think it's right, and your fellow Christians are wrong.

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.
See question 4 then.
God allegedly has a great plan,
Who alleged it?

Christians. The whole belief, TE or YEC, is that God has a plan for His creation: True or false?

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
What does that mean in practical terms? (Refer to my response to you at question 1.)

It means God is God, and is running the show regardless how how it's performed. What did you think it means?

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,
Then how can it be said that he evolved?

Because evolution is more than "just chance."
Seriously, Col, you know this already.

God can interfere with evolution to make man without changing its effect on other animals.
Now how could that be the case when man is supposed to have evolved from those animals, with the result that those animals no longer exist? Further, once you break the rule once, you have broken it for all concerned. If you change history even by one second, you alter millions of lives and events.
See also whether you can answer the question “Would not his beginning the process…….?”

If you believe in an extremely limited God, I suppose you're right.

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?"
there was no time before the universe,
No? Then how was there a before? You’re saying that the universe came into being in zero time? How can a physical system arise in zero time?

There wasn't. The "Big Bang," rather than an explosion, was an expansion of spacetime.
Of course, what happened at t=0 is a bit fuzzy. The rules as we know them probably didn't apply there.

God don't need no satisfaction.
No. But he’s no Mick Jagger either.

And you accuse us of nervous one-liners. How sad.

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.
Either it was going on its own, or He was doing everything: you can’t have it both ways. Knowing where something is going is not the same thing as determining where it is going. Again, see response at Q1.

Of course you can and of course it is! If you roll a snowball down the south side of a hill, it's a pretty good assumption that it's not going to end up in a heap on the north side.

Again, the God you're talking about seems to have very little foresight.

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 begging.

What question is being begged? That God holds people accountable?

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",
How did you find this out?

I'm guessing "The Bible" is too obvious an answer, so why don't you tell us?

The reason to receive a spirit is not to live, but to be aware of God.
Pretty hard to be aware of God if you are not alive.

Sounds like you misread the answer. "Spirits" don't make us alive, they make us 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?"
nothing would please me more than if the bible were proven to be literaly true.
Do you think that perhaps the reason you would be pleased by this is that God designed you to be pleased by it? Accordingly, do you think that it might indeed be literally true, but that you have been indoctrinated by those who would not derive the same pleasure as you would?

Of course, this is a possibility, albeit a remote one. For this to be true would involve the most massively worldwide historical conspiracy on both the humans and supernatural levels.

It would mean that every single scrap of evidence we've ever seen was either falsely planted by a higher power for the purpose to deceive, or obfuscated by scientists for centuries as part of a massive anti-Bible cover-up, or, most likely, both.

Think about it: You want us to believe that humans have misinterpreted (accidentally or deliberately doesn't matter at this point) every bit of evidence which refutes a literal reading of the Bible. Now, let us assume for a moment that this is indeed the case, that the sum total of scientific study is a mess of incompetence and/or malice.

That only explains the evidence which is there. What about what we don't see?

Colossians, for the Bible to be literally true, for the Earth to be young, would you not agree that there are certain tell-tale signs that we would undoubtably have noticed? Would you also not agree that those signs have not been found?

(well, you probably wouldn't, but that's a topic for another thread)

In any case, Man can hide or misinterpret physical evidence from the Earth and the Stars, but only a God could make it disappear.

Why would he do it, Col? Why would He lie to us?

Question 10 will sound familiar:
"How do you know there is a God"?
I don't, I believe there is a God…. However, the reason I blieve is that God revealed himsef to me.
So you believe he revealed himself to you, or you know he revealed himself to you?

I ask you the same question, Colossians.
Which do you have: Fact or faith?