Dismantling theistic evolution with 10 questions

[Arikay]

And Col gets the 100 blessings. Although he seems to have failed to understand the basic points that Mish gave (I think his biggest problem is just not understanding what we are talking about) there was at least once where he at least tried to answer, and provided something other than, "your stupid, so your wrong and im right."

 

[Mistermystery]

Arty,

Your drop in the bucket is noted.

Your ego must be the most superb thing on the planet.

 

[yossarian]

as to gods involvement with evolution: he could have planned the environment to guide his imperfect replicators into the lifeforms he wanted - dictating the selective pressures IOW

 

[Jet Black]

as to gods involvement with evolution: he could have planned the environment to guide his imperfect replicators into the lifeforms he wanted - dictating the selective pressures IOW

yup. the odd thunderbolt here, radioactive decay there... a few solar flares to cool the sun a little. It's be like a game of SimEarth. anyone remember SimEarth. it made my computer chug something chronic, though it was a bit odd teaching your sentient tree cavemen about nuclear power

 

[Freodin]

(Mish)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’.)

Now that is an interesting question - but not one limited to TEs.

Could you explain, in very tangible terms, the mechanics of "creation"?

 

[Cassandra]

So....



Where are these 10 questions that are supposed to dismantle evolution?

 

[Rowell]

Argh, I wrote a big long responce to this and lost it when I somehow clicked on a Christian bookstore site. Sheesh, I'll try to summarize it now.

1. When mortal man thinks his opinion is God's opinion, misstakes are made. However, we CAN know how God thinks. How? Because he tells us in the Bible. Our minds and souls can only compute that which the brain tells us, and the brain is a physical object. Ergo, it understands physical stuff more than anything. However, it is not completely blind to the paranormal. Just like the fourth space/time dimension can be noticed by little ole us, we can't fully grasp it. However, peices of it affects us. Like God, we understand peices of him -- paranormal behaviors have passed down into the physical, so we call them "normal". Such as rational thought, irrational thought, emotions, and such. That is the basis of our interaction with the universe and our knowlegde of how God is, and even though we may not agree with his opinions, does that mean their wrong? Of course not. I could even go as far to say as whatever God decides is not wrong, because he's of infinite knowledge and not bound by the illusion of time on the events of the universe, so His love and His choice of justice are deserved.

2. These are 10 Questions for the Theistic Evolutionists, peoples. So athiests, jews, your ideas are the only ones void! The single most stupid thing said on this board was when someone responded to the questions "God's different to you than he is to me or them, so this arguement is void!" THAT'S STUPID! That's like saying that I think George W. Bush is a hero, you think he's a monster, and someone else goes "Well he's different to you guys!" It's just not so! Everyone here believes that God is of a definite way (unless your some kind of new ager), and that he either exists, doesn't exist, is always right, or usually wrong, omnipotent, or limited, and THAT is why we freaking argue!!!! ERGO, ::takes a breath::, these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity, to the literal, unquestionable Christian belief of literalism. Do you see athiest anywhere in that? Jew? Agnostic? Allah-lover? No, so why is your mouth moving, and furthermore why are you bashing the fundamentals of arguement?

 

[USincognito]

Welcome to the forum.

Now, about your post... Ummm, you do realize that Jews believe in God, and if they accept evolution, they would be Theistic Evolutionists right. I mean Genesis is their book for Pete's sake!

If you're going to come in to a new forum and start making all sorts of grand posts telling people how wrong they are, at least try not to make glaring, simplistic mistakes like that.

 

[Mistermystery]

1. When mortal man thinks his opinion is God's opinion, misstakes are made. However, we CAN know how God thinks. How? Because he tells us in the Bible.

And the bible is true because it says to be true, right?

2. These are 10 Questions for the Theistic Evolutionists, peoples. So athiests, jews, your ideas are the only ones void!

There is no diffrence between atheistical evolution and theistical evolution. If Collossian could really falsify evolution, it would affect all of us. Don't hold your breath though, Collosian so far only brings fan-boys, arguments from ignorance/incredubility, ad hom attacks, and nothing new to the table.

these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity,

Watch yourself that you don't go breaking any forum rules now.

 

[Oliver]

These are 10 Questions for the Theistic Evolutionists, peoples. So athiests, jews, your ideas are the only ones void!

He posted his question in a forum open to everyone, believer or not. And when someone (Gluadys IIRC) proposed that he move this thread in a more appropriate* forum, he refused. I can only conclude that although his questions are labeled "for the Theistic Evolutionists", his targeted audience is in fact larger. Besides, some of his points really address much more than the theistic evolutionist beliefs.

* that is, if he really didn't want answers from non-Christians

these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity, to the literal, unquestionable Christian belief of literalism.

Unquestionable? What do you mean by that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

1. When mortal man thinks his opinion is God's opinion, misstakes are made. However, we CAN know how God thinks. How? Because he tells us in the Bible.

So... are you suggesting that the Bible is free of "Mortal man's" opinion, and is a direct conduit to God?

The rest is snipped, because unless this is so, your argument falls flat.

2. These are 10 Questions for the Theistic Evolutionists, peoples. So athiests, jews, your ideas are the only ones void! The single most stupid thing said on this board was when someone responded to the questions "God's different to you than he is to me or them, so this arguement is void!" THAT'S STUPID! That's like saying that I think George W. Bush is a hero, you think he's a monster, and someone else goes "Well he's different to you guys!" It's just not so! Everyone here believes that God is of a definite way (unless your some kind of new ager), and that he either exists, doesn't exist, is always right, or usually wrong, omnipotent, or limited, and THAT is why we freaking argue!!!! ERGO, ::takes a breath::, these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity, to the literal, unquestionable Christian belief of literalism. Do you see athiest anywhere in that? Jew? Agnostic? Allah-lover? No, so why is your mouth moving, and furthermore why are you bashing the fundamentals of arguement?

Let me explain something to you about the fundamentals of argument:
Your rant here is little more than an Ad Hom which we'd expect from Col, although at least yours makes sesne.

A valid argument is still a valid argument no matter who says it. If neither you nor Colossians can provide a legitimate refutation to valid questions from Atheists and agnostics, then what will you do when a TE asks the exact same questions?

 

[Susan Sto Helit]

2. These are 10 Questions for the Theistic Evolutionists, peoples. So athiests, jews, your ideas are the only ones void! The single most stupid thing said on this board was when someone responded to the questions "God's different to you than he is to me or them, so this arguement is void!" THAT'S STUPID! That's like saying that I think George W. Bush is a hero, you think he's a monster, and someone else goes "Well he's different to you guys!" It's just not so! Everyone here believes that God is of a definite way (unless your some kind of new ager), and that he either exists, doesn't exist, is always right, or usually wrong, omnipotent, or limited, and THAT is why we freaking argue!!!! ERGO, ::takes a breath::, these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity, to the literal, unquestionable Christian belief of literalism. Do you see athiest anywhere in that? Jew? Agnostic? Allah-lover? No, so why is your mouth moving, and furthermore why are you bashing the fundamentals of arguement?

Bwahahahah! You are aware that Genesis was written by my ancestors, right? And that Orthodox Judaism is creationist, right? Please tell me you are aware that the Bible (Old Testament) was a Jewish book before Christianity even existed.

------SHH

 

[Rowell]

Of course I am aware. Maybe I was wrong to say that athiest and jews shouldn't be able to respond, of course, but I don't think they ought to bash the argument.

Secondly, I believe that the Bible is was written with divine intervention by God. So no, my arguement is not void.

Sorry, can't talk long. I must go.

 

[Bushido216]

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.

Hey! You're obnoxious! Jesus wasn't obnoxious! Be more like Jesus!

 

[WaZoO]

It appears we have a few theistic evolutionists in our midst: those who like to invoke evolutionary processes and tack God on for good measure.

People don't invoke evolution. Some devout christians are theistic evolutionists, they don't simply "tack God on".

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

The convoluted and confused notion of interpereting stuff and not ignoring good science?

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?"

Where does evolution say that God didn't create? Where does it say that evolution would not be as fulfilling as breathing life into dust?

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 God is omniscient, silly.

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

Evolution doesn't say any results are guaranteed, God may know the results, but random mutations and natural selection don't lead to anything except for better adaptation.

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?"

God is omniscient, but not omnipotent?

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?"

Why does God need to derive satisfaction from creation? Why would a perfect being need to create anyways, wouldn't that suggest that they are lacking something or desire something? How much eternity went on before God created the universe? I'm usre that I'm here because I'm typing this.

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?"

I think man in God's image is metaphorical, it doesn't necessary mean God has 2 arms, 2 legs, and a navel or anything like that.

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?"

I don't know, ask God.

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?

God can bestow a blessing unto anything that he pleases, next.

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?"

We wouldn't have a steady progression of life from simpler to more complex, and clear transitions in the fossil record.

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

I don't.

 

[WaZoO]

lol I should have read more of the thread, I was taking Colossians semi-seriously.

 

[Nathan Poe]

lol I should have read more of the thread, I was taking Colossians semi-seriously.

That's why the rest of us are here: to prevent these kind of mistakes from happening.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course I am aware. Maybe I was wrong to say that athiest and jews shouldn't be able to respond, of course, but I don't think they ought to bash the argument.

The person doing the most bashing here is Colossians himself. You see this pattern in every one of his threads:

He opens with a question which, although it may raise some interesting issues, is marred with a serious flaw: usually either a fundamental misunderstanding of the science or philosophy involved, or a sweeping generalization which simply does not apply.

As people try patiently to correct Col's error, he refuses to acknowledge it, in the process, shifting goalposts, ducking questions, and generally getting increasingly abusive towards the people he allegedly came to discuss with.

Eventually, as we fail to acknowledge his brilliance, he will declare victory and abandon this thread in a huff, only to begin a brand new thread containing an almost identical question, worded slightly differently.

In short, since Colossians seems intent on ignoring anyone who disagrees with him, I wouldn't worry too much about anyone "bashing" him.

But don't take my word for it: Open up any thread that Colossians has started, and the pattern becomes all too clear.

Secondly, I believe that the Bible is was written with divine intervention by God. So no, my arguement is not void.

So man was completely taken out of the loop? As men wrote the Bible, they had the Holy Spirit whispering every word verbatum into their ears?

They added nothing on their own? No imagery, no poetry, no hyperbole, no history?

In short, are you suggesting that not only were they "inspired" by God, they were, for lack of a better term, His ghostwriters? His puppets?

I can't think of a single Christian denomination that even tries to claim that the Bible came from God without any human intervention.

And wherever there are humans, there is exists the possibility for error.

 

[USincognito]

Bwahahahah! You are aware that Genesis was written by my ancestors, right? And that Orthodox Judaism is creationist, right? Please tell me you are aware that the Bible (Old Testament) was a Jewish book before Christianity even existed.

------SHH

If you could please directly answer a question I have had, up until this point, answered tangentally by ancient writings, but what are the current Jewish viewpoints on the literalness of Genesis?

 

[gluadys]

these questions challenge the highly questionable thiestic evolutionst belief that some think is not even adequate Christianity, to the literal, unquestionable Christian belief of literalism. Do you see athiest anywhere in that? Jew? Agnostic? Allah-lover? No, so why is your mouth moving, and furthermore why are you bashing the fundamentals of arguement?

Since when is literalism an unquestionable Christian belief?