Questions Evolutionists can't answer

[Papias]

Sorry for the delay. I was up in a tree deer hunting (bow and arrow) and there aren't electrical sockets in most oak trees. If trees were directly designed, I've had included internet connections on them.


I've Been wrote:

The mantisplosion did not happen, I am aware of this. I meant that if that is what God had intended, it would be good because that's what he saw fit for his own purpose. God made Adam and Eve, one couple. It was perfectly functional. What do you think?

I think that's a problematic way to approach thinking about things. You are saying that anything that God does is good because God did it. The problem is that by doing that, you eviscerate any meaning from the concept "good", because it then has no inherent meaning. Another way to think about this is it imagine, hypothetically, that you were transported to a parallel universe where Satan was in charge. Would then all of Satan's actions be considered "good"? What meaning would "good" have then? Basically, calling all of any entity's actions inherently good by definition makes good a meaningless term, and as a result means that you end up being unable to any longer maintain that God is good in any real sense.

That's why I maintain that saying God would intentionally design a non-functional or obviously stupid design is insulting God.

There is a distinction between suckling/weaned children here, and young animals. The young animals are safe around the once vicious leopards and wolves and lions, which will eat straw. Is that stupid? Is that non-functional?

As has been pointed out, this is part of an extended metaphor. It means things will be peaceful, not that carnivores will literally eat things that they can't digest.

No, because if you reject all information from humans, than you reject the plea for help, because that is information from humans (how do you know the beggar isn't a rich conman, like eddie murphy in trading places?). So my point is that if you reject all information from humans, you are indeed all that I said. Plus, you didn't answer my earlier questions. Did you not first hear of Jesus from a human?

Papias

Did I not say most, and not all, of what man teaches?

The problem is that you cited the fact that man teaches something as a reason to reject that thing. If you are going to reject some things for a given reason, yet when that same reason applies, not reject other things, than you aren't really using that reason. So be honest, the fact that man teaches it is not the reason you are rejecting it, but you are rejecting it for other (actually better) reasons.

What you are actually doing in rejecting some of what man teaches and accepting other things man teaches is using your own reason and evidence to sort them out, which is in general a good approach. I'm just suggesting that you be honest about it - that helps everyone, including yourself.

What am I taught by man wherever I turn? Pre-marital sex is ok. Just use condoms. Watch television, because we can delight in the sins of fictional characters and it's alright. All religions lead up the same path. Evolution happened over millions of years. Buy buy buy. You need health insurance. You need car insurance. You need to vote, and become part of a system that judges and condemns and enslaves rather than forgives. Women, you need to wear make-up and diamonds. And keep up with the fashion. Your children need to play with gadgets and toys to learn their ABC's.

Many of the things you list I too disagree with. Again, just as with you, not because man teaches them, but because they are obviously harmful, which you figured out. There is nowhere in most Bibles that says not to watch television or not to let your kids have electronic toys, for instance.

It's about discernment, not shunning everything you hear. I never said I can't trust man on any account.

Sounds like we agree here. So maybe it's better not to say things like "these things can't be trusted because man teaches them.".

That being said I do not trust what the secular or liberal man has to say about Adam and Eve. Genesis 2 is "the generations of", an historical account, of the beginning. The Genesis.

An was it a human that told you to interpret Genesis 2 literally?

Let God be true and every man a liar. This requires discernment of whether or not what a man says is of God. If it is of God it is true.

So if something is clearly true based on a lot of evidence, then it must be of God? For instance, there is a lot of evidence for heliocentrism, which contradicts a literal reading of most Bibles, so the truth (heliocentrism) is of God, right?


Papias

P.S. Yes, I saw from your other post that you recognize that there is plenty of metaphor in the Bibles, including in your .sig.
​

 

[TheUnwanted]

So none of you evilutionists can adequately explain horseshoe crabs huh? You loose!

 

[crawfish]