The third question evolutionists can't answer

[Colossians]

In macro-evolutionary terms, explain how the desire to do what is not allowed, evolved.

 

[Freodin]

Irrelevant question.

As biologically there is no concept of "not allowed", this "desire" can not be explained by biology.

Or do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?

 

[Colossians]

A child cannot come from a non-existent parent. If your parent is evolution, then all must result from it.
If you cannot explain the issue presented, then it stands to reason that your parent is no parent at all.
If you then tell us instead that the issue is irrelevant, you are simply denying error.

 

[Silent Bob]

LOL I ve heard BS in my life but never had they been so thick! Thanks for the laugh mate.

 

[Arikay]

I rate the OP 0/10.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh dear. Colossions is playing the "here's a meaningless question, and I'm going to act all superior to anyone who points that out and say that obviously they're not clever enough to understand it"

This, folks, is the pathetic strategy that creationists are reduced to. Can anyone look at the meaningless drivel of Colossians and the blatant lies of Sixdaycreationist and still think that creationism is valid?

 

[h2whoa]

Irrelevant question.

As biologically there is no concept of "not allowed", this "desire" can not be explained by biology.

Or do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?

I agree.

Allowed/not allowed is a psychosociological issue determined by the rules of the society we live in.

The closest you could get I suppose would be that, as in other primates, we feel the need to challenge the dominant alphas of the group. This elevates position in a group and enhances the probability of passing on genes. In chimps and gorillas this means physical violence. In us it means physical violence and rebellion against the rules.

But your question is still not one of evolution.

Oh yeah 2 more things. The first two questions that you said evolutionists couldn't answer were answered. On top of this, you can't address your post "can't answer" if you are then expecting answers (which your are given).

h2

 

[Colossians]

So the last three comers have begun the usual train of fluff characteristic of their camp. Comedians in the wrong field.

If you can't answer the question, I win. It's quite simple.

 

[Colossians]

Allowed/not allowed is a psychosociological issue determined by the rules of the society we live in.
Question begging.

 

[Freodin]

A child cannot come from a non-existent parent. If your parent is evolution, then all must result from it.
If you cannot explain the issue presented, then it stands to reason that your parent is no parent at all.
If you then tell us instead that the issue is irrelevant, you are simply denying error.

Evolution is a theory that explains the biological structure of living beings. It does not explain the social or moral effects of this biological structure.

"Forbid" and "allow" are not biological concepts. They are social concepts, and thus not derived from Evolution.
If you are not willing to accept that, I can present you a fantastic question that disproves Christianity: How does Christianity explain that Britons still drive left?

Now the question why those wierd Brits do that may be relevant - but not in connection with Christianity. In the same way, your question has nothing to do with Evolution.

 

[Colossians]

It does not explain the social or moral effects of this biological structure.
You mean it cannot account for it.

 

[h2whoa]

Allowed/not allowed is a psychosociological issue determined by the rules of the society we live in.
Question begging.

I answered the question if you bothered to read the whole thing. I know that might be difficult as I did use polysyllabic words but do try.

You can't claim that no answer was given when one was.

It's still like asking how candy floss evolved though.

h2

 

[Freodin]

It does not explain the social or moral effects of this biological structure.
You mean it cannot account for it.

No, I mean: It does not explain it, nor does it try to.

Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?

If you could answer that, it would be easier for me to explain why your OP is irrelevant.

 

[Colossians]

I know that might be difficult as I did use polysyllabic words but do try.
Keep on with this bluff and you'll be hearing only non-syllabic words from me very shortly.

 

[Colossians]

, I mean: It does not explain it, nor does it try to.
Why doesn't it try to?

 

[h2whoa]

So the last three comers have begun the usual train of fluff characteristic of their camp. Comedians in the wrong field.

If you can't answer the question, I win. It's quite simple.

h2

 

[Freodin]

, I mean: It does not explain it, nor does it try to.
Why doesn't it try to?

Because it is the answer to a different question.

Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?

If you could answer that, it would be easier for me to explain why your OP is irrelevant.

 

[h2whoa]

I know that might be difficult as I did use polysyllabic words but do try.
Keep on with this bluff and you'll be hearing only non-syllabic words from me very shortly.

Praise God!

h2

 

[Colossians]

Could you answer the question from my first post?
Do you know a natural force that permits and forbid certain behaviours?
No. So you admit there is something other than the natural realm?

 

[h2whoa]

Creationists: don't forget to ignore the answer given here.