Since turnabout is fair play, here are some questions for creationists:
1. If God created the universe, what created God? And if the answer is "nothing", why could not the universe have been created ab initio as well?
2. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that *something* created the universe, and that we can call that something "God". Is there any reason to believe that the God that created the universe has anything to do with the sacred writings of the world's religions?
3. Which came first, man or animals? Genesis 1 says animals were created first. but Genesis 2 says the animals were created after man in order to keep him company. (I note in passing that that plan didn't work out so well, so God finally wised up and created woman). Which is it?
4. Did God create mosquitos and plasmodium? Parasitic wasps? The Tsetse fly?
5. How did kangaroos get to Australia without leaving any trace on any other continent? How did the Texas blind salamander get to Texas?
6. Why did God make the Hawaiian Islands chain in just the right way to make it appear that the earth is billions of years old?
7. Where does the cosmic background radiation come from?
8. According to Genesis, the reason humans speak many languages is that they tried to build a tower to reach heaven and God "confused their language" in order to foil their plans. Is this story true? If so, why have our space probes not attracted God's ire, or even his attention? Has heaven moved?
9. Why are there fish that live in pitch darkness but still have eyes?
10. Why has there never been a dinosaur fossil found above the K-T boundary? And where did the Iridium come from?
11. Why did God put telomeric DNA in the center of chromosome 2 in humans?
12. Did Adam and Eve have to wipe their butts? No, seriously. The reason humans have to wipe their butts and other animals don't is that we walk upright, which presses our ass cheeks together. In evolutionary terms, walking upright goes hand-in-hand (so to speak) with having a brain big enough to figure out that you need to wipe the extra shit off, and hands nimble enough to actually do it. Was this all part of the Intelligent Design?
I think maybe I'll stop there :-)
I think #2 is the big one, and always ignored. There are lots of arguments about "first cause" and the origin of life and the universe, but none of those ever tie into Jesus or Mohammad or anything else.
ReplyDeleteI suppose their argument runs in reverse: we start with faith in the bible (or some other text), and only then ask, "is it possible that this god story is true?"
But you're absolutely right, that whatever you think of the evidence for evolution, or for some "god" creating life and the universe, there really isn't any signature of Jesus (or any of the others) in there.
Why is genesis clearly cribbed from a Zoroastrian creation myth and a Sumerian creation myth?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Don about the special importance of number two. Indeed it is an itch I've been been scratching
ReplyDeleteFor gods' sake!
ReplyDeleteIf you don't see creationism as the vanity of small people desperately trying to believe they are important in some cosmic scale then you're going to waste you time on this rubbish.
1. a singularity of such density does indeed have the properties of a self starting time machine
2. none
3. yes.
4.yes
5.very big jumps.
6.He's a sod, that one.
7.Public service broadcasting.
8.They missed.
9.forward planning.
10.the astroid impact reversed time
11. she was joking
12.specially trained dogs served.
> 5.very big jumps.
ReplyDeleteI actually asked this question (how kangaroos got to Australia) of a street evangelist once, and without missing a beat he replied, "They swam."
> If you don't see creationism as the vanity of small people
Of course I understand that. I know my chances of changing anyone's mind once it has already been made up are slim at best. But creationists aren't born, they are made. And one of the reasons that people become creationists is, I believe, that creationists treat them with (at least on the surface) more respect than Scientists do. My target audience here is not confirmed creationists, it's young people who are still on the fence.
If anything, you're a testament to their faith. Shut this blog down, go educate yourself and then re-open under an assumed alias.
ReplyDeleteA-a-glance... You commit a handful of logical fallacies; straw man, argument from fallacy, Fallacy of many questions, Argument from ignorance , Affirming a disjunct et al...
Randomly picked this one out of the hat for a purely theological debate:
The Bible is clear (in various places) about the existence of 3 heavens (some reference @ end).
1. The sky (where birds fly, the clouds).
2. The heavenly bodies (planets, stars etc).
3. God's dwelling place, external to space-time.
The God head was concerned with man succeeding with building a tower that reached Heaven (3rd definition, God's dwelling place). They were building a tower that reached the sky (1st definition)-- to make a name for themselves.
It was not even a concern if they would succeed with the task at all. It's obvious we have accomplished feats for definitions 1 & 2- again, not God's concern.
Everything in proper context:
God simply threw a wrench in man's plans to slow down human achievement to fit things within a prophetic time-line established (according to scripture) before time. It took approximately 2 thousand years for the world to go rogue pre-diluvian. The God head padded time in anticipation of a 2nd climatic conclusion of the world (yet to occur).
Genesis 11
6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Postmodern era:
Daniel 12
4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Future:
Matthew 24:22 - the end times being depicted here:
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
---------------------------
References:
[Genesis 1:8] “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”
[Deuteronomy 4:19] “And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. The plural form of “heavens” quite often is in reference to the stars beyond this solar system: the myriad of galaxies in the universe.
[II Corinthians 12:2] “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.”
---------------------------
> The Bible is clear (in various places) about the existence of 3 heavens
ReplyDeleteGenesis isn't clear about that at all. The Hebrew word used in the original text in all cases is "shamayim" which in modern Hebrew means both "sky" (the blue stuff) and "heaven" (where God lives). Modern Hebrew has a separate word, "challal" to mean "space" (where the planets are physically located) but AFAIK that word does not appear in the Bible, which is not surprising because the authors of the Bible were not aware that "challal" (space) was distinct from "shamayim" (heaven/sky). Genesis is clear that the heavenly bodies are in the "shamayim", e.g. "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven [shamayim]".
(And while we're on this point, Genesis is also clear that the shamayim is a "firmament that divides the waters from the waters" and that there is water both above and below the firmament. This makes perfect sense from a bronze-age point of view: the sky is blue because there's water up there! The word "shamayim" is even etymologically related to the word for water, which is "mayim". So the Hebrew word for "sky/heaven" plays to the native Hebrew speaker as something like "ur-water" does to an English speaker.)
> The God head was concerned with man succeeding with building a tower that reached Heaven (3rd definition, God's dwelling place).
Says you. The Bible is not specific about what God was concerned about. It simply says "And the LORD said: 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do."
> It was not even a concern if they would succeed with the task at all.
You've just contradicted yourself. You just said "The God head was concerned with man succeeding..." So which is it?
Let me put the question in a much simpler way: why did God feel the need to meddle then, but does not, apparently, feel the need to meddle now, when our capacity to achieve just about anything is vastly greater than it was then?
Your answer seems to be:
> God simply threw a wrench in man's plans to slow down human achievement to fit things within a prophetic time-line established (according to scripture) before time.
Really? Which scripture is that? My scripture says that in the BEGINNING, i.e. before ANYTHING else, God created the shamayim and the earth. Nothing about any timeline.
(BTW, if there is such a timeline, who created it? Is God obligated to follow it? If so, in what sense is God omnipotent?)
> go educate yourself
Ad hominem attack is always the last refuge of those defending untenable positions.
Have to split this up into 2 parts, character limitation.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to like loaded questions...
Genesis 11:4 shamayim sky.
2 Corinthians 12:2 [3rd heaven] Ouranos where God dwells.
Where the modern vernacular does lack, context implies. God’s communication to man in scripture is done in condescension. I see these silly arguments all over the Net. I came across an argument over Genesis 3:8. If God is all-knowing, why did He have to ask Adam and Eve where they were? In the Genesis narrative, it’s plain that God knew where they were, He was communicating with His creatures in a syntax that they could relate to.
Back to my point, this is why these people were attempting to build the tower:
”This will make us famous and keep us from being scattered all over the world.”
They were not attempting to reach God’s dwelling place. Nor was God concerned with them building a tower reaching up to where He dwelt. Scriptures indicate that God is invisible anyway. He does not live inside His creation (again using Biblical context).
Where did God live before He created the Universe, the Earth and everything in it? This is where He is now. Nothing moved relative to His creation.
Theological bodies and the academic community alike, interpret these passages simply as the construction of a ‘TALL’ building. I’ve come across a lot of debates and understandings about Babel and the language thing. I have never heard an interpretation indicating that they were building something to reach God’s dwelling place. In thought, I struggle arriving at this. I am not sure if this is something you concocted on your own or borrowed from somewhere else. In any event, you definitely hold a minority view- at best.
The NKJV translating team certainly didn’t understand it as you do:
3 They began saying to each other, “Let’s make bricks and harden them with fire.” (In this region bricks were used instead of stone, and tar was used for mortar.) 4 Then they said, “Come, let’s build a great city for ourselves with a tower that reaches into the sky. This will make us famous and keep us from being scattered all over the world.”
> (And while we're on this point, Genesis is also clear that the shamayim is a "firmament that divides the waters from the waters" and that there is water both above and below the firmament. This makes perfect sense from a bronze-age point of view: the sky is blue because there's water up there! The word "shamayim" is even etymologically related to the word for water, which is "mayim". So the Hebrew word for "sky/heaven" plays to the native Hebrew speaker as something like "ur-water" does to an English speaker.)
>> The God head was concerned with man succeeding with building a tower that reached Heaven (3rd definition, God's dwelling place).
> It was not even a concern if they would succeed with the task at all.
> You've just contradicted yourself. You just said "The God head was concerned with man succeeding..." So which is it?
Apologies for confusion, have been up a bit past curfew the entire month. But I wager you were capable of discerning this 'from context':
The God head was ‘NOT’ concerned with man succeeding with building a tower that reached Heaven (3rd definition, God's dwelling place).
Part 2 - apologies if there is an over-lap or gap...
ReplyDelete>Let me put the question in a much simpler way: why did God feel the need to meddle then, but does not, apparently, feel the need to meddle now, when our capacity to achieve just about anything is vastly greater than it was then?
Your answer seems to be:
> God simply threw a wrench in man's plans to slow down human achievement to fit things within a prophetic time-line established (according to scripture) before time.
>Really? Which scripture is that? My scripture says that in the BEGINNING, i.e. before ANYTHING else, God created the shamayim and the earth. Nothing about any timeline.
Since we understand that Genesis is not the only book of the Bible, there are a handful of verses both implied and explicitly mentioning this. Unless the above question is premature acknowledgment of limited knowledge of scripture… whether you agree with universally established theological understanding or not, list -for us- some of the obvious ones.
> (BTW, if there is such a timeline, who created it? Is God obligated to follow it? If so, in what sense is God omnipotent?)
Science unequivocally acknowledges the idea eternity. Most of science agrees with the idea that the Universe had a beginning. Some of science holds that the Universe arose out of nothing (but there are some physical laws currently standing in the way of this). You understand that creationist hold that God is an eternal being. Most Creationalist hold that He is omnipotent up to a point of but not including contradiction. He created space-time. He is in control of His creation. He allows free will within His creation (framework) governed by physical laws.
There exists a set of meta physical laws that obligate God to abide by certain rules.
> > go educate yourself
> Ad hominem attack is always the last refuge of those defending untenable positions.
My colleagues, professed agnostics, agree in unison that you lack adequate domain knowledge. Before I sent my post, I debated if would view my harsh comment as an Ad hominem logical fallacy. So, I decided to bait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem
Though I may have come across harsh, this does not imply that you’re right and I ‘m wrong. In all honesty it is apparent that you are not well researched or versed in scripture. As I have mentioned, your blog is a testament to their science and faith.
Your target audience is geared towards those who are either not well researched and/or new to these types of discussion circles. They stop by, you infect them false or misrepresented theology, you win a convert.
ad-hoc research and isolated reasoning doesn’t cut it. Know who you oppose.
> it is apparent that you are not well researched or versed in scripture
ReplyDeleteI believe I am better researched and more well versed in scripture than most people, though I freely confess I am no expert. But this is a comment thread for a post about creationism and creationism holds itself forward as a scientific theory, not a theological one. Accordingly, it has to answer to the standards of science, not theology. And about science I can assure you I am not ignorant.
If you want to educate me about your particular theology I am always happy to learn something new. But if you want to simply pronounce me ignorant and tell me to go educate myself my response is: there are too many competing theologies out there for me to learn about all of them. Life is short and so I have no choice but to focus my attention.
So if you want to have a theological conversation the burden is on you to tell me which theology we are talking about. If you want to have a scientific conversation then you're on my turf and, as I've already mentioned, your answers have to measure up to the standards of science, not theology. You tell me what kind of conversation you want to have (assuming of course that you really wish to engage me on this) and we can proceed from there.
Either way, if you really want to proceed we probably ought to open up a new thread so I don't have to manually approve all your comments. I have comment moderation turned on for old posts but it's just to prevent spam, not to exercise editorial control.
Very respectful replies. You have humbly convinced me to offer a formal apology for tone and tact.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about taking this into another thread. However, you raise a valid point, life is short.
You have my permission to reduce or omit the conversation entirely.
Thank you for playing fair.
There are far too many facets and we are severely limited. I cannot possibly know everything implied by a short written statement without going into a bit of discussion. We do not know what we do not know and we cannot possibly know everything at once. We do not even know 1/10 of 1% of everything. Some of us have better memories and are better orators. We have varying experiences and talents.
You do know your science and I am impressed with your Bible knowledge. I'm retiring from debates.
> You have humbly convinced me to offer a formal apology for tone and tact.
ReplyDeleteNo need, but appreciated (and accepted) nonetheless.
> You have my permission to reduce or omit the conversation entirely.
Nope. The only comments I delete are spam. You can delete your own if you feel the need, but I hope you don't. I thought what you had to say was interesting (despite being wrong ;-) and far from being out of bounds. I've seen a lot worse.
> Thank you for playing fair.
Again, no need. But thanks for noticing.
I hope I will hear more from you. Shoot me an email if you don't want the world to see.