Creationism In the Jaws of the Lion

Lion TeethWhen I was a creationist, I thought life on the earth was “intelligently designed” by God. It was common sense — it looks designed, so it must be. I didn’t realize how quickly the argument degraded into a web of inconsistencies.

Consider a lion. A creationist looks at one and thinks, “What agility! What speed! What skills! This must be created by God.” It’s a common sense explanation, and people believed such things for thousands of years, because they didn’t have a better explanation. The best they could come up with was “magic man done it.”

Killing Machines

Pullquote: Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

But after a while the thoughtful observer notices that these amazing creatures cause an immense amount of death and suffering. Indeed, they are very quick — the better to catch living things and snuff the life out of them. They have beautiful sharp teeth — the better to eat you with, my dear.

If lions were designed, they were designed to be killing machines. Life is based on death. And that realization should make any honest creationist pause.

I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s observation in The Diary of Adam:

[Eve] engages herself in many foolish things; among others; to study out why the animals called lions and tigers live on grass and flowers, when, as she says, the sort of teeth they wear would indicate that they were intended to eat each other. This is foolish, because to do that would be to kill each other, and that would introduce what, as I understand, is called “death”; and death, as I have been told, has not yet entered the Park. Which is a pity, on some accounts.

Once a creationist realizes life is designed to kill, they are faced with a theological problem: what kind of malevolent, sadistic designer would design this?

Hello, Superstition

Pullquote: The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence.

This is where the common sense stops, and the superstition begins. If you ask most creationists why there is death in the world, they will tell you the ancient story of Adam and Eve. They believe there was no death before the forbidden fruit was munched on. You might find it a satisfying answer, as long as you don’t think about it too much and are the type to believe in stories with talking snakes.

But if you start getting specific, the mythic spell is broken and you’re left with absurdity. Before “The Fall,” how could carnivores have survived on only plants when they were biologically “designed” to eat meat? Why would they have sharp teeth designed to pierce skin if they were supposed to eat grass? And if they didn’t die or eat each other, wouldn’t the earth be overflowing with insects and animals within a few weeks? What did the venus flytrap eat if it couldn’t eat insects? How did mosquitoes suck on plants instead of blood? What about parasites? There are thousands of questions like this, all requiring a creationist to to perform amazing feats of logical gymnastics.

The myth of Adam & Eve was a noble attempt to explain death and suffering, but it is ultimately a theological nightmare and at odds with all our scientific evidence. It is, in other words, completely unconvincing to the modern rationalist.

Occam’s Razor says the simplest theory that answers all the problems is the best choice. Creationism requires jumping through so many theological and scientific hoops that it is anything but simple.

Use Science, Not Myths

The simpler answer, of course, is based on science, not common sense and ancient myths — the explanation that evolution did it without supernatural intervention. Then all the theological problems go away, and they become scientific and philosophical issues to discover or formulate.

So next time you see a mosquito sucking blood and spreading diseases, or a lion catching and devouring prey, be thankful we have a better explanation than that our ancestors ate some fruit.

  • Sock

    One thing that’s always stumped me about the idea of creationism is faces.

    Why does practically everything have a face, with the eyes/nose/mouth located very close to one another? If anyone could answer that, I’d appreciate it.

    • Gaki

      “Why does practically everything have a face, with the eyes/nose/mouth located very close to one another? If anyone could answer that, I’d appreciate it.”

      When your sensory organs are close to where you intake food, you get more food.

      • Ike

        So Fish & Herbivore birds or insects don’t get as much food as carnivores? You basic this Scientific FACT on what may I ask?

    • DDM

      Sock, that can easily be explained by “magic man done it.” Easily.

      • http://provisionalascent.net Nick

        Absolutely EVERYTHING can be explained by “magic man done it.”
        Does that mean that “Goddidit” is the original Grand Unified Theory?

        That alone means “magic man done it” can explain nothing.

    • dfx

      “When your sensory organs are close to where you intake food, you get more food.”
      false.

      faces are simple- proximity to the brain, the longer it takes for signals to reach their ‘processing unit’ the more likely an animal is going to suffer from reaction time related deaths.

      prior to the discovery of brontosaurus being a myth, people used to think it had two brains for this exact reason.

      One question I have always had for evolution is the mating process….Why do we find undesirable traits undesirable? what makes certain deformities attractive to us.
      This answer is simple if you don’t think about it- We look to reproduce traits in our offspring that will be likely to survive.
      However, this throws a wrench in the works of evolution, IMO….if someone else wants to explain i would love to hear it.

      • Ty

        ““When your sensory organs are close to where you intake food, you get more food.”
        false.

        faces are simple- proximity to the brain, the longer it takes for signals to reach their ‘processing unit’ the more likely an animal is going to suffer from reaction time related deaths. ”

        Ummmm, no, it’s not false. The most important repeated activity in any animal’s life is the acquisition of food. When he says “you get more food” and you say “the longer it takes for signals to reach their ‘processing unit’ the more likely an animal is going to suffer from reaction time related deaths” you are actually largely saying the same thing.

        While there are lots of things that can cause a creature’s death, failure to collect enough food is the one most likely to lead to the extinction of its species. Remember, evolution works on populations, not on individuals.

        “This answer is simple if you don’t think about it- We look to reproduce traits in our offspring that will be likely to survive.
        However, this throws a wrench in the works of evolution, IMO….if someone else wants to explain i would love to hear it.”

        You are not asking a question that makes any sense, so there is no sensible way to answer it.

    • Olaf

      Not all life has a face like this.

    • http://N/A Brian

      Similarity of faces is due to common ancestry. Simple.

  • Bender

    They believe there was no death before the forbidden fruit was munched on.

    As stupid as it is believing a tale, that isn’t even acurate. In Genesis 2.17 god tells Adam that if he eats the fruit he will die. Actually it sounds more like a warning that a prohibition. And then in 3.22, after the snake tells A&V the truth about the fruit, and god is all pissed off, he kicks them out of the garden “lest they eat the fruit from the tree of life and live forever”. Obviously if god took the trouble of creating a tree specifically for not dying it means all creatures are supposed to die.

    Nothing in the tale makes any sense, at least with a supposedly omniscient god. Either he knew exactly what was going to happen, in which case he’s solely responsible and there is no such thing as “original sin”, or he didn’t, and he’s therefore not omniscient. In fact, god looks like an idiot, outmanouvred by a fucking reptile.

  • Fleegman

    You know, something never actually occurred to me until reading this blog post, and I haven’t heard this one before.

    It goes like this: Putting aside everything ELSE we know to be totally inconsistent and silly with the Adam and Eve myth, why was anything in the garden eating AT ALL? Why did they have mouths (assuming they did, of course, and the whole mouth itself wasn’t an invention of the fall)? If there was no death before the fall, what was the point of eating?

    • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

      “Why did they have mouths” lol well said. why have flesh at all? why not just be created as spirits or angels? I’m surprised dinosaurs weren’t mentioned. They were unbelievable killing machines. My counter argument to young earth is always the speed of light. We can measure how long light took to reach us. There are galaxies whose light took billions of years to reach us. I highly recommend any young earth believer pick up a telescope.

      • John C

        Originally, they were predominantly spiritual in construct, but the fall lowered them into the beastly condition that we see now. They became subject to death and decay due to their yielding to the prince of this (lower) realm/world. If you ask the Hebrew scholars about Genesis 3.21 where it says that God clothed them with tunics, (skin) many will tell you that in the original language that word is best described as “skin of woe” meaning now subject to pain, limitation. See Christ in the NT after the resurrection, His body looked like a normal physique but He could walk through walls, was not limited by matter. So were we prior to the fall and so will we be again.

        • Fentwin

          What is the point in creating a spiritual lion, tiger, bear, or everybody’s favorite the tapeworm? Or dinosaurs for that matter? Why create a sprirtual “something” that you supposedly know will go extinct?

          • http://provisionalascent.net Nick

            How much does a spiritual being weigh?

            What is its charge? does it have integer or half-integer spin?

            At what wavelengths does it emit photons, and at what temperature?

            How does a spirit interact with matter? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Strong orce? Weak force?

            • Fentwin

              Exacadactaly :)

            • trj

              Probably strong orcs.

            • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

              Nick:

              “How much does a spiritual being weigh?

              What is its charge? does it have integer or half-integer spin?

              At what wavelengths does it emit photons, and at what temperature?

              How does a spirit interact with matter? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Strong orce? Weak force?”

              You’re talking silly reason and logic nonsense. This earthly physical world = stupid and worthless. You silly, silly fool. Your post is laughable in this context.

              Talking this stupid sense with your little thinking and pointlessly logical brain. Your sense, logic and brain are nothing compared to your spirit/soul.

              You’re so confined in that little brain of yours! Learn to meditate and expand out into the vastness of this universe. You can feel the glory of God without leaving your chair! You can touch the face of God with little effort. You need to connect – you need to feel the presence of the almighty Creator. If you seek – HE will come. You just need to seek.

            • Sunny Day

              Shush, Edgar!

            • http://www.CelebrationOfReason.com BrainUser

              Vidlord,

              That’s rich! “Touch the face of God with little effort.”

              And I can touch Allah and Buddha and Zeus, etc.

              You’re absolutely right–all it takes is a vivid imagination and subduing the logic and reason that works so well at actually accomplishing anything.

              Thankfully, I find reality rocks and don’t need to rely fairy tales.

            • Custador

              Um…. Is somebody posing as VidLord, because that really doesn’t read like one of his posts…

            • Sunny Day

              different vidlord, if the email address changes it generates a new icon.

              See

            • http://N/A Brian

              Yes! You need to self-brainwash with nobody meddling, and you too can convince yourself to see, feel and hear anything you want! Just like psychos do, only we haven’t had to Baker Act you, yet…

        • Aor

          Keep trying to walk through those walls, crazyman.

        • Dave

          I find it interesting that John must interpret the true meaning of his bible for the rest of us. For example, if one bible uses the words tunics, John is able to show us that in an older version of the bible, in the Hebrew language, it’s not “tunics” but “skin of woe.”

          Perhaps John’s bible got it wrong, and the new versions of the bible got it right. Or maybe no version of the bible is right. The various bibles all share one thing in common: simple-minded fairy tales in which the uncritical and unbalanced can put their faith.

          “If you ask the Hebrew scholars, [snip[ many will tell you”

          John, you have enough knowledge of the total number of Hewbrew scholars, past and present, to decide what constitutes “many” of them? What, is it 80%, 50%, 35%? Whence comes this knowledge of yours?

          If I’m not a Hebrew scholar, how can I know which version of the bible is correct, and which is false?

        • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

          “Originally, they were predominantly spiritual in construct”

          And you know this how?

      • Alexis

        “I highly recommend any young earth believer pick up a telescope.” What? A tool of the devil? A distorter of the senses? I was at a meeting where a young teenager asked “What’s red shift?” Before a friend of mine had two sentences out of his mouth about the speed of light, the boy’s fundy dad had sped across the hall (20 x 40 ft.) yelling “It’s only a theory, it’s only a theory!”

  • trj

    Next time a creationist blathers on about death not existing before the Fall, ask him to explain Genesis 3:22:

    “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.”

    Adam & Eve were kicked out of Eden before they managed to become immortal as well as intelligent. In other words, they were mortal before the Fall.

    Also, what would be the purpose of a tree of life in a garden without death?

    Furthermore, wouldn’t the plants die when they were eaten by animals?

    • John C

      TRJ: That verse you reference (Gen 3.22) means that God did not want (fallen) man to eat of the tree of life after the fall lest he remain in his perverted, fallen condition forever. If he had eaten of it then, he would never have the opportunity to return to his original condition in the Father. The tree of life is Christ, grace which is singular in nature and the tree of the knowledge of good & evil is the law, a duality, a good AND evil. Christ is the tree of life, this is why we hear Him saying that we must “eat His body, drink His blood” in the NT.

      • trj

        Christ is supposed to be the essence of forgiveness. So what you’re essentially saying is that Adam and Eve were not allowed to be forgiven for their sin. God purposely denied them forgiveness.

        • John C

          No, not at all. Adam & Eve never asked, but rather in their shamed and fallen state felt apart from, separated from the Father who was their life up until that point. The thought (mercy, forgiveness) did not occur to them since they had just eaten (partook of) the tree of death, not life. The fallen man naturally shrinks from God (UF forum for proof), does not believe, pursues his own desires and must now find life within himself (having become like God in that way).

          God is love and mercy, that is what is available to each of us today in Christ, the tree of Life. God never stopped pursuing his beloved children, even today He chases you to the uttermost, here in this darkened corner of (unbelieving) cyberspace.

          • trj

            I’m sorry, John, but I really can’t take an explanation involving a literal Adam and Eve seriously. I have a preference for reality.

            • Sunny Day

              I guess you have to ask someone in order to be forgiven. I guess Gawd is so petty he will not forgive you unless asked. That puts me 1 up on him, I forgive people all the time without ever telling them or making a big production out of how they harmed me and are therefore in need of my forgiveness.

              Gawd must be a Drama Queen.

            • John C

              So have it Your way TRJ, all the best.

            • Ty

              Yes, trj, your insistent on reality based thinking makes baby Jesus cry.

            • trj

              A 2000 year old baby. He ought to be used to it.

            • Ty

              I believe my insistent on not spelling insistence correctly also makes him cry.

              Him, or the grammar fairy. I get those two confused a lot.

            • trj

              Invisible beings do tend to look alike.

            • Yoav

              This baby jesus sure cry a lot. It’s about time someone gave him a good spanking and told him to stop trowing tuntrums and start acting his age.

          • http://gettherealskinnyoneve.wordpress.com Dawn Davidson

            John C. I am otherwise so with you, (loved your earlier answer especially!) but a fallen female did confess in Genesis 3:13, and is hence the reason why God turned to curse the serpent in Genesis 3:14 and is also why, even according to the foreknowledge of God she received the name of an “Eve” as life-giver (speaking to the spiritual and not the physical, else a fallen but un-confessed and still arrogant Adam would have also been “father of all living” which he was not. Yet even a murderous Cain humbled himself enough before God to seek his protection).

            The accepted and honored confession of the female (I say “female” because, speaking to her identity, due to the rebellious acts of a soon to be punished Adam, she did not even rightly receive her name as “Eve” until post-fall with Adam having called her “Woman” in Genesis 2:23 instead) is even why it is she and not an “Adam” (meaning to be a hypocrite and a mean man of low degree) who is used and placed by God in Genesis 3:15 in a position of enmity against the serpent, and through the precious work of One to come, a future place of victory over the enemy). Genesis 3:16 is not punishment for the female and is not at all as the traditional male pulpit claims in its interpretation. In fact as fallen but rightly confessed, (for Christians a state we all seek to obediently obtain) it is a garden “Eve” who proved to represent the Church and even foreshadowed the work of a Christ to come in the garden, never a fallen, un-confessed Adam ultimately representing the world. Only God is perfect, he never even expected them to be, which is why he prepared the confession in the first place but someone (preferably both but not) had to elect to show respect for the things of a holy God and actually rightly employ it.

            For those of us who are believers, but for the just confession of the female (given the lack of right confession by a garden Adam), a righteous God could not have continued to justify our existence. And yet, despite and in relentless suppression of this, it is the gender of her daughters who have been subjugated (not that even a man should be either).

            In general to the page here I have to say, I still have much to learn (and I mean much), and there is obviously a high level of knowledge, however, when it comes to quoting and seeking to interprete Scripture, and specifically in the garden, one cannot simply isolate a circumstance (even regarding the animals), or a word, or a verse, in and of itself, without a fuller understanding of the Hebrew and the process(es) of God’s revelatory acts, (even what and how a righteous God of foreknowledge thinks, creates, and therefore even judges), and then assume to demonstrate right understanding within the confines of largely secular knowledge and application. I have been there and I can attest to what a difference an actual study of the word makes.

            Much peace.

            • Dave

              Dawn wrote: “however, when it comes to quoting and seeking to interprete [sic] Scripture, and specifically in the garden, one cannot simply isolate a circumstance (even regarding the animals), or a word, or a verse, in and of itself, without a fuller understanding of the Hebrew”

              The god of the bible must have been some kind of dunce to have thought that humans would settle on Hebrew. A true god could simply have made the bible understandable by everyone.

            • http://gettherealskinnyoneve.wordpress.com Dawn Davidson

              Written in Response to Dave (re: that humans would settle on the Hebrew)

              “a true god could simply have made the bible understandable by everyone.”

              And it is with a good concordance. You just simply look up the word based upon its reference location. You don’t have to speak, write, or be fluent in the Ancient Hebrew or the Greek for that matter, great if you are but in today’s world not necessary.

              The word is timeless because it precepts and teachings speak of a God who is himself of the Eternal, and yet who at the same time, revealed such things within the confines of a physical world and particular to yes, a certain group of people, individuals, and even span of time. But just as so many other worthy things written through the ages of time require well deserved investigation of the original interpretation, be it in the french, greek, or latin (etc.) so does the bible. I know not to you but to me a book most worth the effort (although still, simply using a concordance doesn’t even take much).

            • Sunny Day

              Which version of the bible should someone use to locate the words which you then look up in hebrew?

              King James Version?
              Klingon?
              Lolcat?

            • Daniel Florien

              If you think you can get the original meaning with a concordance, you really need to take an ancient language course. Even your bible professors will laugh at that idea.

            • Ty

              Yeah, the “everyone understands Hebrew if they have a concordance” is utterly laughable.

          • http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com tinyfrog

            Your explanation makes no sense. The Bible clearly says that God kicked them out in order to prevent them from eating from the tree of life (“Christ”, according to you), which suggests that maybe they wanted to. Your explanation is that Adam and Eve wouldn’t WANT to eat from the tree of life because they were sinful. If your explanation was true, then God would have no reason to kick them out because they wouldn’t WANT to eat from the tree of life. I’m surprised that you can’t see the contradiction in your own explanation.

            • Ty

              I agree with everything you wrote other than: “The Bible clearly says”

              I don’t think the bible clearly says anything.

            • Elemenope

              I don’t think the Bible, being an inanimate object, says anything at all.

            • Daniel Florien

              But, but… it’s JESUS!!!!!

            • Ty

              Did your church used to do the, “The Bible is HOLY SPIRIT in solid form!”

          • http://www.celebrationofreason.com Jeff

            God is imaginary and these explanations have no basis in evidence. Being made-up, you can call them whatever you want. That’s the handy thing about god, isn’t it? Since no evidence has ever been found, religionists can make up whatever they want.

        • Fentwin

          Anyway, Gawd should have seem it coming what with all the omniscience.

  • http://ironymous.blogspot.com/ nomad

    Reminds me of Blake’s question. *What kind of God creates a killing machine?*

    What the anvil? What the chain?
    In what furnace was thy brain?

    What immortal hand or eye.
    Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

    Did he that made the lamb make thee?

  • Just Curious…

    There is just one flaw to this arguement about life/death/and animals concerning creationism.

    In Genesis it also states, explicitly, that animals were created to benefit man. DEATH is indeed a part of life and is the BASIS for life, as you explain. The bible does not deny this and, in fact,supports it. Christ was put on earth to DIE, he, essentially, lived to die.

    I just wanted to put a little spin on it…. Not to start an arguement, but just to add some creationist opinion (and some facts from the bible). Opinions are good, I think, and evoke thought in others.

    Thanks for this, though, it is intriguing for sure!

    Also, I did not quote Genesis here, but it is pretty easily found in many places on line, so I encourage you to read it. When God says, “be fruitful and mulitply” to both man and animal he means for them to kill whatever they need to kill in order to survive… he created them to do this.

    Animals do not apply to the “everlasting life” bit of Christianity… they were not the ones created in his image, we are, and so we were the ones originally intended to have everlasting life. Eve screwed it up, and thats another argument for another day.

    Again, Thanks for this!

    • mikespeir

      …Christ was put on earth to DIE, he, essentially, lived to die.

      But according to Christian theology, Christ was only put on Earth to die because of the Fall. Without it there would have been no need.

      Also, I did not quote Genesis here, but it is pretty easily found in many places on line, so I encourage you to read it. When God says, “be fruitful and mulitply” to both man and animal he means for them to kill whatever they need to kill in order to survive… he created them to do this.

      Notice:

      Gen 9:3 “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

      Why shouldn’t this be interpreted to mean that now (immediately after the Flood) God is allowing the consumption of animals; whereas, before only eating plants was permissible?

    • http://ironymous.blogspot.com/ nomad

      “facts from the bible” eh? An interesting concept.

      • Fentwin

        hehehehe

    • cello

      Be fruitful and multiply really means go out and kill each other? Er, sure it does. Addition by subtraction.

    • http://gettherealskinnyoneve.wordpress.com Dawn Davidson

      In Response to Just Curious,

      Actually she did not. Two fell in the garden and yet only one got up making full confession of sin before God and that person was a garden female () soon to be named “Eve” as life-giver (speaking to the spiritual and not the physcial) and called also, even by the still stubborn but now punished mouth of a compelled Adam, “mother of all living” in a fallen garden and even as a child-less virgin.

      The misogynistic false tradition of the male pulpit does the Church no good. Aside from the sheer hypocrisy, what cuts the most is a willingness to subjugate and cast so many ill-dispersions upon the female while at the same time, so in love with the tradition, that they utterly lack in even a basic understanding of the real garden word, and yes I speak of the pulpit. And that one even calling themselves righteous, would see fit to disinherit, compel, and even suggest that a female be constrained to live by such ridiculous nonsense in theology. According to the male tradition of the garden word, the female wasn’t even created to be in the image of God. She is only secondary in a reflection of God, a reflection for her lodged first in the image of a dusty, fallen un-confessed man earning the death pronouncement. This is architecture of design for the female supposedly even as desired by a holy God. No that’s some mess.

      • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

        “supposedly even as desired by a holy God”

        You do realize that a perfect, omnipotent being would desire nor need nothing right? You do realize that a perfect, omnipotent being would not feel human emotion right?

        “they were not the ones created in his image, we are”

        lol I love it when we arrogant humans think we’re created in God’s image. I’m not even going to bother posting the link to the girl born without a face again. But then again it’s not about our flesh but about our soul right? We are cursed with this dirty, sinful, suffering flesh all because a woman who at the time was “spirit” physically ate (put into her mouth) fruit from a magical tree after a serpent with “vocal chords” spoke to her. So here we are, feeding our mouths with food like everything else, created seemingly to feed our faces, multiply, and rot here for an infinitesimal amount of time then die.

        The length of time humans have existed compared to the age of the universe is so small it’s not more than what a millisecond would be to our feeble little brains.

        Someone mentioned to ignore human reason but without it that person would not even be able to speak or think the absurd words to ignore the said reason! Without reason you could not say that we should ignore reason – see the contradiction here? Without it we would be just like the animals – who seem blissfully unaware and go about killing to survive or feeding their mouths to survive. If we are to suppress our reason then why create the reason? It reminds me of the mantra – don’t ask why, just have faith. When you know the truth you just know it.

        Dawn Davidson and Just Curious… – you seem intelligent. Please tell me WHY you think God created the billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of other galaxies? You can choose to cover your eyes and not ask questions, believe we’re the sole reason for everything, interpret silly bronze age stories to fine and minute detail, enjoy your faithful and emotional ignorance, or you can dare to use your human reason.

        • Karleigh

          Aww, please link to the girl with no face! I haven’t seen it…

          • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

            Karleigh “Aww, please link to the girl with no face! I haven’t seen it…”

            lol you asked for it!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP7hq4unnSU

            • Lordboogar

              I find it abhorrent that a supposed loving, caring deity would allow such a thing to happen.

              I remember hearing about this when the show initially aired, and do not recall the specifics so I am making an assumption here:

              The parents of this child are fundies and do not believe in abortion?

              This may sound callous, and being a new father myself I understand the emotional weight behind the decision – she is obviously happy with her life as she currently knows it, but later on she will certainly face the cruel reality that her condition is a significant impact, unfair, and will have to deal with other people’s reactions.

              If the parents DID know if this in a timely fashion – it was certainly brutishly cruel to allow the pregnancy to continue under the ignorant convention of “God’s Will”.

  • http://worldofweirdthings.com gfish

    This seems like a modified theodicy argument, a topic which generally stumps theologians and has no logical, clear answer that doesn’t raise more questions than it tries to explain.

    But don’t you worry, Ken Ham has it all figured out.

    Before the Fall, all animals were peaceful herbivores and plants aren’t really alive because they don’t make noises or move around.

    Do not question him with your debauched “science,” mortal. The Ham and Answers in Genesis have spoken!

    • trj

      Yep. The teeth of T. Rex was originally designed for opening coconuts. Makes perfect sense.

      • GeekGirl

        Well, Adam and Eve needed T Rex to open the coconuts for them before they made T Rex steaks with coconut glaze.
        Dinosaurs were very courteous beings like that. Didn’t you know?

  • Parrot132

    The way I see it, belief in intelligent design must necessarily be a form of polytheism incorporating thousands of gods engaged in a ruthless competition.

    • Fentwin

      Inteligent design is the notion that science is far too complex for some people to understand.

    • Len

      @Parrot132: Intelligent design by committee? That explains a lot.

  • http://www.malevolentdesign.org Reverend AtheiStar

    Excellent article! I’ve been saying this for some years now. In fact, I went and wrote a book entirely on the subject which I called, “Malevolent Design: The Death of a Loving God.” I offer a free preview of the first chapter here:

    http://www.MalevolentDesign.org

    p.s. It’s now available on Amazon, too!

  • rodneyAnonymous

    Predators seem well-designed to catch prey, who seem well-designed to escape. Whose side is God on?

    • Elemenope

      You fail to understand the beauty of starvation *and* evisceration being present in the same universe. Clearly.

    • http://ironymous.blogspot.com/ nomad

      Well, he’s kinda like a referee so he has to remain neutral. (Although I have heard rumors he can be bribed.)

  • http://faiththeory.wordpress.com McHonza

    The debate over evolution between creationists & atheists is pointless.
    Each are using the same data to support a mutually exclusive, predetermined, subjective belief.

    The details of HOW life began and occurs are empirical and scientific.
    The answer to WHY life began and occurs is subjective and philosophical.

    Even if all the details of HOW are discovered, the question(s) of WHY will remain.

    And with all due respect to the late, great Douglas Adams, it’s probably not simply 42.

  • http://10plusyears.blogspot.com/ 10plus

    Damn, Daniel, my thoughts exactly (I used to be a creationist too!)

    The eagle has eyes ‘designed’ to see the mouse in the field a mile away, but the mouse has brown fur that let’s it blend in better and hide from the eagle- it’s like God wanted life to struggle for its survival.

    Excellent post.

    • Joe B

      I read the exclamation point at the end of too as an “l” I laughed, but I guess it works that way too.

  • http://sanguineinseattle.blogspot.com lauram

    Any god who designed this earth is not worthy of worship. The essence of life is death as people have posited above. From germs to us, we need to eat something else in order to live. Given 10 seconds I could think of a better “design” – for example we would get all our energy from the sun, store it for cloudy days in our body, and disappear gently and with a waft of perfume and heavenly music when we die. No rot, no stink, no feces, nothing that makes the world such a shitty place (literally). Just beauty and art and intelligence and wonder of the rest of the universe. Given 20 seconds, I could probably design an earth much better than that.

    Also why is the death of a plant not considered death? Are plants not living? When you yank out a carrot are you not killing it?

    • Olaf

      I agree, the designed is flawed even the human eye is flawed. The light detectors are built the wrong way! Light needs to go through the complete receptor in order to trigger the pulse. Someone put the detectors upside down.

      Also the eye is so flawed that many people needs glasses, even animals have poorly designed eyes….

      IF it was intelligent designed, then the designer was not that intelligent!

    • Francesco Orsenigo

      Yep, plants are living being like all the rest.
      Also, they struggle, they fight, they choke each other, poison each other, compete for space and resources in a way that’s just as brutal as the way of the other living beings (that include bacteria, monere, fungi and the rest…)

      Uhm… were bacteria intelligently designed?

  • JonJon

    I completely agree that creationist accounts often jump through extra hoops (and I incidentally admire your argument from simplicity within a biblical context) but I don’t see that they necessarily do so. That is, while it is possible to argue that there was rigmarole involved in the creation of carnivores, one certainly doesn’t need to. You can make the argument that death is a part of life, or that the function of the garden of Eden was a protected zone which removed the bloodlust going along with killing and eating, which after all, are not sinful, even though death and killing were present.

    I definitely agree that arguments that lions ate plants in the garden of Eden are generally unproductive and posit a needlessly complex arrangement.

    • Ty

      Even if it works the way you explain, Jonjon, that still requires a literal garden of eden with a literal Adam and Eve.

      Which is just as scientifically silly as lions eating grass is.

      • JonJon

        Not unless you’d like to wade into attempting to prove history in a scientific fashion…

        (To go on a tangent, although King Arthur is a mythic character with no non-mythic sources offering terribly strong proof for his existence, it is reasonable to assume that a tribal leader existed from which those legends come.)

        • Ty

          I can fairly conclusively prove that humanity has existed far longer than 6,000 years, and that the transition to what we consider modern humans happened about 150,000 years ago or so, and that this transition was a gradual process involving a population and not just two humans.

          What exactly about the scientific failure of the Garden story is hard to prove? Any of it?

  • Alexis

    Gen 9:3 “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. This implies that there are no poisonous plants or animals, and that there are no clean or unclean foods. Yet another biblical contradiction both within itself and between it and the real world.

  • Aphanes

    Occam’s razor is not actually a good proof of anything. It only seems to be a method of proof because if favours elegant solutions. Occam’s razor should really be stated as a design principle, the equivalent of the KISS principle, where it makes more sense.

    I’m also surprised that you don’t find the Garden of Eden story elegantly simple. What could be more simple than a human being constructed from a spare rib? It certainly doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand it, as evidenced by the number of people believing it (which shows the fatal flaw in “something must be true because so many people believe in something for so long means it must be true” logic so beloved of theists).

    • Elemenope

      You’re confusing parsimony with simplicity. Ockham’s Razor is about parsimony; i.e. not multiplying entities or forces unnecessarily to explain a phenomenon. Making a guy from a rib may, in a certain sense, be a simpler explanation than evolution, but it is less parsimonious because it adds entities and forces, like God, Eden, and so forth, and fails to account fro already observed entities and forces, like mutation and the fossil record.

    • Olaf

      I agree it DOES NOT take a lot of intelligence to understand it.
      Asking somone: “Do you believe in adam and even to be literally true”: could be used as a IQ test.

  • marty

    How did mosquitoes suck on plants instead of blood?

    Errr… hate to point this out, but that is exactly what male mosquitoes do.

    • Daniel Florien

      Don’t feel bad, I want things to be accurate. So could mosquitoes live entirely on plants?

      • Elemenope

        I was unaware of this (but wiki came to the rescue), that apparently they can subsist indefinitely on plant nectar, but the females require certain nutrients from animal blood to produce eggs.

        • Daniel Florien

          So in other words, mosquitoes couldn’t reproduce if they only ate plants. My point seems to stand, so I’ll leave it in the article unless someone finds something contrary.

          • Olaf

            Why concentrate on that one thing while millions upon millions upon millions other evidences all point to evolution to be true.

            Creationists always seem to distract out attention with one very small minute detail so we ignore all other facts.

            The other thing is many science disciplines like astronomy, geology, and many others all show clearly that the bible has mistakes upon mistakes upon mistakes and still creationists seems to distract us to this one small detail in the bible that appears to be logical but fails miserably when testes scientifically.

            So why are we always fooled in stupid mind trick from creationists in losing time in some stupid discussion

            Ok Hypnosis 101: Keep the conscious busy with seemingly important tasks like discussing some very tiny detail with fuzzy logic. This way they bypass your conscious and have direct access to you subconscious and you are wide open to suggestibility. You are open for the suggestion that there must be something out there… They implant false memories.

            Hypnosis antidote, simple, start to ask questions if all of this can be true and if there are not other possible explanations that can have the same result. And also every important look at all evidences that do show that the creationists are just telling plain old BS.

          • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

            seems minuscule compared to the fact that all mammals take a crap out of their anus. Interesting huh. We ALL have an anus. It spits out poop. Why is that?

  • http://Http//www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave Wyman

    Dawn wrote: “And it is with a good concordance. You just simply look up the word based upon its reference location. You don’t have to speak, write, or be fluent in the Ancient Hebrew or the Greek for that matter, great if you are but in today’s world not necessary.”

    Dawn, the depth if your self-delusion is deeper than the deepest sea.

    The idea that people in, say, the back waters of China or Mexico or Liberia or even the U. S. can use “concordence” is pathetically naive. Yet, according to you – and John – No one can understand your bible without recourse to an understanding of Hewbrew and Greek.

    You’ve blinded yourself with an unending stream of rationalizations to wriggle out of what is obvious to most everyone else here: the absurdity of a belief in a god.

    • http://gettherealskinnyoneve.wordpress.com Dawn Davidson

      To Dave:

      You are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. From my perspective to believe that the entire of the creation just appeared from random nothing-ness, is the height of delusion, even if it means just starting from one particle of whatever – it still had to have a source. And you can talk about faces to mouths and mouths to eyes all day, but you still can’t credibly answer that. One post spoke of reasoning but what is even the source of that for you, an amoeba?

      And to imagine that just because, as a human being on Earth, one believes in the word of God somehow dictates that that same person is unaware of the whole of the universe and the many galaxies therein and all the corresponding possibilities is ridiculous. But as a human being living on the planet Earth and knowing that there is a God, having relationship even with that God, is primary to me in my experience. I personally do not limit God to activities on the Earth, it is his creation, he can do what he wants, and I don’t even have to know about it to receive and accept him as I know him to be, as he has revealed himself in his word to be. And sorry Dave you, don’t think you even posted that but not sure how much more time I am going to spend here and just wanted to get that said.

      Having faith doesn’t take the Hebrew or the Greek, it is just what happens inside, but if you don’t have it then how could you know? I understand that. However, if you are a student pursuing higher education you would not reasonably hold a professor in disdain because you actually had to resort to a reference book to obtain detailed knowledge of a thing, if you had need due to diagnosis don’t think you would encourage the doctor to just not bother seeking further study for the cure. It is a question of what matters to you, even most to you. God does not matter to you and that is why you can not comprehend it.

      • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

        Dawn: “I personally do not limit God to activities on the Earth, it is his creation, he can do what he wants”

        A perfect, omnipotent being would “want” nothing.

        Try to stop thinking of “GOD” as a human up in the sky….it will open your mind.

        • Elemenope

          A perfect, omnipotent being would “want” nothing.

          I don’t think it is possible to say that definitively. It all depends on what predicates perfection.

          • Jabster

            I don’t see why a perfect entity could not have wants as I wouldn’t equate wants with a fault. The real problem is if an omnipotent entity did exists outside of time and space it seems highly unlikely that our language would be able describe almost any of the attributes that we would normally use as descriptions.

            • Elemenope

              I completely agree.

          • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

            wanting something implies that something is missing. a perfect being is missing nothing. The following says it better than I. Can’t remember where I got it from.

            God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete–it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

            • Elemenope

              My point is that “completeness” is only one way to look at perfection. One could just as easily define dynamism as perfection (a being that is static is not as perfect as one which is dynamic); if this were the case, that a creature had wants and desires and emotions would be a plus in its claim to perfection.

          • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

            would like to add:

            Perfection Begets Imperfection

            But, for the sake of argument, let’s continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God’s image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

            What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this “perfect” God created a “perfect” universe which was rendered imperfect by the “perfect” humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

            • Elemenope

              Which illustrates, if nothing else, the pointlessness of the term “perfect”. How can the predicate “perfect” apply both to an infinite entity and a finite one in the same way? To be a perfect human would be a qualitatively different thing than being a perfect deity, if the concepts are even coherent at all (which I tend not to believe is so).

              Perfection is an obsession gifted to us by Plato, that ass.

            • Jabster

              Well my wife says I’m perfect but I’m inclined to think she’s either being nice to me or slightly mad. Even the concept of a perfect human is, as you say, rather incoherent although I would say subjective.

              Oh well, on to the eleventh Guinness … my Mum would be so proud.

            • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

              “the pointlessness of the term “perfect””

              ahh yes – now we should talk about what the meaning of the word IS is right? The problem is in thinking of “God” as some sort of being. Like a thinking, feeling being who loves and gets angry and goes about making things and listening to our every waking thought and healing people that pray to “him”.

              This is why I think “God” is more aptly termed as simply – all that there is. For all we know we are but a minuscule part of an unimaginably vast everything that is, all interconnected and in its whole, perfect.

            • Jabster

              A perfect and all powerful entity is quite capable of creating imperfect beings if that is what it chooses.

      • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

        Dawn, your delusion is so transparent to us – only you are unable to see the irony in your own words.

        First: “to believe that the entire of the creation just appeared from random nothing-ness, is the height of delusion, even if it means just starting from one particle of whatever – it still had to have a source.”

        Yet just above tyou wrote: “God is Eternal.” For you, this is a god that has always existed, who exists without even starting from a single particle.

        Do you not see you’ve contradicted yourself? Of course you don’t, because you’re brainwashed. Because you allow yourself to be deluded.

        How is it that something – the universe – can’t come from nothing, but god can come from nothing? You want it both ways, and so you fail all around.

        What you believe might not be so stupid, but you go way beyond the belief in an Eternal God. You believe you can communicate telepathically with a Jewish zombie. For Christ was a Jew. And he was brought back to life after his death, which is what a zombie is – someone supernaturally reanimated.

        I’ll take the belief in a universe springing from an unknown cause – or even from a lack of a cause – over a belief in telepathic communication with a Jewish zombie any day.

        Here’s a thought experiment. Assume, just for a few moments, that there is and never has been a god. And think about what that would mean, if true. It would go a long way towards explaining why our universe is the way it is. It would explain Hurricane Katrina, and the tidal wave the crashed into Thailand, why there can be war and disease and pedophiles, and even why you are incapable of understanding reality.

        All the hoops you have to jump through now – “If we only knew Hebrew and Greek we could understand the Bible!” – would disappear.

        To believe in your god, to presume you can speak to a Jewish zombie, means you have to explain the idiocy of that belief and the idiocy of your bible by rationalizing to yourself that the words in it don’t mean what they say.

      • Lowrack

        “From my perspective to believe that the entire of the creation just appeared from random nothing-ness, is the height of delusion”

        First off, that is not the position of any rational person I’ve ever encountered. Nobody is claiming that something came from nothing, except religious people, who claim that God is eternal and has no beginning or end. I agree with you that such a position is absurd.

        Second, even if science doesn’t have an answer, that doesn’t mean it’s logical to attribute everything to god. In fact, it’s a blatant logical fallacy. Not having an answer is simply not having an answer. It is not an answer. You’re essentially saying: I don’t have an answer, therefore I have an answer; goddidit.

        • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

          Lowrack – our human minds find it very difficult to think of things outside of time. Even to say something always existed leaves us within the frame of time. Eternity, forever, timeless – all within the confines of how we perceive time. We are confined to the frame of reference that helps us understand things.

          We would always ask: “What happened BEFORE that?”

          We don’t have language to understand that “before” is not. The absolute most we can say via human reason is: not that…. not that. What convinces many is that they feel the answer. The understanding comes from the emotional part of the brain, not the logical.

  • http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com tinyfrog

    It goes deeper than you know. Not only are animals “designed” to kill, but they must kill to survive. A wide variety of cats, for example, are physically incapable of surviving on a vegetarian diet. A vegetarian diet does not give them sufficient nutrients. Some misguided pet owners have tried to switch their cats to a vegetarian food, and it’s very bad for them (the cats start to go crazy because they can’t produce the correct brain neurotransmitters, and will eventually die). On a vegetarian diet, cats don’t get enough taurine (google “cats and taurine” for more information), and that’s not the only thing they lack on a vegetarian diet. What seems to have happened is that cats have been carnivores for so long, that they can no longer survive on a non-carnivore diet.

    Here’s a quote from wikipedia:
    “Taurine is an essential dietary requirement for feline health, since cats cannot synthesize the compound. The absence of taurine causes a cat’s retina to slowly degenerate, causing eye problems and (eventually) irreversible blindness — a condition known as central retinal degeneration (CRD), as well as hair loss and tooth decay. It was discovered in 1987 that taurine deficiency can also cause feline dilated cardiomyopathy (heart failure).”

  • Just Curious…

    Wow, it’s been a few days since I posted my comment. I will try to address all who addressed me.

    I don’t “choose to cover my eyes to facts” I simply choose to believe that there is room for ALL ideas. I personally believe there is a God who created all things, and I don’t think it’s right to debate with someone over religious feeling/emotion. So (to all) please do not try to persuade me to believe otherwise or jest over my beliefs, they’re legitimate whether you personally choose them or not. I believe there is room for creationism and evolution in the same boat. Darwin thanks GOD at the end of his research and publication for allowing him to see and discover these things.

    I had a Christian leader once explain to me that the time references in the bible are loose. I mean, a “day” may not have meant a 24 hour period of time, it may have meant something completely different when the books were recorded– in fact, the word day may not have been used originally, but as time went on it became what it is today: “day.” So when it reads “on the first day…,” “on the second day…,” etc, etc, etc, it could mean many millenia had gone by between the events. Giving room for evolution and for dinosaurs.

    The real answer is, I don’t have all the answers. All I know is what I’ve been taught, by atheist, Christians and other denominations alike. I can take this knowledge, process it and develop my own thesis about the world and life… and death.

    I want to thank you guys for your thought provoking questions. I am constantly seeking out new ideas and thoughts. I really enjoy learning about others’ thoughts on these things and having intelligent conversations, instead of a battle of wit (as debates about science and religion can often turn to). I am always willing to learn more and hear other sides, unlike some narrow minded (yes, I agree, they exist) Christians, I choose to believe that the more I know about my personal faith and about the faiths of others, the better grounded I become.

    Thanks again!

    • Elemenope

      To paraphrase George Carlin, if they’re willing to lie to us about arrival and departure times, why should we believe anything else they say? If a day sometimes means a day and sometimes means a billion years, what are the flexibilities and openness to wild interpretation of all the other words in the text?

      • Just Curious…

        It is true that the bible is a much disputed document and can be twisted and turned into meaning pretty much anything any one person wants it to mean, or believes it to mean. Interpretation is a difficult thing to decipher.

        When I discuss religion with the non-religious it is a difficult task (defending the bible) for this reason alone. I hope I don’t sound delirious about religion. I don’t know a lot about my religion and I can only ever hope to know a drop compared to some– so I cannot give you all of the answers you seek (or maybe you’re not seeking?); All I can do is answer to the best of my personal knowledge and then, at that point, go seeking for the answers myself.

        The Bible is ancient. This alone gives way to misinterpretation and/or thousands of typos, translation errors, etc etc etc. (Just as with any other document). The point of Faith in God is just that…. Faith. It can’t be proven.

        I just know in my heart and head and soul that there is something bigger out there than just this. If that’s naiive, then it is what it is. Faith is a feeling, not a science.

        I know that is not the answer you seek, but that’s all I’ve got. :o)

        • Elemenope

          I appreciate your response.

          Interpretation is a difficult thing to decipher.

          Well, that’s the crux of the problem. If it matters that a person is right or wrong about these issues, then everyone is in a pickle because there are an infinite number of ways to interpret the text, not many of which are rationally preferable to any other.

          On the other hand, if it *doesn’t* matter if a person is right or wrong about these issues, then dogmatic religion is literally a waste of time.

          • Just Curious…

            If it doesn’t matter… then hundreds of thousands of people have wasted their time over thousands and thousands of years.

            but now we’re about to get into a debate about types of religions instead of the generality. I believe that, in one way or another, more people than just Christians go to heaven. It has to be. for all of the Hindu, Muslim, Taoist, etc. religions it just doesn’t seem right for these religions to have existed as long (if not longer) than Christianity and all of those souls be unaccounted for.

            Again, I don’t have the answers to this, I just know that there has to be a broadened answer to it all.

            • Ty

              People have been ‘just knowing’ things since the first human showed up. He/she ‘just knew’ all sorts of things about the world that were not true. The Norse ‘just knew’ that Odin hurled bolts of lightning when he was angry, and his son Thor made the thunderclaps with his great hammer.

              The Greeks ‘just knew’ that the sun was the chariot of Apollo, pulled across the sky by flying horses.

              The Buddhist Feng Shui masters ‘just know’ that a desk aimed to the west is more productive than one aimed east.

              And my mother ‘just knows’ that everyone who doesn’t belong to her tiny sect of Christianity will be destroyed by god at Armageddon.

              ‘Just knowing’ is one of the worst ways to determine facts.

            • Just Curious…

              I’m not trying to determine facts here, in this specific statement. I’m just explaining that I believe what I BELIEVE. The end. AND, as previously stated, I go on faith and faith alone. Just as you may (or may not?) BELIEVE that there is NOT a God, I BELIEVE that there is one. Neither of us can prove one or the other wrong or right, we can simply go off of the facts that we DO have, and the feelings that we have.

            • Ty

              That’s where you trip up.

              I go off facts, you go off feelings. I used to believe in god because of feelings. I no longer believe because of facts.

              And while it is true that it’s impossible to prove a negative, that is never evidence that something is true. You can’t prove that I don’t have magical powers, either. I doubt your inability to prove it would make you believe I’m a wizard.

            • Baconsbud

              Just Curious… what are these facts you are basing your faith on? Are they actually facts or are you just using the word to make yourself feel you are being reasonable about your beliefs.

            • Sunny Day

              He believes because he believes, because he believes.

              Nothing to see here. Same ol, same old.

        • http://www.vidlord.com VidLord

          Just Curious – does your faith in God require you to believe that the bible IS the Word of God?

          • Just Curious…

            No. I believe there is a God regardless of whatever mis interpretations may lie within the Bible. The bible was written and/or recorded by humans, so there is most definitely some level of error in one way or another, even though the text is ordained by God. There is just no way it can be absolutely perfect.

            I guess, in this manner, I am more agnostic than Christian. Though I do believe that Jesus died in order to remit my personal sins and others. The bible is not my “law book” so to speak. Just as laws are made, broken, bent and changed… so is the bible. I use it as a guide, it does have some good advice.

            • Ty

              “Though I do believe that Jesus died in order to remit my personal sins and others. ”

              Why do you believe this?

            • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

              Just Curios wrote:

              “The bible was written and/or recorded by humans, so there is most definitely some level of error in one way or another, even though the text is ordained by God. There is just no way it can be absolutely perfect.”

              JC, If the bible could be divinely ordained, then it could be perfect – we’re talking about the supreme ruler of the universe here. Yet you claim your god has limits. It’s not much of a god in your mind, is it?

              “I do believe that Jesus died in order to remit my personal sins and others.”

              What makes you think the story of Jesus is correct, if you are willing to doubt everything else in the bible? What makes you think there was a Jesus? How is it that this part of your bible IS perfect, when you just told us the bible can’t be perfect.

              You want it both ways. Where your bible makes no sense to you, it’s human error. Where you think it makes sense – for example, your belief in your telepathic ability to communicate with a Jewish zombie – the bible reveals the divine words of your god.

              You contradict yourself but don’t see it. Yes, humans are designed by nature to be able to hold contradictory thoughts at the same time. But that doesn’t mean we have to.

            • John C

              Because the Bible is external, the Spirit the internal witness. Unbelievers make the assumption that believer’s go strictly off the Book…but Christianity is not external, but rather an internal, spirit-led life.

            • Sundog

              Reasonable words, John C, but directly in opposition to many other Christians’ statements.

            • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

              John C wrote:

              “Christianity is not external, but rather an internal, spirit-led life.”

              How do you know this? Did you read it? Did someone tell you this? Do you just know it?

            • Kodie

              (Hope I get the tags right)….

              Because the Bible is external, the Spirit the internal witness. Unbelievers make the assumption that believer’s go strictly off the Book…but Christianity is not external, but rather an internal, spirit-led life.

              Horse manure, John. You think you know what unbelievers think, and you keep repeating yourself, you’re not like them, you’re different, you have a different message, if only we’d unlock the secret, if only we’d address the idea that it’s not just all one crappy book, but something else entirely!

              It’s allllll a big misunderstanding the likes of which could have been an episode of “Three’s Company.” Mr. Roper think Chrissy’s pregnant, but because he’s listening through the pipes, he doesn’t know she’s talking about a wart. Is that what you want? Is that what you’re trying to tell us? If only we weren’t filled with so much sense, we could hear that you are telling us all about your wart. If only we weren’t confused about what Christianity is and isn’t, we’d come around to your way. Oh, yeah, the book is total garbage, who would believe that? Even you agree. You seem to think nobody would reject your purpose if only we could figure out that it wasn’t a book you keep yammering on about. Oh, we’re the ones who are confused. Riiiiiiight.

              You’re the one who doesn’t get it. Stop making prejudiced remarks and false generalizations about atheists. We know what you’re about – you call it spirit, we call it nonsense.

            • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

              Cat got your tongue, Just Curios?

              What makes you think the story of Jesus is correct, if you are willing to doubt everything else in the bible?

            • Janet Greene

              Curious is probably thinking about WHY this story justifies belief. I would take reeeeeaaaaalllllly long on that point too. (why is it that I believe this again? I’ll call pastor smith, he’ll tell me.)

            • Janet Greene

              Curious – congrats on your wedding! I can see why you don’t want to answer such a fundamental question right now, but I think there are some of us on this blog who really would like to hear an answer from your perspective. As a former christian, now I don’t remember why I believed any of it, other than the possibility that I was brainwashed from childhood. So if a thinking adult believes it, I can’t relate and I would like to know. Have a great wedding – cheers!

            • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

              “Stop making prejudiced remarks and false generalizations about atheists. We know what you’re about – you call it spirit, we call it nonsense.”

              The problem is that John C is a persistent troll. He gets off on our responses to his nonsense. Note that he’s too cowardly to reveal himself except with his user name.

            • Just Curious…

              No cats, or pastors. I just have other things to do than sit on a message board and wait for posts to pop up.

              I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I am getting married this weekend and too much to worry about. I truly enjoyed this debate and hearing the other sides of things.

              Try not to get to riled up against one another. :o)

            • http://www.icyclist.blogspot.com Dave

              ” I am getting married this weekend and too much to worry about. I truly enjoyed this debate and hearing the other sides of things.”

              Yeah – you’re kind always runs off. Getting married to Just Curios, perhaps? ;-)

              “Try not to get to riled up against one another. :o)”

              Projecting, are we?

        • trj

          “The point of Faith in God is just that…. Faith. It can’t be proven … I just know in my heart and head and soul that there is something bigger out there than just this.”

          No, you don’t know. This is obvious from the way you choose to phrase those two sentences. You don’t really know, but you have a fervent belief that there must be something more; that something being God.

          A bit pedantic of me, perhaps, but I feel this distinction is important when trying to evaluate your various claims re. creation and other things.

          • John C

            TRJ…when he says “I just know in my heart and head” this appears to you as a small, meaningless and untrustworthy manner in which one may judge a matter. But this is exactly the way mankind was originally intended to “live”, from the heart (ie his spiritual capacities linked, at one with God). Something in him “testifies” inwardly that his (call it for your sakes intuition, visceral gut reactions) are true and this is scripturally (I realize that means nothing to you currently) sound in that inwardly “His spirit testifies to ours that we are children of God” Romans 8.16, and “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the children of God” Romans 8.14.

            I have lived by both means, ie a “heady”, logical plodding along approach and by my “heart”. I can tell you that the latter is much more exhilerating, fruitful, adventurous and “feels” inwardly like the way I was intended to live, feels right and the outcome (fruit of my life) confirms it. Following my heart makes for an exciting, fulfilling life. Perhaps instead of UF readers always belittling those who choose such a path (heart-led living), they should “study” the outcomes, ie the fruit of their lives. But since you always pick the “religious, fundie” types who are hypocritical in nature, dualistic and make no distinction between the religious and the spiritual (spirit led, single natured ones) then you always miss the mark, respectfully. You lump them all together for the sake of your argument. I understand that you have a hard time telling them apart, this is where you need to make a distinction, learn the difference, care enough to know what you are arguing for/against.

            Heart led living seems to you, not to be trustworthy. That’s because you dont yet know, trust the heart of the Father toward us. God is love, All the best.

            • Francesc

              John, christian religion -should I say religionS?- comes from the same source you got all that “spiritual” tale. But you are right and the other christians are wrong.

              “this appears to you as a small, meaningless and untrustworthy manner in which one may judge a matter”
              Yep. Ya know, I have the feeling that tomorrow will rain. That my soccer team is going to win the cup. That humanity problems are going to be solved eventually by our own. Those are “feelings” but I would never say that I can see the future because I’m linked with a supernatural being.

              “But this is exactly the way mankind was originally intended to “live”, from the heart”. How do you know? Why our blood-pumping organ? [ok, I apologize for that question] As I was saying before, mankind has learnt not to follow “the heart”; that’s not a good idea when your feeding depends upon it. It is better to use logic and science. So, historically we can see that, everytime mankind uses science, we can go a step further. In favour of “spirituality” you have… oh, yes, that you believe it!

        • Janet Greene

          So if you cannot rely on the bible’s truth or accuracy, do you still use it as the basis of your entire belief system? Isn’t that setting up your life with a house of cards, subject to destruction at each new scientific discovery?

    • Janet Greene

      The OT has definite timelines – I remember my pastor father telling me that all the “begats” in the OT proved its truth. Now we know that the earth is over 13 billion years old, so now Creationists must do mental gymnastics to explain. Even if each “day” in the bible is, say 25,000 years, it still leaves approximately, uh, 12 BILLION YEARS unaccounted for. So this whole thing about “a day not being an actual day” has not merit once you actually look at it (just like all the other creationist arguments).

  • Elemenope

    “Please God, let this bear be a Christian bear…”

    • Janet Greene

      Like the lion in the OT story of Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego & the lions. (What do you mean animals have no souls, can’t get to heaven? These were CLEARLY christian, bible-believing, god-fearin’ lions.)

  • Just Curious…

    I think it’s interesting (in fear of bringing up yet another debate…) that you all believe me to be male.

    • vorjack

      On atheist boards, that’s usually a safe assumption.

      • Janet Greene

        Which is why I happily post using my female psuedonym :)

    • Sunny Day

      HA, I got labeled a woman when I spoke passionately about women’s issues. I was irritated until I realized it was just their christian misogyny at work.

      • Janet Greene

        Ya gotta love a guy who’s passionate about women’s issues.

      • Daniel Florien

        I think it’s also typical stereotyping. I’m guessing to many people “Sunny Day” sounds more feminine than masculine, thus an honest mistake. I often subconsciously assume genders based on usernames, and I’m usually right, but since it is based on stereotyping, it’s not 100%.

  • http://www.CelebrationOfReason.com BrainUser

    As the article nicely points out, creationists make the ridiculous claim that, before the “fall,” everything ate plants. But plants are life, why do they have to die? Where is the dividing line between plants and animals?

    What did whales eat before the fall? Surely it wasn’t their current diet of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton of which some are considered plant and some are considered animal. Or maybe they somehow filtered out the single celled phytoplankton but digested the single celled zooplankton? We can arbitrarily draw lines of what is plant and what is animal but ultimately the exercise becomes ridiculous.

    We used to believe that evil spirits caused disease. We know better now. We used to believe that Earth anchored the universe. We know better now. Humanity will be held back until it collectively moves on and realize how religion poisons our understanding of the world around us.

  • alaska thinker

    Creationism Vs Evoltion is a debate no one can win, I used to argue that there is a way to reconcile the two but the starting point from each train of though is too distant from each other. Creationist argue that the bible is subject to interpritation but then pick and choose which parts to take literally, that is the part i don’t understand. Evolutionist argue the literal facts that prove creationism is inaccurate( which it is). Why can’t we just accept that the bible is a nice book that helps a lot of people live in way that makes them feel good about themselves and not take it literally. It has some good fables in it like the one about Jesus, but unless your are totally unfamilliar with how reallity works you know it isn’t literally true, but it does teach some good things like how you should treat people( everyone not just the other Critians you know). I just wish Christians wouldn’t try to use it to make everyone do what they want, which has historically been the case. Creation couldn’t have happened the way it is described in the bible plain and simple even Christians realise that any explaination is simple trying to rationalise.

  • Jon

    “Occam’s Razor says the simplest theory that answers all the problems is the best choice.”

    This statement makes me wonder how creationism is more complicated than naturalism. Stuff evolving from nothing, seems pretty complicated to me, especially in light of how complicated the stuff we are talking about is. Especially when we have laws that govern these processes and the stuff that is in existence couldn’t possibly have evolved because if you were to brake down any one component it would fail, so saying that naturalism is the less complicated answer would require some real logical gymnastics as it were. Intelligent Design is using real scientific inquiry to test the claims of creationism, and have found that design is real, not just an appearance, which would lead one to assume that it was designed by someone or something. Creationism is simple, God created the world and set its laws in motion, and everything about science is possible because these laws govern them.

    • Sunny Day

      Stuff evolving from nothing, seems pretty complicated to me, especially in light of how complicated the stuff we are talking about is.

      So instead you prefer to believe that a unimaginably more complicated and powerful thing exists and then created everything else. Who created the creator? Repeat as necessary. Eventually you’ll end up claiming, “Its Turtles all the way down.” Or you’ll have to admit that complicated stuff doesn’t need a complicated creator.

      “Especially when we have laws that govern these processes and the stuff that is in existence couldn’t possibly have evolved because if you were to brake down any one component it would fail…”

      Name three.

      Intelligent Design is using real scientific inquiry to test the claims of creationism, and have found that design is real, not just an appearance, which would lead one to assume that it was designed by someone or something.

      Again name three

      Michael Behe a proponent of the Intelligent Design “theory” had the opportunity to show the world in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial his evidence for intelligent design. He admitted on the stand, “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred” But maybe I’m not up with the latest research so please name three experiments that have been reviewed and the results confirmed.

      “Creationism is simple, God created the world and set its laws in motion, and everything about science is possible because these laws govern them.”

      It’s also thoughtless and doesn’t answer any questions. God did it, does not answer any meaningful questions about reality.

    • TrickQuestion

      Here, let me make things easy for you.
      Occam’s Razor =Magic.
      Done. I have solved everything, ever, for infinity.

    • trj

      Intelligent Design is using real scientific inquiry to test the claims of creationism

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      Yes, ID is famous for its scientific rigor, its indisputable findings, and its vast collection of experimental work.

      But thank you for being honest about equating ID and creationism.

    • UrsaMinor

      Intelligent Design is using real scientific inquiry to test the claims of creationism, and have found that design is real, not just an appearance, which would lead one to assume that it was designed by someone or something.

      This is a claim often made by supporters of creationism. If it is true, it should be very simple for you to provide just one reference to a peer-reviewed scientific paper written by a proponent of the Intelligent Design hypothesis which addresses the topic of ID and presents experimental data that supports the hypothesis.

      We’re waiting.

  • TheoryofI

    “Intelligent Design is using real scientific inquiry to test the claims of creationism, and have found that design is real, not just an appearance…”

    That’s important info. You won’t mind indulging us with some peer reviewed examples of that reality will you? links to respected scientific journals would be fine.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X