22 Creationist Questions Translated

This entry was posted in Creationism, Debate, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to 22 Creationist Questions Translated

  1. this is classic! I get all these nonsense questions alot.. personally i cant say there is or isnt a god (i know if there is all religions got it wrong!) but i know facts are facts science is discovery and with all we know it’s not like we would need a god to exist
    religions traditionally were stories to explain what were didn’t understand (sunsets were gods racing across the sky in chariots on fire)
    but now understanding is the enemy of religion
    we now know how sunsets work, but the religions of the world want to prevent the children from knowing these facts..

  2. Connacht says:

    Poor christianity made of sheeps.

    “Man’s unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.”

  3. Jerry, USMC says:

    I believe that the issue of ( creatrion vs evolution) only pertains to the Human Being. So, did God create us on the spot, or did we evolve from another life form? Either case can be accepted as truth. First there was the creation of the universe wherein some life forms appeared on the planet earth. This location could have been the Garden of Eden, or any swamp where one celled life forms, or more complex life came to be. However, it’s a moot point. At this time it is most important to define the word, “creation”. Creation is the manifestation of matter from what ? Other matter, or from nothing? Either way, a new life form comes into existance. A Devine Creator could use any method at his disposal to “create”, whether that be from nothing, or from something that exists already (evolution via time). The greater question is this: Why do we invest so much energy trying to answer this question? We’re here , like it or not. So, that being said, let’s invest in goodness, and in one another, and forget all of this BS.

  4. M. Rodriguez says:

    this is awesome and too funny

  5. henotheist13 says:

    These ‘translations’ are worse than the original questions in many cases.

    1) You suggest that the idea of nature created in an already developed state implies that God is a liar who fakes evidence. But there are many mundane examples of structures designed to give the appearance of development which were actually created very recently for specific purposes. For example, a film set might include buildings that are supposed to look several centuries old, but were actually put together in a workshop. Does that make the filmmakers liars who fake evidence?

    2) Your translation of “God said it” is “The only way I can explain a complex universe is by imagining an even more complex God who can’t be explained.” This shows you are completely ignorant of the concept of God in classical theism. In that tradition, unlike the composite, contingent objects that make up the material world, God is absolutely simple, without any separable parts whatsoever. If He did have separable parts, there would have to be an explanation of how those parts came together, in which case God would not be the ultimate explanation of the world he has been imagined to be since the time of the pre-Socratic scientists. You complain that God can’t be explained. But that’s just what it is to be an ultimate explanation. If the answer to why the material world exists and has the form it does is not to be “just ’cause” (what a cop out), the explanatory chain must stop somewhere, and the point at which it stops must have quite different features from the things it is supposed to explain. Again, this has been known since the time of the pre-Socratics. Read Lloyd P. Gerson’s “God and Greek Philosophy.”

    3) You translate the ‘evolution is just a theory’ challenge as “I have no idea that gravity, atoms and germs are also considered as theories in science.” Um, no, they’re not. Gravity is an observable phenomenon for which explanatory theories have been proposed. Newton’s Law of Gravity is just a generalization of how massive objects are observed to behave. He himself famously said that he did not frame any hypotheses (theories) for how gravity actually worked. Einstein did come up with a theory of gravity, which explains it as space-time curvature. Similarly, atoms and germs are not theories. They are objects which have an explanatory role in theories, they are not theories themselves. Have you studied any philosophy of science?

    4) You bring up things like leukemia and parasitic wasp larvae as evidence against the universe being the design of an intelligent mind. But you seem to be equating the idea of design with the idea of benevolent design. Just because certain natural phenomena make you go ‘ick’ doesn’t mean they aren’t perfectly good examples of design. You may be repulsed by the idea of unmanned drones, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t impressive products of brilliant engineering. At best, your point casts doubt on the idea that the cosmic designer is benevolent, but not on the idea that there is a designer.

    5) In a couple translations you use the fact that technology works as evidence that science is more than guesswork and scientists are ‘right’. But you seem unaware that false theories can in fact lead to predictive and manipulative success. For example, plenty of progress was made in electrical technology by positing that electric current was some sort of fluid. You need to read up on the history of science.

    • Saila Namai says:

      1) Thank God for so generously making us part of his little movie. Well if the film makers claim that those buildings are really centuries old, then yes. God does claim creation in genesis and claims the age of fossils for example to be older than creation. About one of those he is lying.

      2) “If the answer to why the material world exists and has the form it does is not to be “just ’cause””
      And just cause god made it is actually worse.
      “God would not be the ultimate explanation of the world”
      Where did god come from? – He has always been
      Why has he always been? – Because he is God
      Circular logic and ridiculous. Or can you offer anything better?
      God is not an ultimate explanation to anything. Even if he were to exist, still he would not be the end of the line of inquiry.
      Also a lot of things have been known for a long time, that doesn’t imply truth.

      3) Sure germ theory exists. Some time ago someone recognized how hygiene would have positive effects on health. He then had an idea about things so small they could not be seen through the naked eye and theorized they might be responsible for some diseases. Today we can see them through the microscope of course. But back then this poor man was probably laughed at. It is not always necessary to understand a problem at its fullest to formulate a theory and derive benefits from it. We are always open to changing our minds if need be. Most things were theory once. Except God of course, he just is…

      4) There is no evidence of a creator. There certainly is evidence of people who thought there is a creator. But that is not the same.
      What evidence is there of creation? And please don’t give me that irreducible complexity argument.
      Things like machines can be created. It does not follow that everything was created. Even if we had the ability to create anything it would still not follow that everything in fact was created.

      5) Theories don’t need to be perfect. Someone has a better explanation. We dump the old one. Which is what most atheists have done with religion. Maybe you should have a go at that concept? Some part of science even is guesswork. But then these guesses are tested by different people. And if it holds true, well then there is something that is unknown. But if it produces some kind of measurable predictable result. Then what? Don’t use that knowledge because we don’t know why it happens?

    • ch bu says:

      The original questions were stupid, the translations were satire.

  6. Tom Duhamel says:

    So many of these people ask questions for which they could have had an answer easily through a little research. Someone told me that the second law of thermodynamics proved that the evolution is wrong, so I will say so, because someone told me, even though I have no idea what thermodynamic is or what evolution is.

    It’s not just a joke or hate speech, when we say theists aren’t educated. They prove it by themselves. Rather than learn, they just settle down to the simplistic explanation that a divinity in the sky did it.

  7. it so mind boggling that these people are still alive!!!

  8. Tarnished says:

    Wow, this is frickin hysterical and awesome!

  9. Reblogged this on myatheistlife and commented:
    I don’t think I’d have been so kind writing the improved text on their pieces of paper. I ‘think’ it was Clemmons who said it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. I rather like that both Clemmons and Lincoln are quoted as saying it but even more ironic… check out Proverbs 17:28

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s