The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[Frenger]

It won't let me comment on your blog without a google account so here's a short response:

While your overall conclusion (that the Ark story is bollocks) is correct, you make several technical mistakes.

First off, your assumption that "species" = "kinds". Genesis 6:14-21 states the following:

14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark ,you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Both CreationWiki and Conservapedia state that "species" =/= "kind", that there are far less "kinds" than there are species and that "breath of life" (above) means only land-dwelling vertebrates. They also claim that the number of "kinds" matches the number of individual animals that would fit on the Ark.

Just to clarify though, all of these claims are made without the slightest understanding of what a "kind" actually is.

That's when I stopped replying, your conclusion is right but you obviously wrote this in a hurry and the information is often misleading or insufficient. You might want to look into that.

Thanks Inferno, yes, it was written in a single breath and I haven't actually written a blog before so mistakes were guaranteed, but thank you for your corrections.

So, they say species =/= kind but they never define what a kind is, they just know for CERTAIN that it doesn't mean species. So are they suggesting (in your opinion) that kind means family (in terms of taxonomy)?

 

[Inferno]

So, they say species =/= kind but they never define what a kind is, they just know for CERTAIN that it doesn't mean species. So are they suggesting (in your opinion) that kind means family (in terms of taxonomy)?

No. They're suggesting that "kind" means whatever suits them best at the current moment. For example, in the case of cats they lump all cats together under "cat-kind", which would be synonymous with the family "Felidae". (Or dogs, or horses, etc.)
I can't for the life of me find the specific example, but I once found one creationist suggesting that "kind" might even be applicable at the level or "Order".

What is definitely true though is they class humans as a different "kind" than monkeys and apes, even though that's far away from the family Hominidae. Sometimes they won't even recognize that and claim that it only applies to our species "Homo sapiens" itself.

But yes, in most cases a "kind" or baramin is the same as a taxonomic family.

 

[DutchLiam84]

There are no ends to Nephies retardedness:

"The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution."
Then why do, Tuft's and Harvard universities offer a college credit course in Cosmic Evolution?
h t t p s : / / w w w . cfa . harvard . e d u / ~ejchaisson / cosmic_evolution / docs / splash . h t m l
you do not understand that all science theories put forth by secular universities are evolutionism.
NephilimFree in reply to mrrkkemp (Show the comment) 15 hours ago

 

[TheSkyIsSideways]

Not creationism exactly, but I just now got this as a justification for hell:

Eternal torture can be justified easily. God would most certainly NOT be just if He let people get away with their sins, would He?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Eternal torture can be justified easily. God would most certainly NOT be just if He let people get away with their sins, would He?

Wow. Could you imagine the debauchery that can result from such thinking?

1. This sort of sounds like something that arose out of divine command theory. The major issue with divine command theory is that whatever is claimed to be incorrect behavior could be prosecuted with the simple idea of someone claiming that person A did something wrong, even if person A is innocent (just pick up a bible and read some of the ridiculous laws that were penned). Then this type of 'communtity' blacklisting and projecting could be used against an innocent individual. The last time I checked hersey is one of lowest forms of evidence known to man, meaning that someone could simply attempt to tarnish another individuals life simply because the person making the accusations was having a bad day or felt the need to settle some vindictive score. I would see this as a direct violation or incompatibility between the laws in the bible and rights that are granted under most constitutions. What is worse is that this type of thinking could be used to further ostracize an individual just because they don't belong to the correct group. Sounds very ethnocentric, which I would call one of the major issues that faces the World in which we inhabit.

2. This is why it is so important to stick to the 'prove that your God exists' line of questioning that is often proposed by many atheists. Because without the proper link to a 'god' then some of the backward thinking that is persistent in theistic belief would be exposed. It appears that one problem is that too many people are sucked into the idea that because their 'god' exists, some baseless assertion, they could be justified to make a hell on Earth for those that don't subscribe to a particular religious dogma. And this could be one reason why some of enlightenment thinkers criticized religious dogmatic practices. It's because some understand the incompatibility of divine command theory and having rights granted from a source outside of 'GOD'. Of course, the religions with the greatest influence tend to use this type of thinking to attempt to scare individuals into 'thinking' like they do IMHO.

3.. What one religious or non-religious person calls just behavior another might see as excessive or abusive punishment ('eternal hell' for a minor offense does not seem very just). Again, this is why it is important for religious people to establish the POSITIVE existence of their particular diety. Without the positive existence then some of the inane 'religious' laws that they try to pass off on society should be prosecuted as opposed to person that so-called committed those inane 'religious' laws. And I know some so called 'Christians' use the bible as a guide to what should be used as proper punishment. Without the link to a 'god' head then it would be my hope that the punishment would fit the crime and that would be predicated on if the crime actually happened.

Pardon the small rant.

 

[Gnug215]

Not creationism exactly, but I just now got this as a justification for hell:

Eternal torture can be justified easily. God would most certainly NOT be just if He let people get away with their sins, would He?

Hi Sky!

I've heard this "argument" a number of times, and I dislike it so much.

The argument is just so incredibly, insultingly stupid; for one, Hell is eternal, unending, ultimately painful punishment for a limited amount of sins, which is . But more idiotically, Christians seem to forget that people ARE getting away with their sins: all you have to do is say yes to Jesus, and you're set!

It has crap-all to do with any kind of definitino of the term "justice". The only way to describe it properly is: "God makes the rules, and they make no sense, but make like a good believer or I'm gonna make you bbq4ever."

 

[TheSkyIsSideways]

Eternal torture can be justified easily. God would most certainly NOT be just if He let people get away with their sins, would He?

Hi Sky!

I've heard this "argument" a number of times, and I dislike it so much.

The argument is just so incredibly, insultingly stupid; for one, Hell is eternal, unending, ultimately painful punishment for a limited amount of sins, which is . But more idiotically, Christians seem to forget that people ARE getting away with their sins: all you have to do is say yes to Jesus, and you're set!

It has crap-all to do with any kind of definitino of the term "justice". The only way to describe it properly is: "God makes the rules, and they make no sense, but make like a good believer or I'm gonna make you bbq4ever."

Hi Gnug!

My reply was essentially that either God has no alternative punishment to eternal torture, which would make him not omnipotent, or he DOES have an alternative, but chooses not to use it, in which case, he is evil.

They also tried to defend Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter by stating that God didn't explicitly demand it, and that all the people who drowned in Noah's flood had been given the choice to get on the boat, but had refused.

I sent my response yesterday morning, British summer time, and I haven't had a reply yet.

 

[televator]

I know it's probably best to stick to asking theists to prove god's existence and all, but it does give me a nice chuckle making the case for an evil god. The defensiveness of theist encountering this is probably proportional to their discomfort...

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I know it's probably best to stick to asking theists to prove god's existence and all, but it does give me a nice chuckle making the case for an evil god. The defensiveness of theist encountering this is probably proportional to their discomfort...

Yeah, I have actually used that same argument many times myself.......

I also think it is important to try to establish a link between some creationist beliefs and actual life, or in many cases how improbable some of those stories are when you stop to think about it. I generally try to avoid situations where 'fabricated' information is used for the sole purpose of making individuals look bad. I realize that some people like to do that for the simple fact of using that information later to force some sort of manipulative circumstance. Also, I find it semi-important to let the creationists bring these stories up themselves as I usually find it a better approach to dealing with some issues. But that could be a circumstance of my geography and nothing else.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

TheSkyIsSideways, one of the many(!) things that caused me to leave Catholicism was the inherent contradiction of Hell, given a Omni-benevolent Creator.

Apart from souls being sent there, it would mean that Hell would have to exist somewhere within God - which would be impossible given that God is both Perfect and Immutable.

Given that everything exists within God, Hell - as a place - would represent a Imperfection within God's Perfection - also, if God is Immutable, there can be no change or difference within God's Existence and/or Being.

As a place, Hell is a human invention - not only from it's original Jewish reference to the fire outside a city where all rubbish is burnt (essentially, an incinerator) - but also as it is used as a threat by the Church to control people. You have a similar case with Islam's use of eternal punishment to control Muslims.

In this, John Shelby Spong is correct, in my opinion.

For me, the only way to counter the contradictions in these claims is to answer that;

1) If God is Omni-benevolent, there's no punishment, and - therefore - no "place" of punishment;
2) If God is Omniscient, He would not create souls knowing that "they will go to Hell" - ergo, all souls will go to Heaven (return to God, in other words).

*Apologetics over*.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Greetings,

TheSkyIsSideways, one of the many(!) things that caused me to leave Catholicism was the inherent contradiction of Hell, given a Omni-benevolent Creator.

Apart from souls being sent there, it would mean that Hell would have to exist somewhere within God - which would be impossible given that God is both Perfect and Immutable.

Given that everything exists within God, Hell - as a place - would represent a Imperfection within God's Perfection - also, if God is Immutable, there can be no change or difference within God's Existence and/or Being.

As a place, Hell is a human invention - not only from it's original Jewish reference to the fire outside a city where all rubbish is burnt (essentially, an incinerator) - but also as it is used as a threat by the Church to control people. You have a similar case with Islam's use of eternal punishment to control Muslims.

In this, John Shelby Spong is correct, in my opinion.

For me, the only way to counter the contradictions in these claims is to answer that;

1) If God is Omni-benevolent, there's no punishment, and - therefore - no "place" of punishment;
2) If God is Omniscient, He would not create souls knowing that "they will go to Hell" - ergo, all souls will go to Heaven (return to God, in other words).

*Apologetics over*.

Kindest regards,

James

Hey Drag!

An excellent argument, and one with think the apologetics would end there, but... alas not.

This is where apologists really start to bend stuff.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hey Drag!

An excellent argument, and one with think the apologetics would end there, but... alas not.

This is where apologists really start to bend stuff.

I think that the real problem - in the US - is that American "Christians" (read Protestants) cleave to a different definition of God: the God of Scripture, instead of the God of The Philosophers.

An all-too human God, instead of a paragon of what a humane being should be like.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Is Nephy ill or just retarded? His comments and videos seem to be getting more batshit crazy every time:

Darwin believed in creation, after his voyage on the Beagle. It was not until Charles Lyell befriended him and coaxed him into believing in evolution, and that he could become famous if he wrote that his specimine collecting on that voyage produced evidences of evolution that Darwin came to believe in evolution and was inspired to write about it. Basically, Dawrin was a patsy for evolution schooled and inspired by Lyell and Lyell's close friends -- the X-Club.
NephilimFree in reply to 0Maloy1 (Show the comment) 5 hours ago

 

[TheSkyIsSideways]

Well, I got a reply, but it wasn't anything particularly noteworthy:

For Hell, see, people CAN commit an infinite sin. That sin is rejecting God. Everyone has a chance to know about Him, they can see Him in nature, and so everyone knows, they can't give excuses. Even if someone doesn't come outright and tell them about God, they ought to know through nature. And that sin is infinite.

Just some old-fashioned, refuted-a-million-times-before stuff. But it's an easy lead in to demanding evidence for God's actual existence, so that should make things simpler. I'm not expecting anything really interesting or entertaining back.

I have to say, though, the third sentence could do with fewer commas. It would work much better as three sentences. But that's just me being pedantic.

 

[Frenger]

For Hell, see, people CAN commit an infinite sin. That sin is rejecting God. Everyone has a chance to know about Him, they can see Him in nature, and so everyone knows, they can't give excuses. Even if someone doesn't come outright and tell them about God, they ought to know through nature. And that sin is infinite.

What about blind people?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

For Hell, see, people CAN commit an infinite sin. That sin is rejecting God. Everyone has a chance to know about Him, they can see Him in nature, and so everyone knows, they can't give excuses. Even if someone doesn't come outright and tell them about God, they ought to know through nature. And that sin is infinite.

What about blind people?

They were cursed from the beginning because their parents sinned of course.

 

[Frenger]

They were cursed from the beginning because their parents sinned of course.

Wow, theology is a lot trickier then ya think huh?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

They were cursed from the beginning because their parents sinned of course.

Wow, theology is a lot trickier then ya think huh?

Yes, and a lot dumber.

 

[RedYellow]

Basically, "Humans have tried to interbreed with apes, and failed, therefore we aren't apes."

 

[Frenger]

Basically, "Humans have tried to interbreed with apes, and failed, therefore we aren't apes."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Was that a confession? Was he admitting he had tried?