HOME | DD
mjranum — Teh Garden of Eden
Published: 2009-08-14 01:00:21 +0000 UTC; Views: 21715; Favourites: 123; Downloads: 1958
Redirect to original
Description
(See also )One of the bloggers whose work I follow is PZ Myers, who writes the "Pharyngula" blog - mostly a mix of biology, poking fun at religion, and laughing at pseudoscience. Recently, PZ and a group of secularists made a field trip to "The Creation Museum" - a $28 million propaganda play-park run by creationist bible-bangers, who built a fake "museum" to promote their pseudo-scientific nonsense to helpless, trusting, schoolkids.
PZ and others took photos and copious notes, and (other than complete disgust at the idiocy of the "museum"s displays) had a pretty good time. So I was thinking, "$28 million? Heck, I've got $100 that says I can do better than that!!!!"
So and I ran to WAL-MART and bought some crafty stuff, dinosaurs, plastic cows, and lots of googly eyes and, well, we're proud to offer you our version of one of the displays from the Creation Museum. What's scary is that it's EXACTLY as scientific as the nonsense those bible-spanking yutzes are pushing at schoolkids!! Yes, they claim - in a "museum" - that, in the Garden of Eden dinosaurs and humans lived together peacefully. Because they hadn't yet had "The Fall" and so everyone was still vegetarian and there was no death. As Bill Maher says: "these people are treating The Flintstones as if it was a documentary"
We had a great time playing with the forced perspective (this was shot with graduated lighting and all the objects are on an angled board - "adam and eve" are about 10 feet from the camera and the nearest cow is about 3" from the lens. I didn't want to spend the money to get all my critters the same size. Sarah did the object rigging (googly eyes and the carrotsaurus and bananaraptor) - I think we didn't stop laughing the whole time we put this together.
It's stupid and silly. The difference between this and the creation museum is that we know it.
Related content
Comments: 113
If you haven't come across it yet check out Pastafarianism. Yes, that is with a P. You'll love it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The googly eyes on Adam and Eve are the best part!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sarah had a lot of fun with those.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You know, if they didn't read your description, I think they'd give you a reward for this without realizing you were mocking them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Many many props to you sir!
I agree that mockery is a perfectly viable means of criticism. I admire your patience in arguing with the fundies. The lack of logic is often too much for me to bear, makes me want to bang my head against the wall sometimes. (of course I don't, because that is also highly illogical, lol)
PZ is great fun to read.
Living here in Austin, Tx, I highly enjoy the Atheist Experience TV show. Being a public access show they are a bit too politically correct for my tastes though.
Their podcast, the Non Prophets, is much more irreverent and that's where they get their mockery on. They've had PZ on several times too. Good stuff.
GOOGLY EYES!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
googly eyes FTW!
Did you see my "madonna and maggot" shot? That one really makes the christos heads explode.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I saw that one.
Christos head explody is much FTW!
(As an aside, I think the maggot would be fun to use in photo manips by itself if you were so inclined to shoot it for your stock account)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is a version of the maggot madonna in my stock account. Search for "madonna" and go wild
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As they say: The bible stopped making sense when two nudists took dietary advice from a snake.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Couldn't agree more.
As a matter of fact, before the "Fall" Adam and Eve were told that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, it would kill them. Then the snake came along and said that if they ate the fruit, it would not kill them but open their eyes to the truth. And it did open their eyes. They knew what right and wrong were and started wearing those goofy little leafs.
So it turns out that god lied to them and Satan told the truth but creationists still think that this counts as the "Fall" of man into sin. Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were new to the world and had no concept of right and wrong, so god not only lied but made a grave injustice as well. Not a far cry from his usual depiction in the Old Testament as a genocide and rape supporter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I generally like your social observations, and sense of humor. The googly eyes are funny, the dinosaurs eating bananas too. I get the craziness that sounds like.
That being said; I saw this pic and thought of your only 'argument' though.. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Simply calling the creationists "stupid idiot" is all the respect they deserve at this point. Making fun of them might get through their skulls but obviously rational argument and evidence can't or won't -- they walk around surrounded by a world of evidence supporting evolution and they choose to believe in their silly bronze-age myths instead. They want to argue about the science behind evolution but they really don't even know what science is (or they'd do their own research and make their own conclusions, instead of trying to nitpick around the edges of obvious truth.) The comic about PZ is amusing, especially since it ignores the fact that PZ has spent much of his adult life teaching evolutionary biology. Someone who wants a "real argument" from him can any class in biology. They don't need to waste PZ's time with their silly bible thumping and they certainly shouldn't expect respect when they do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
First, I didn't realize the comic was a caricature of PZ. Since you commented him in the notes of the picture I find that very ironic.
I respect PZ for attaining that level of education, and still respectfully disagree with his position. Had I realized the comic was a caricature of him I wouldn't of posted it. I figured it was a comic relating to the topic being discussed on the page I pulled it from. [link]
Also, I don't believe that all evolutionists engage in debates by only name calling.
Second, it's not like all creationists are Bible thumpers, and many of them hold plenty of degrees. They can't all be lumped into a "stupid idiot" group. There are plenty of "stupid idiots" on both sides of the argument. Your argument assumes that if everyone did the same research that PZ or yourself have done or seen that they would reach the same conclusion. I see the opposite of that happen every day in all facets of life. Science, politics, and religion especially. Even in PZs bio it said he was raised Lutheran was presented with the same information as others and he decided to go the athiest route.
There are some indisputable facts (as in everyone agrees) in science yes, but since no one today was alive over the span of history to confirm the scientific research there a lot of assumptions that are made(missing links and all). We don't have the space or time to argue which research has produced fact and which has produced theory, but enough has been produced that there are a lot of people on both sides of the argument.
For example; The statement:
"they walk around surrounded by a world of evidence supporting evolution"
Is easily used by the intelligent design or creationists as well:
"they walk around surrounded by a world of evidence supporting a designer"
Lastly, I enjoyed your reenactment of Eden, and hope to see more thought provoking art in the future.
I appreciate the budgeting considerations you did, and hope others could take example. The fact is to build a museum isn't going to cost a couple hundred bucks. This building supports a group of people in their beliefs founded in reason, science, fact, and some faith. As is every other museum in the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also, I don't believe that all evolutionists engage in debates by only name calling
They're scientists and atheists. There are no "evolutionists." Evolution is a biological process, nothing more.
Second, it's not like all creationists are Bible thumpers, and many of them hold plenty of degrees. They can't all be lumped into a "stupid idiot" group.
There's where you're wrong. The reason is simple: to be a creationist, you have to be not merely ignorant, but parochial, as well. It's not possible to be a creationist without engaging in circular logic, because it's not possible to believe in god or gods without engaging in circular logic. Yes, there are lots of people with science degrees that are willing to mentally hamstring themselves - but that doesn't mean that they're smart - it means they're good at lying. What do I mean? Simply this: in order to accept any one view of 'creationism' you have to deny that all the other ones are wrong. Not merely deny the obvious reality of biological science, you have to deny the Yoruba myth of creation, the Greek myth of creation, the Norse, the Egyptian, the Algonquin, the Mithraic, etc, etc - someone who was trying to even be basically logical would search for something to support their rejection of every other creation myth. And, of course, every one of them is also the "revealed word of" some god or other. If a scientist encounters 30, 40, 100 different "theories" of cosmology, they wouldn't just take one for granted - they'd start rejecting the ones for which there was bad evidence, etc. But of course that's not what these "educated" creationists do: they go to school and get just enough of an education that they can pretend to play the game of science; but they don't understand it. What do they base their belief on? Eventually, they base it on a cobbled-together mass of bronze-age and early medieval nonsense, which was edited and translated over and over by mere mortals. That cobbled-together mass evolved from other religions, and did so obviously. The story of the flood and noah? It's lifted from the Babylonian tale of Gilgamesh. The whole christian creation myth? It's zoroastrian.
So; yes. I say that someone who has had a perfectly good education but who still clings to that nonsense - has wasted their perfectly good education. They may think they're not idiots, but they are worse: they are modern people living in a modern scientific world surrounded with the fruits of science and rationality - yet they cling to superstitions that are outright laughable.
Your argument assumes that if everyone did the same research that PZ or yourself have done or seen that they would reach the same conclusion.
Anyone who understands biology to a significant degree will realize that evolution is the underlying explanatory principle of everything that is alive on earth. Abiogenisis is not understood, yet, but everything that happened from the first moment of life is completely explainable through change and survival; the two mechanisms that drive evolution. Note my terminology; our understanding of evolution has improved a lot since Darwin's time - most notably DNA was not understood. Evolution is also evolving.
I'm not a biologist. My study of biology has been only peripheral. But even so, it's obvious that everything is explained by change and survival.
Here's a lesson in science 101: if you have something as powerful as Darwin's basic theory of evolution, and then suddenly someone comes along and figures out how DNA and RNA work - and it's 100% consistent with your theory (in fact, it fleshes it out even more and adds more detail to it) Then, you start sequencing DNA and RNA and discover that the RNA in mitochondria is, for all intents and purposes, that of bacteria - it's more blindingly clear evidence of endoparasitism occurring back at the dawn of life. There are endless numbers of such examples: new discoveries each of which only works if change+survival drive evolution, and that's how we came to be. It is not possible for evidence to get more compelling. You don't need to be a scientist, you simply need to have some basic knowledge of how life works.
Even in PZs bio it said he was raised Lutheran was presented with the same information as others and he decided to go the athiest route.
You can choose your religion, or choose to have none. But objective reality is not something you can choose. Whether you're a hindu, christian, zoroastrian, atheist, or whatever - it remains absolutely obvious that change+survival is the engine underlying all life on earth. So, while it's one thing to pick and choose your religion, you don't get to pick and choose how reality works.
science yes, but since no one today was alive over the span of history to confirm the scientific research there a lot of assumptions that are made(missing links and all).
Anyone who says such a thing is a fool. Because you're contradicting yourself with your own belief systems.
What do I mean? Simply this: if you reject scientific reality because "people weren't there to see it" then you ought to reject the myth of biblical creation too because "people weren't there to see it" either. Right?
There is vastly more evidence that evolution is real than that the bible or anything that the christians, muslims, or hindus say is real. For starters - they contradict eachother, which is something science does not.
For example; The statement:
"they walk around surrounded by a world of evidence supporting evolution"
Is easily used by the intelligent design or creationists as well:
"they walk around surrounded by a world of evidence supporting a designer"
No, they do not. Believe me, if there were scientific evidence that there was a designer, it'd be all over the place. But instead of offering evidence, the best that the creationist have to offer is trying to nitpick at the real science that is going on -- and, mostly, they're busy looking at stuff Darwin and Mendel got wrong because they are too benighted and ignorant to cope with modern biology. Also - understanding modern biology makes understanding evolution pretty much inevitable.
If there was evidence supporting a designer, where are the blueprints? Where were the eyewitnesses? LOL. We understand physics and cosmology, now, to the point where we have the full electromagnetic spectrum mapped, and understand all atomic processes outside of the nucleus. We don't know why quantum mechanics works, but we know how it works, perfectly. We understand everything that happened in the universe outside of the nucleus of the atom, since the big bang. And not a single bit of it requires or shows signs of divine intervention So if you're saying there's "evidence" for creation it'd have to be some really weak stuff like that there was a god who created the whole universe with this foreordained plan that a dust cloud would eventually form into a planet and human life would evolve... Uh. Uh. That's just stupid.
This building supports a group of people in their beliefs founded in reason, science, fact, and some faith.
Did you notice that they also teach the whole "curse of Ham" nonsense in their special lectures?? That's the crazy batshit racist crap that the christians used to use to justify slavery. Can you believe that those idiots are sitting in 21st century USA still trying to teach that?
Reason? Science? Fact? Only if you're a fool.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue.
Not surprising that all cultures and religions have some form of creation story. Even if you went the evolutionist route and concluded that man evolved you wouldn't conclude that man evolved all over the planet. Hopefully we both can agree that "man" started at some point in time. He made early civilization and progressed from there. Is it no wonder that after man spread over the face of the Earth there are similar concepts passed down through the generations. And like you point out from the zoroastrian illustration that some religions also share common concepts as well. Since they are often polarized and conflicting then we make the conclusion that only one of them has it right. Some base there decision to follow one versus the other in logic, evidence, and others on faith. Similar in the scientific realm, you've made your decision based on the amount of evidence you see, and place your faith in that system to understand everything else about it. As for the evidence around you for a designer, we see blue prints, DNA/RNA. Design implies a designer. If God makes a building block like carbon, why do evolutionists want to make the assumption that all life is derived from a common ancestor, yet exclude the possibility that a creator would use the same building blocks. The evidence for a designer all around is that all lifeforms have more than one special ('survival of the fittest'
The fossil record doesn't support the kind of process. local mutation or change, but not species alteration.
Religious groups (as well as secular) have messed up over the Earths history in many ways. Like you said rationalizing slavery, and then we look at the Crusades.. lets not get started. That doesn't make them right, it points to the corruptibility of man. Which is a whole other conversation.
I'm sorry that the evidence of a creator is stupid to you. Perhaps one day you'll be more open minded to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not surprising that all cultures and religions have some form of creation story. Even if you went the evolutionist route and concluded that man evolved you wouldn't conclude that man evolved all over the planet.
Not surprising at all. There have always been people who are willing to just make stuff up if they don't have an answer. (personally, if I don't know something, I say "I don't know!" and flag it as something to maybe learn about) But I think we can conclude without a doubt that the sun is not swallowed by a giant serpent (as the Egyptians thought) every day, nor is the world a flat plate on an elephant's back standing on a turtle (Vedic myth) -- all these myths are now obviously shown to be myths. And they all had their appropriate holy books and divinely inspired writings. In pure terms, they are proved to be lies. We have hundreds or thousands of theological "explanations" for creation and we've discarded most of them except for one particular mythic cycle. Given the track record of religions being wrong, it's funny that anyone would point at flaws in our scientific knowledge.
Yes, science has been wrong. But if that somehow constituted an argument against science (which I don't think it does) then the same argument would utterly demolish religion. Of course, each of the believers in a particular religion thinks "well, mine is right!" but there's no evidence whatsoever that shows the bible is more right than the koran - other than the belief of its followers. Perhaps, if you consider that, you'll understand why the scientific-minded laugh at the faithful. It really is pretty stupid.
I was debating a religionist the other day and he asked me "what does it feel like to be an atheist?" My answer was simple: you are an atheist, youself. You're already deeply familiar with the experience of not believing in Bast, Odin, Poseidon, Mithras, Kali, Djumma, etc, etc - every religion except your own. You think all those people were deluded, following the wrong path. I just go one god further than you. That's all. Next time you think about the idiots who used to sacrifice their kids to the sun god, just remember that those idiots are coming from the same place your faith comes from.
Similar in the scientific realm, you've made your decision based on the amount of evidence you see, and place your faith in that system to understand everything else about it.
That's a very weak argument that I've heard many times before. Basically, you're trying to equate belief in science principles with faith because they're both belief systems. The reason that falls down is because if science is anything, it's a system of disbelief. When Fleishman and Pons announced room temperature fusion, hundreds of physical chemists and physicists around the world started trying to replicate their results. And it didn't work. The end. Contrast that to religious belief. Some retard in a big hat says "the center of the earth is rome!" and everyone fights over it for a thousand years. The point of science is that nothing survives forever in the scientific realm unless it can be duplicated and is completely consistent with everything else. Most great discoveries result from places where the consistency is not complete (Einstein, for example, realized that there were problems with the original viewpoint in Newton's physics and that brought him to figure out those details and we got the theory of relativity)
Do I go around having to duplicate every experiement on which modern science is based, in order to bolster my belief? No. But I do, every single day. So, in fact, do you. The computer you're using to read this only works because of discoveries in quantum mechanics and radio frequencies in the 1960s. I do not need to "believe" blindly in anything to do with science because our entire modern world would not work as it does if science was wrong (for significant degrees of "wrong").
As for the evidence around you for a designer, we see blue prints, DNA/RNA. Design implies a designer.
What about this, all around us, is "designed"?? Things exist, yes, but the fact that something exists doesn't mean that it exists in some form that someone intended.
Now, one can point at the laws of reality and the beginning of space-time and go "look! we don't know why physical law is the way it is! and we don't know how everything got started!" but you need to realize that we understand how everything works from that point on. It's foolish to believe in a god that went to the trouble to create a universe that's indistinguishable from one without a god. And, certainly, worshipping such a god would be completely pointless. More to the point, imaginging that we're somehow important in a universe with a billion billion suns - that we're the purpose of all this... It beggars my imagination to come up with an expression of sufficient contempt for such silliness.
God-believers, who look at the universe around them and see in it divine design and purpose, are like a bacterium living in someone's colon thinking (if bacteria could think) "god is great! he made this whole universe for me! I am the crown of creation!" It's ridiculous and - as a being with a brain - you're wasting the brain-power that millions of years of survivors grew for you.
If you changed just one at a time (even over millions of years) some would die, others would live, but not enough to have a completely new species.
You appear to not understand that there are new species cropping up all the time. H1N4 is a good example of one. Of course you will argue "that's not a new species" but all that says is that you don't even know what the word means. That's why biologists lose their temper with creationists. It's as if you walked into a championship NBA basketball team and started telling them that they ought to wear their shoes backwards. Do you think they'd pay you a lot of respect and attention?? What creationists don't realize is that their ideas are so ignorant that they don't even realize how ignorant they are. Of course they're suprised they don't get respect.
yet that points me to a designer too, a caring one.
If you believe in a "caring" designer then you have to explain why such a "caring" designer would design things like spina bifida, ebola virus, and cholera. Consider for a moment that life is nothing but ruthless struggle and competition and then, please, explain where you get the ridiculous notion that some "caring" higher power came up with such a scheme!?
Even believing in the account of a global flood that killed almost every thing off (justly) is based on geological flood records
Geology and planetology depend entirely on physics. Everything on the planet does. For a global flood to have happened, as you seem to think it did, the laws of physics had to not apply. That might be the definition of "miracle" to you but it's the definition of "bullshit" to me.
I also believe in change and survival, just not the kind that would create a different species from it. dog -> different kind of dog not dog ->cat
(eyeroll) at least you're sincere in your ignorance. It's not that dogs turn into frogs (or whatever) it's that there are common ancestors that change continually into different branches over long periods of time. You're holding contradictions in your head (something religion does teach people to do!) if you can understand a little change, then how can you not understand that about 2,000,000 years ago there was a big shaggy critter that changed rather slowly - one branch of that family of critters got more and more dog-like and the other branch got more and more bear-like. And 2,000,000 years later, you have dogs and bears. What trips you creationists up is that you see the results of that change right there in front of you but don't realize that there are no "transitional forms" or "missing links" because everything is on a continuum.
The fossil record doesn't support the kind of process. local mutation or change, but not species alteration.
Tell me, honestly, how do you think the fossils got there? Does the devil put them there, or something?
If you're going to attack science, I want to see what you're offering that's a better explanation. (I notice you didn't explain how you believe in creation when you weren't there to witness it - but don't believe in evolution for the same reason. I can only conclude you're not intellectually honest.)
I'm sorry that the evidence of a creator is stupid to you. Perhaps one day you'll be more open minded to it.
I hope you realize that, to me, that's like saying "I hope you get brain cancer and lose your mind."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are very quick to make light, fun, and belittle the people who believe in God, just because you don't. Those same believers were also some of the early scientists who formed today's scientific laws and theories (Newton, Galileo, [link] ) Yes, I realize the church persecuted Galileo for his beliefs, the Roman Catholic church still does stuff that the rest of the Christian community (Protestants) sees as unBiblical, hence the separation.
We both agree that ancient civilization creation stories containing turtles and serpents are false, and they were perpetuated by a belief in a higher being(s). Though Creation is simple. God spoke and it happened. He put everything into place. If you don't believe in God then you'll never believe creation. So we can either end the discussion there, or continue on into the existence of a deity that has the ability to create from nothing, and who created space and time. I was hoping you would at least be open to the perspective of a creationist, but alas even valid points are dismissed as week, foolish, and stupid.
The evidence of a creator is in his creation. You can choose to believe the theory of evolution. You do place your faith ( [link] ) in the science of it. Perhaps one day we will find any of those transitional forms that show a big shaggy critter becoming a dog and/or bear.
clarification on other points:
Yes, science has been wrong. No, it doesn't constituted an argument against science.
Actually yes, there is evidence that shows the Bible is more accurate than the Qur'an. Primarily since the Qur'an says it is from the same God as the Bible (Torah and Gosples), yet contradicts them. Since the Bible does not contain those contradictions and does not make a claim to be based from the Qur'an the Bible has a more solid foundation for it's literature. They've been fighting over that for 3,000yrs. Sons of Abraham (Isaac and Ishmael), whew. I'll leave it at that.
"It's foolish to believe in a god that went to the trouble to create a universe that's indistinguishable from one without a god."
Well you wouldn't be able to tell the differnce unless you uneqivocally had experienced both.
"More to the point, imaginging that we're somehow important in a universe with a billion billion suns..."
Seeing as how our planet's chances of being in existence at all with the right criteria met (yellow star, axis tilt, sun distance, moon, life sustaining element proportions, and location in galaxy).. are pretty close to ZERO, the possibility of another earth occurring anywhere else in the universe is also practically to ZERO. Thus I do see God putting us in place for a purpose, his. ( [link] )
Silliness is using the illustration of a bacterium, and then giving it a brain to continue the illustration. I think that's the definition next to silliness in the dictionary. lol.
spina bifida, ebola virus, and cholera. Death,and the causes of are results of the curse of God on man after the fall. More of a theological question than a scientific one. Yes he designed them, but as a just punishment for mans' (all of man represented in Adam) disobedience.
rephrase: dog -> other dog types not dog->long time->something barely recognizable as dog
because during that long time there would be the transitional creatures we don't have a fossil record of.
And H1N1 -> other mutated H1N1 types. My apologies to biologists for the use of word species, perhaps creature or biological entity is better suited.
If I remember correctly from a geologist, there does exist a layer of limestone that exists at the same point around the world, giving credit to a world wide flood. I'd have to look up that one to be more specific.
Fossils are not put in the ground by Satan. Plenty can be from a flood, then deposited when the sediment settled. Or something similar like a person or animal dies is buried in some fashion and more sediment covers it.
I'm not really trying to attack science here. Pointing out some flaws in logic for evolution sure. Though I know you are trying to point out flaws in my logic as well, I claim no perfection.
Science has personal observations, geological, archeological, experiments to go by. Science often proves claims the Bible has made. Plenty of archeological sites that line up with Biblical accounts. The Bible also has observations. Adam was a part of creation, and dealt with God directly. Then passing on oral traditions, eventually it is written down. I believe that after Noah and a world wide flood that the languages were scattered, and the people groups and animals covered the world and developed into the civilizations we know of today.
I hope you never get brain cancer, and continue to use the brain God gave you to come to a more fuller realization of him and his creation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are very quick to make light, fun, and belittle the people who believe in God, just because you don't.
No. I am quick to make fun of them because they believe dumb stuff. In most cases those beliefs were a conscious choice; there is enough information out there that they could, rather than believe what they do, educate themselves and learn a bit about the universe around them. So, yeah, it's like someone choosing to wear a sign on their back reading "I'm STUPID" there's nothing wrong with pointing and laughing at someone who chooses to be ignorant when there's an alternative.
If I believed that cellular energy mechanisms relied on little pink unicorns, I'd expect other biologists to laugh at me behind my back, too. If you go around saying dumb stuff, you gotta expect to be treated like a dummy. That's just the way the world is.
God spoke and it happened. He put everything into place.
You weren't there and didn't see it, were you? That's the same reason you gave earlier for questioning evolution - do you question your belief in creation?
I was hoping you would at least be open to the perspective of a creationist, but alas even valid points are dismissed as week, foolish, and stupid.
Your calling them valid doesn't make them so. In fact, you haven't offered anything like an argument supporting any kind of creationist viewpoint other than "god spoke..." That's not a valid point, that's just an assertion. What do you base that assertion on? A 2,000 year-old book? If so, how did you determine that your particular 2,000 year-old book is right while the others are wrong? I'm dimissing your "points" because they aren't even arguments; they're just hand-waving. Can you tell me how you know one book (presumably the bible) is right but the tibetan book of the dead is wrong? What evidence convinced you? Do you have any?
I assume you do understand that the "evidence" for any particular creation myth is compatible with the "evidence" for all of them. So, how can you tell which is right? All you have is what appears to you to be design (which says a lot about how little you understand of biology) - how do you know which designer is which? The Bhagvad-Gita's explanation of creation can also be viewed as a "big bang" - which do you believe in and why were you able to discard one as wrong and the other as right?
For what it's worth, I take a scientific viewpoint on cosmology. We now understand that 13.7 +/- billion years ago, the universe expanded from a singularity - there is a huge amount of evidence supporting that - and it's all consistent. I have no idea what caused the singularity, nor do I try to guess. You appear to go one step farther and guess that it was a god. Based on what knowledge? It might just be some garglefrincham researcher pushed "go" on their equivalent of the large hadron collider and accidentally created a universe. Scientists are comfortable with saying "I don't know" because the religious approach of just making something up doesn't answer anything, really, anyhow.
("It's foolish to believe in a god that went to the trouble to create a universe that's indistinguishable from one without a god.")
Well you wouldn't be able to tell the differnce unless you uneqivocally had experienced both.
That's not true. If there were a god running around doing anything on earth, it'd show. There would be weird errors in experiments. There would be constants that turned out to be wrong. There would be things happening that would be immediately obvious if we looked at them statistically (for example, catholics might be 20% less likely to die of cancer, or something, because of their prayers) - but... nothing. If god played games with physics in ways that affected earth, it'd violate our understanding of physical law and would be quite detectable. So, either we have a god that doesn't exist or a god that is so carefully hidden that it makes no difference.
Seeing as how our planet's chances of being in existence at all with the right criteria met (yellow star, axis tilt, sun distance, moon, life sustaining element proportions, and location in galaxy).. are pretty close to ZERO, the possibility of another earth occurring anywhere else in the universe is also practically to ZERO. Thus I do see God putting us in place for a purpose, his.
Oh, the "fine tuning" argument. Yawn. I've heard that one before. What do you think of that near earth-like planet (Gleise 581) that scientists found last year?? And that's just within our pathetic field of vision. With billions of galaxies of billions of stars "practically zero" means "happens quite a lot, really." Creationists generally don't learn math, though. In fact, if the odds of planets like ours were one in a billion billion, there would be millions of them. There are a hell of a lot of stars out there!
So you think god created a billion trillion suns - what, for decoration for our sky? Seems like a lot of wasted effort.
spina bifida, ebola virus, and cholera. Death,and the causes of are results of the curse of God on man after the fall. More of a theological question than a scientific one. Yes he designed them, but as a just punishment for mans' (all of man represented in Adam) disobedience.
Ah, I see. You do realize that any supremely powerful being that did inflict things like spina bifida on innocent children because of something one of their ancestors did 2,000 years ago would be an immoral monster? I don't think it's a good idea here to try to deconstruct the utter immorality of christian theology but let's suffice to say that if I believed such a god existed, I'd say "let's kill it! it's a monster!"
rephrase: dog -> other dog types not dog->long time->something barely recognizable as dog because during that long time there would be the transitional creatures we don't have a fossil record of.
You don't know enough about biology to be having this argument with me. Seriously. The fossil record is not the only place where the trail of evolution is clearly found. It's in the dog's DNA, and the bear's DNA. And yours and mine, too. Amazing that the fossil evidence and the evidence in all DNA happen to coincide, isn't it? You creationists talk about "gaps in the fossil record" but you really don't understand that every single cell of our bodies carries the fossil record for our ancestral tree. It's all right in there. We've even been able to figure out which tribes of humans spread where and when in their diaspora from africa 100,000 years ago, based on specific mutations in maternal DNA, mostly, but - since you appear to at least understand that breeds of dogs can change over time, do you also understand that breeds of humans can, and have? And that the tracks of that are encoded in our DNA? Guess what, the relationship between dog and bear is in their DNA as well. Fossils are cool, but now that we can sequence genomes they're a curiousity.
By the way, I always love how creationists talk about "gaps in the fossil record" and then manage to forget that issue when things like feathered reptiles (Caudipteryx et al), snakes with pelvises, etc, are found as fossils. And that's without even getting into all the transitional forms of humans that we've found. I guess all those fossils are fakes god put in the earth to test our faith, huh? What a jokerrrrr...
If I remember correctly from a geologist, there does exist a layer of limestone that exists at the same point around the world, giving credit to a world wide flood.
See what you just did? You just engaged in typical creationist narrow-think. I already pointed out that for there to be a world-covering flood 6,000 years ago, the laws of physics would have had to be utterly violated - and they'd need to have been violated again to put the earth back into habitable condition. The energy necessary to go from the tail end of the last ice age to a flood would have entailed bringing the atmosphere to a temperature near boiling. And if there was a flood 6,000 years ago, how did the poles get cooled down to ice? That would require sinking off absolutely amazing amounts of heat to - where? That's just physics. For a scientific theory to survive it has to be consistent with everything: the geology has to be right, the physics has to be right, etc.
There are sandstone layers all over the place and at some parts in planetary history it appears that much of the earth was under water. So it's not surprising that there are signs of such things. But 6,000 years ago? LOL. Did you also buy that nonsense answers in genesis was talking about the grand canyon probably being from the flood? The stone is granite and limestone. It'd take more than 6,000 years to make much impression on it, let alone a single flood. (And meanwhile, how are the poles turning to ice?)
The point here is that, to be a creationist, you have to be completely ignorant about most of the spectrum of science, then pick and choose a few little areas where you can hang onto your faith. And that's why even non-scientists like myself who have a reasonably broad base of knowledge find creationists to be very very foolish.
Fossils are not put in the ground by Satan. Plenty can be from a flood, then deposited when the sediment settled.
That is utterly absurd.
Go look on google images for some pictures of what the tsunami and floods in south asia, 2004, looked like. Or look at some pictures of New Orleans. Then try to convince yourself that the fossils all layered themselves neatly and that there wasn't a single critter that was fast on its feet and didn't wind up at the wrong layer or one little old crippled person who wound up in the layer with the dinosaurs. Talk about gaps in the fossil record - there would be a complete jumble, rather than the relatively orderly thing we find. Because reality happened over hundreds of millions of years not months. But, hey, why aren't creationist "scientists" out there looking for those jumbles in the fossil record? Why aren't they turning up interesting new discoveries like the paleontologists in china who keep finding dinosaurs with feathers and fish with legs? They aren't looking because they know it's not there.
I'm not really trying to attack science here.
Don't worry. You aren't even within sniffing distance of being able to mount an effective attack against anything.
Pointing out some flaws in logic for evolution sure.
You're not doing that, either. You're demonstrating a great deal about your own lack of knowledge, though.
Plenty of archeological sites that line up with Biblical accounts.
Of course they do!!! The bible makes references to real things that were happening at the time. There was a roman empire. Wow! The bible is right! (facepalm)
Adam was a part of creation, and dealt with God directly. Then passing on oral traditions, eventually it is written down.
Gosh, I just have trouble understanding how someone can argue about flaws in science, but buy turn off his skepticism long enough to buy a load like that. Let's see - which is more likely?
a) the bible was written by humans inspired by god working in mysterious ways
b) the bible was written by just plain old folks the same way SPIDER-MAN comic books are
?? Wait - I know - you're going to tell me SPIDER-MAN is all true, too, because there really is a New York City and there was once a redhead named MJ so it's all gotta be real.
people groups and animals covered the world and developed into the civilizations we know of today.
Why did the marsupials only go to Australia?
Why doesn't our DNA show a restriction in mutations that would trace back to everyone being from a handful of genetic lines, 6,000 years ago?
Why don't the chinese, who had a written language and history just like the middle easterners, not record a flood? What, did they just sort of forget about everyone being wiped out?
etc.
I hope you never get brain cancer, and continue to use the brain God gave you to come to a more fuller realization of him and his creation.
I'll be using my brain until it wears out, no matter what. Shame you've put yours in "Park" Your ancestors worked millions of years to build that brain for you and look how you've gone and wasted it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seeing as how we have opposing world views, our interpretation of the evidences provided will end in different results. Not sure why I continue to eat this can of worms you have provided.
You weren't there and didn't see it, were you? That's the same reason you gave earlier for questioning evolution - do you question your belief in creation?
Actually, I question evolution over the fossil record more than anything. I think I've pointed that out a few times, and I already stated my answer as to the record of creation.
And my point with no one being alive now that lived through it all for personal testimony is that we need to rely on what was left behind. Written, oral, archeological, etc. Lets also look at the evidences of modern thinking and science. (which he have been attempting) Plenty to conform the accuracy of scripture, which enables me to conclude the whole is true.
If so, how did you determine that your particular 2,000 year-old book is right while the others are wrong?
Reason in evidence, internal, external, prophesies, science, archeology....
See here: [link]
All you have is what appears to you to be design (which says a lot about how little you understand of biology)
I make no claims of being a biologist. However, from some of the basic teaching from biologists even creating the basics of life like protein chains take so many factors into consideration that to change even one kills the whole system down. How does something as complex as protein chains like that in DNA ever get put together through evolution? It can't, and if on the miracle that it does, how would it happen enough times to generate more than one occurance?
For what it's worth, I take a scientific viewpoint on cosmology.
Ok, I have no issue with the universe expanding, or a big bag. I believe that's how God could have chosen to do it. Just like a building or a watch doesn't make itself, the universe in all it's complexity points to a designer. As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, an uncaused cause.
There would be weird errors in experiments. There would be constants that turned out to be wrong.
I see it as a loving God that doesn't want to drive us mad, changing constants.. they wouldn't be constant! Giving us a foundation, like physics (Gravity) speaks to a wonderful maker. This planet would be like a fun house (think Norse god Loki) if his input was that mischievous. His influence could occur in miracles that would defy a scientific explanation(more to his glory), or work within science to achieve the same result.
Gliese 581 - other than wikipedia do you have more sound info on that. Cause I'm not quite seeing what you're seeing as a valid point here.
So you think god created a billion trillion suns - what, for decoration for our sky? Seems like a lot of wasted effort.
Yes. And it required only for God to speak to put it in place, not a whole lot of effort there.
but you really don't understand that every single cell of our bodies carries the fossil record for our ancestral tree.
DNA is used for your purposes as another link between animals, though if God makes something good, why not use it multiple times. Just like the building blocks of carbon based life forms, DNA is a shared trait.
As for dinosaurs with feathers and mans missing link. Time will tell. Even evolution believing scientists are still debating caudipteryx, it may fall into bird or dinosaur. A distant cousin of one or the other, but not a link... or maybe a link. or maybe an independently created animal...
It may end up like archaeopterx and be settled as a bird and not dino at all. then just a short list of all the faked missing link men: pithecanthropus erectus, eoanthropus dawsoni, peking man, nebraska man.. who knows what will turn up next.
As for fossil records and the flood, I didn't say that all fossils were a result from the flood. Just that is one possible way of making one.
Why did the marsupials only go to Australia?
Different animals were equiped to survive better in some places than others. Even you should understand that. They procreated, migrated, and that just happens to be the direction that worked for them. Similar instances with skin tone. Depending on light or dark shades of skin and amounts of sun, vitamin E would be produced and have a healthier population. Hence you find a darker population around the equator, their skin tone didn't prevent them from producing enough and they stayed healthier.
Good questions on the ice caps and physics of a global change. I'll look into that as further study.
Don't worry. You aren't even within sniffing distance of being able to mount an effective attack against anything. Then why do you resort to attacks and name calling, sure sounds like a bully tactic.
I guess we are done here. I'm done being attacked, and defending myself, while you play supreme being and take nothing I say with any merit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seeing as how we have opposing world views, our interpretation of the evidences provided will end in different results. Not sure why I continue to eat this can of worms you have provided.
If you don't have the stomach for it, I don't know why you took a bite in the first place. After all, it's pretty clear that I'm publicly contemptuous of the creationist position; It's going to take hard evidence to convince me, and mostly you've offered the same old same old arguments I've heard from creationists before.
Please don't make it sound like it's a disagreement about world views. It goes deeper than that; there's a huge amount of objective reality that you're ignoring. It's not a disagreement about world views when one party has got their head in la-la land - that's more like "you're wrong." It's that simple.
Actually, I question evolution over the fossil record more than anything
Yeah, but if you're going to raise an argument, it's bad strategy if that same argument refutes your own position.
And my point with no one being alive now that lived through it all for personal testimony is that we need to rely on what was left behind. Written, oral, archeological, etc. Lets also look at the evidences of modern thinking and science. (which he have been attempting) Plenty to conform the accuracy of scripture, which enables me to conclude the whole is true.
You keep refuting yourself. If you're saying that people should look at evidence then the evidence for evolution is vastly superior to the evidence for scripture. In the case of scripture, you've got a handful of historical facts (e.g.: there was a Rome) in the scripture, mixed in with things that you, yourself, have to admit "nobody was there to witness" such as adam allegedly talking directly to god. If you mix truth and fiction in the same book, the one is not evidence supporting the other - as I said - SPIDER-MAN is not real, simply because there have been redhead girls named MJ and a city called Gotham. If you're talking about looking for historical and archeological evidence, your whole argument falls apart. Why? Because if these things were, actually, historical they'd be part of common human history. In other words, the hindus and Chinese would also have heard of "adam." You'll note that he doesn't appear in other cultural texts. Why?
You are, in fact, not looking for evidence at all, nor are you engaging in reasoning. You're starting with your end-point and working backward from there - which is neither rational nor intellectually honest. It is certainly not intellectually honest to have your doubts about the fossil record and then to accept at face value assertions about some guy talking personally with a supreme being that creates universes.
Reason in evidence, internal, external, prophesies, science, archeology....
See here: [link]
I actually went and read a little bit of that. It's some of the dumbest stuff I've seen for a while - the logic is kindergarten quality. You've got circular reasoning like that the bible is true because it contains god's word, therefore everything the bible says about god is true, too. Come on that's just stupid.
And, more importantly, it utterly fails to answer "how do you know it's true?" because all the other holy books of the other religions say they're true, too. So if you were to accept even that specious logic, then you're stuck with the bhagvad-gita being true (after all, it says it is!) ditto the book of mormon. Etc.
Now, I would be impressed with the bible if it had something in it like jesus telling paul, "Write this down: someday you will learn of a number called '
Meanwhile poor science plugs along having to predict that such-and-such layer of shale in a mine in China would be around the same time that fish started learning to move on land and - dig and you find tiktaalik ( [link] ) Guess what happens when scientists find a fish with legs? The creationists say "wow that creates two new gaps in the fossil record!"
I make no claims of being a biologist.
Your knowledge of biology is so weak that you aren't qualified to argue with one, then. I mean, seriously.
How does something as complex as protein chains like that in DNA ever get put together through evolution?
They explain that in introductory biology. It's actually pretty straightforward.
You appear to understand selective breeding; you referred to it earlier. So you actually understand evolution, you're just not intellectually honest enough to recognize it.
If a dog breeder can, over time change the shape and color of dogs by choosing which ones mate and choosing whatever properties he wants, then survival over time is capable of doing exactly the same thing, just less efficiently. It's that simple.
It can't, and if on the miracle that it does, how would it happen enough times to generate more than one occurance?
The fossil record also contains wonderful things like Pikaia ( [link] ) from which everything with a spinal cord pretty much descended. Pikaia appears to have "invented" the spinal cord. It's your ancestor. It's also my dog's ancestor, my cat's ancestor, etc. Pikaia itself didn't make it - it's gone extinct. These things only have to happen once. Understanding how biology actually works makes all this stuff very very obvious.
the universe in all it's complexity points to a designer.
I think you don't understand something: The universe is actually very simple. The laws of physics are fairly straightforward - you can fit them in a couple of terse pages. From that, the entire universe orders itself. All the complexity you see is emergent properties of physical law.
Before you say "...and god created physical law" .. be careful. Because evolution works because of physical law For example, if you take certain phospholipid proteins, basic chemistry (which is physics, really) says that they're going to line up in chains in a certain way. They always do. It's physical law. And those phospholipids are the beginning of a cellular wall. We haven't quite figured out abiogenesis yet, but I'm sure we'll have it in a couple decades - that's the question of how life could arise from basic chemical processes in accordance with physical law. Once that starts, evolution takes over, and you've (eventually) got dogs and cats and whatever else.
That's what I meant about "god creating a universe that is indistinguishable from one in which he does not exist" - all that is needed to put us here is a universe and its current set of physical laws. Some creationists say "well god created the physical laws!" but that's a rotten argument because then it means that god has not done anything since the big bang (in which case the bible is all just lies). But if you prefer biblical creationism, then you have to accept massive violations of physical law. You can't have both, so which is it?
I see it as a loving God that doesn't want to drive us mad, changing constants.. they wouldn't be constant! Giving us a foundation, like physics (Gravity) speaks to a wonderful maker. This planet would be like a fun house (think Norse god Loki) if his input was that mischievous. His influence could occur in miracles that would defy a scientific explanation(more to his glory), or work within science to achieve the same result.
Well, a biblical-style flood would require massive violations of physical law. Indeed, god would have to be so capricious that he'd be willing to trigger energy releases that would destroy the surface of the planet, and then put them back, just for fun - that would be the equivalent of adding and then subtracting the force of many thousands of H-bombs, just for starters.
Now, a god that acted only within the constraints of physical law would look like a god that wasn't there. I.e.: an earthquake in sumatra triggers a tsunami in malaysia. The earthquake is caused by plate tectonics which is caused by the physics of the planet.
And you don't like evolution because of the fossil record? (LOL!) But you're comfortable with completely whacky non-science like "the flood"? In which lots of water that does not presently exist on earth somehow appears and covers the surface, destroying everything, and then disappears again and then god chills the poles (miraculously without baking the rest of the planet) just - uh - to make them icy. You find that more plausible than the fossil record? That's funny.
Gliese 581 - other than wikipedia do you have more sound info on that. Cause I'm not quite seeing what you're seeing as a valid point here.
It's a planet in another solar system light years away, that is close to earth-like. To the point where scientists think it might actually have liquid water. I mentioned that because, earlier, I commented that it'd be a strange god that would go to the trouble to make a billion billion suns just to decorate the skies for a bunch of bronze-age jews. If there are other earth-like planets within a few hundred light-years of us, it would mean that there are probably millions out there. Which might mean that there's some other planet, someplace, with life - and they probably have creationists there, too.
Yes. And it required only for God to speak to put it in place, not a whole lot of effort there.
I'm sorry. I've just got to flat out laugh at you for that. The confidence with which you utter such silly things is really inspiring.
DNA is used for your purposes as another link between animals, though if God makes something good, why not use it multiple times. Just like the building blocks of carbon based life forms, DNA is a shared trait.
Do you not understand that the consequence of how DNA works is that life evolves?
Even evolution believing scientists are still debating caudipteryx, it may fall into bird or dinosaur.
They're debating where it falls in cladistic classifications. What you don't seem to understand is that the words "bird" and "dinosaur" describe points on a continuum. The terms we use to describe animals are artificial divisions for our own convenience. We call dogs and bears different things because, by and large, they are. But they're also evolved fairly recently from a common ancestor and they're fairly closely related. Scientists are not debating this stuff. What we're debating is the organization of who descended from what common branches and that's mostly because DNA doesn't fossilize. Now, however, we're able to sequence things a lot faster and can determine that there are common mutations between branches that evolved from common ancestors with that mutation. There have been some surprises, like finding that whales and hippos share a distant common ancestor - it appears some species came onto land and then went back out to sea. Cool, huh?
then just a short list of all the faked missing link men: pithecanthropus erectus, eoanthropus dawsoni, peking man, nebraska man.. who knows what will turn up next.
There have been some fakes; now that we understand how to sequence things better, we won't fall for them any more. That's the beauty of science: it's self-correcting. Unlike religion, which thinks it got it right and then tries desperately to deny obvious reality forevermore.
As for fossil records and the flood, I didn't say that all fossils were a result from the flood. Just that is one possible way of making one.
Yeah, but we'd expect to find all kinds of jumbled together human remains, pre-technological human remains, and other animals, right? So how come none of that is left frozen in the polar ice caps? God would have had to melt those, right? And there would be layers where we would expect to find fossils of humans and dinosaurs mixed, or whatever.
All it would take to explode evolution is one fossilized rabbit in a precambrian layer. I don't understand why the creationists aren't out looking. Actually, I do - it's because if you understand anything about paleontology, you know it utterly demolishes creationism. So looking at fossils is the last thing a creationist would do because it pops their faith like a soap-bubble.
Different animals were equiped to survive better in some places than others. Even you should understand that.
Hahahahahhahahaah! No, you didn't even understand the question. If you knew anything about biology, you'd know that marsupials occupy most of the major niches that the rest of the world has filled with mammals. There are marsupial dogs, marsupial mice, marsupial large grazing animals (kangaroos) etc. Australia, a long time ago, separated from the main planetary land-mass, and the animals on it evolved their own way, into their own niches; marsupials are a branch of the tree that branched off very long ago. If there was a noah that had brought all the various marsupials along, they'd be (either) dead or everywhere. Probably dead because they don't compete as well with placentals.
This is what's so frustrating about arguing with creationists. 
Then why do you resort to attacks and name calling, sure sounds like a bully tactic.
No, it's not an attempt to bully you. That would be if I was trying to make you stop offering arguments to defend your position. It's not my fault that the more you go on, the more you display your ignorance - why would I stop you?
As far as name calling and contempt; hey, if you're spouting dumbass stuff, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it's worthy of respect or being taken seriously. I'm being fairly respectful, actually. I mean, I've taken the time to try to explain some of this stuff to you, instead of just saying "aaaah, moron! go away." You seem like a nice guy. I'm sorry if this is hard on you. But it's not my dumbass belief system, here. If you were trying to say that the moon was made of creme cheese, I'd make fun of that, too.
Now, if you want to see me get mean you should see when I get into it with a 9/11 truther or a lunar landing denialist. Those guys are beneath contempt. In your case, I just think that religion has taken a big shit in your brain and you're too badly damaged to clean it out. It's not your fault, but it's your problem and it is sad to watch you thrashing around trying to make sense of the world when you haven't got the tools you need.
I guess we are done here. I'm done being attacked, and defending myself, while you play supreme being and take nothing I say with any merit.
You haven't said anything with merit. So, what, was I supposed to sit there and pretend to respect a bunch of dumb bullshit just because you appear to believe in it? Sorry. The sympathy store is over there
--->
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do actually want to go to that museum one day. Without the kids. As much $$ as went in it...
I hear they have a Darwin room that is pro Darwin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I want to go, too. Just for laughs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I am closer to it than you, it is supposed to be near Cincy, and we are just over an hour north of there. I love seeing people put their money in their faith, even when I don't agree. I hold the Appalachian snake charmers in the highest of esteem, that is a level of faith you have to respect, even if it does run headstrong into suicide. (But the OT God did like sacrifices...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
THANK YOU 4 MAKING ME LAUGH!!!! do we need to fear the googly eyes?!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I am done with the googly eyes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They were blind.
But God created googly eyes.
And now they see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Adam: "I love your big eyes!"
Eve: "Oh dear just be a man and go and take those carrots from the dinosaur"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Googly Eyed Snake + Googly Eyed T-Rex w/ banananananas = TOO MUCH WIN: BRAIN ASPLODED!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Score! Brainsplat! :happydance:
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I happen to love it when people challenge stuff from that huge work of fiction *giggles* If it encourages humans to be better people, great, but that doesn't mean it's all fact. *laughs*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I believe in creationism, if that's what you want to call it, but I don't believe the world was created in 6 24 hour days. It says somewhere in 2nd Peter that a day to God is like 1000 years to us... So, ya. I believe dinosaurs roamed the earth, but were dead by the time Adam and Eve showed up. BUT, and here's the kicker, I also believe in evolution. The scientific proof of it is overwhelming. Do I believe that we came from chimps? Not really. If you want to through the fact that 99.9% of our DNA is the same, it's also 60% the same of that as a banana. 
Back on Topic though: the creation museum is stupid. 
Also, have you ever seen this site: [link] ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
There's a version of creationism that says god kicked everything off and the laws of physics, etc, took over from there. So evolution was part of a divine plan and god was pretty "hands off" about the whole thing. There are huge problems with that train of thought, because you then have to confront two problems:
1) Since the universe as we understand it looks and acts exactly the same as if there was no god, for all intents and purposes god may as well not exist (and certainly there'd be no point worshipping such a god).
2) If you accept evolution, then you recognize that life is a continual process and there is no "end" to evolution. Therefore it could be a mistake assuming that humans are part of god's plan. After all, it could be that humans are just an evolutionary waypoint to god's real objective: machine-based life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>