Subject:
|
Questions Literal Creationists Can't Answer?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:58:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
587 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Ohhhhhh, OKKKK, dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.
>
> Hmmm, I don't remember any mention in the Bible about 20 ft lizards eating people
> left and right, in fact, I don't remember any mention of them PERIOD. People
> would have been a nice snack for Trex, and a good meal for velociraptors. Or was
> "God with them" all the time (instead of just in the Ark), so they stayed out of
> sight of humans and didn't eat them?
>
> Do you REALLY think that if dinosaurs existed less than 6K years ago, people would
> band together and make a conscious decision to NOT mention them in the Bible?
Oh, see, they're still around today, they're just HIDING:
http://www.drdino.com/Articles/dinos.jsp
And of course it's all a communistic government plot:
http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article7.jsp
It's interesting that each of the supposed questionnaires
(each worded quite carefully) take advantage of the compart-
mentalization of evolutionary biology, cosmology, etc., in
ensuring that no one person will be up on the scientific
literature in all of these fields. They also ask for answers
to questions that science has never pretended to have the
answers for as "proof that evolution is wrong"--particularly
those regarding the first seconds of the Universe, what came
before, where energy came from, and of course the human soul.
As Tom Stangl would say: PAP. Any doubt about that should
be underscored by the altar call at the bottom, from
http://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article3.jsp :
> 12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible,
> how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that
> you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
As if we needed more proof that there's an evangelistic
religious basis to all of this--that the evidence is snapped
into the "science," instead of the science being based on the
evidence.
Questions for YECs that I've never heard successfully refuted:
1. If science could really support Young Earth Creationism, how
did it ever lose out in the first place? In the 18th century
the entire Christian world could have been characterized as
"Young Earth Creationist." How did this happen? And why did
it wait for Hank Morris and the ICR/CRS/whatever acronym they
used at the time to "expose" everything?
2. If not Evolution, why not Brahminaic cosmology? Why not
Buddhist? Why not Khoisan creation mythos, or Aztec? Why
is the only possible alternative from the Old Testament?
3. And why, oh why, is the United States the only country
on the planet that has this controversy? Is it any coincidence
that our general level of scientific and cultural literacy is
by a good margin the lowest in the industrialized world? That
even the Vatican [1] has no problem with evolution, only provincial
literalist fundamentalism in the US?
4. If you accept the Bible as a literal account, why do you stop
with Creation and not go on to accepting the Flat Earth and
Geocentrist positions, both of which have followings in the US
and similarly dress their beliefs up as science? [2]
I'd be interested in a rational Creationist response to these
questions, and the six Flood questions that Creationists can't
answer, as best put forth by Robert Schadewald wayyy back in
1982:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
best
LFB
[1] Okay, I know that the Vatican is the agent of Satan in the eyes
of many Fundamentalist Christian sects, so this may not be a
good case...
[2] Of course any evidence that the Earth moves or that the
globe is a conspiracy or the act of the Master of Lies...
the moon landing was shot on a soundstage in Hollywood,
et cetera. The Flat Earthers are *so* obviously out of
it that they've earned the scorn of even the Creationists:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm
And, a reprint of an interview with the FES leader:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Literal Creationism--a non sequitur!
|
| (...) to himself or others. Perhaps an intervention is in order. However, at the bottom of the page Dr. D does make an interesting and absolute refutation of literal readings of the Bible when he indicates: GODISNOWHERE There are two obvious (...) (23 years ago, 12-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
