Accidentally Recorded A Creationist Show

[Outback Jack]

While searching my DVR's (digital video recorder's) programming guide for "Creature Comforts", I saw a show called "Creatures that Defy Evolution". I assumed that it was a science program about some interesting critters so I recorded it. Well, it turned out to be a creationist show but I watched it anyway to see what they had to offer.

 

Turned out that it wasn't much, except for some really interesting quotes.

 

Here's some highlights:

 

Bombardier Beetle - Goddidit because otherwise it would explode.

 

Giraffe - Goddidit because the valves in it's neck's blood vessels couldn't have evolved.

 

Woodpeckers - Goddidit because it couldn't have evolved the "glue" on it's tongue and also the "solvent".

 

Beavers - Goddidit because it has clear eyelids to see underwater, nose and ear flaps to keep out water, and it can do the incredible "calculations" needed to swim to a particular place while towing a large branch in a river's curent!

 

Geckos - Goddidit because it's feet have hairs that end in "suction cups" and the feet are "specially made" to detach these "cups."

 

Human eardrum - Claims that it's movement is so small that "it cannot be measured."

 

 

But the real gems were some barely related quotes about the creator:

 

After saying that "Jesus is the creator" and rhetorically questioning his ability to create things fully formed (i.e. a pear that was ready to be eaten by Adam and Eve 3 days after being created) he says:

 

If we’re going to believe the creation account as genesis put it – we have to believe that. Now, did Jesus the creator have the ability to do that? Well, what are his miracles? His first miracle: John 2, turns water into wine, he used six water pots – It says in John chapter 2 – and when the headwaiter tasted that water he said, “This is the best wine,†– Well, how do you make good wine? We have to age it. Well, how old is it? One minute old. How many water pots? Six. How many days in the creation week? Six. Creation with the appearance of age in genesis one; creation of wine with the appearance of age in John chapter 2. I don’t think that’s an accident.

 

And after proving that evolution is obviously bunk, he jumps straight to the conclusion that his creation story is obviously the right one:

 

I think it proves that there is a designer and I think I know His name and I think He wants to have a relationship with each one of us. And I think He’s penetrated His time and His space in the person of His son the lord Jesus Christ, who is the designer and the maker, who has the power and has the genius to do all of this.

 

Does this kind of claptrap really bolster people's faith?

[GraphicsGuy]

(i.e. a pear that was ready to be eaten by Adam and Eve 3 days after being created)

 

Did the documentary specify 3 days? Sorry, but is it taught that The Fall™ happened on day 9? I've never heard that before. Actually, I hadn't really thought of it before.

 

I always figured that it would have taken Adam some time to name all the animals (in actuallity it would have taken years and years with out sleep to name the millions of species of animals, but that's a side-issue ).

 

So, let's say Adam only named the animals that were in the general vicinity of the Mid-East...we'll give him a couple of weeks to do that.

 

No suitable mate for him. God puts him to sleep, makes woman, they take a few days to...uh...explore each other.

 

God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. Must have done this quite often.

 

So, in my opinion The Fall™ probably would have happened a few months after initial creation at the least. Anyway, that's my nit-pick ramble for the day.

 

As for the claptrap bolstering faith...well, I guess it does. People love to have other people agree with them. Doesn't matter if it's based on facts or not; everybody loves an audience and/or someone to agree with their own beliefs/POV.

[par4dcourse]

I'm a big fan of Discovery and the History Channel and PBS but sometimes I watch those "faith based" shows for the comic effect. It's downright priceless what some people will believe. P.T. Barnum overestimated people.

[Ouroboros]

Funny they didn't mention the human nose.

 

It was created by God so the glasses would fit perfectly on the ridge of it. Ain't that proof that God also had foreknowledge of the invention of glasses?

 

And lets not forget how well the foot is created to fit in the shoe, or how amazingly perfect the hand is created to fit to hold a cane or a gun or an ice cream cone!

[Outback Jack]

Did the documentary specify 3 days? Sorry, but is it taught that The Fall happened on day 9?

 

Yes on the 3 days thing. I got the impression he was saying that food was ready to go for Adam and Eve when they were created. No growing or ripening time necessary.

 

They teach that Adam and Eve ate The Fruit of Knowledge on day 9? That's kind of fast to screw up so badly, isn't it?

[GraphicsGuy]

They teach that Adam and Eve ate The Fruit of Knowledge on day 9? That's kind of fast to screw up so badly, isn't it?

 

That's crazy if they do!

 

God's "perfect" creation lasted less than 72 hours?

[Outback Jack]

Hi GG. I guess I misread your post. (Second time that's happened here lately. I think I've been killing too many brain cells lately)

 

I thought that you were telling me that the fall happened on the 9th day.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Just to clarify, the show mentioned nothing about the fall. It was only referring to the idea that edible plants were made on the third(?) day and that the fruit was ready to be eaten by Adam and Eve when they were created on the 6th day.

 

The host (a dentist!) doing all the talking then tried to compare instant aging of fruit with instant aging of wine and 6 creation days with 6 jugs of wine. And this somehow proved how every creature in the world was perfectly created in it's present form.

 

It made as much sense as the rest of the stupid program.

[GraphicsGuy]

I'd like to see proof that Jesus actually turned the water to wine first...

 

Oh! And besides, it was non-alcoholic wine!

[Naughtyhamster]

Here's some highlights:

 

Bombardier Beetle - Goddidit because otherwise it would explode.

 

Giraffe - Goddidit because the valves in it's neck's blood vessels couldn't have evolved.

 

Woodpeckers - Goddidit because it couldn't have evolved the "glue" on it's tongue and also the "solvent".

 

Beavers - Goddidit because it has clear eyelids to see underwater, nose and ear flaps to keep out water, and it can do the incredible "calculations" needed to swim to a particular place while towing a large branch in a river's curent!

 

Geckos - Goddidit because it's feet have hairs that end in "suction cups" and the feet are "specially made" to detach these "cups."

 

Human eardrum - Claims that it's movement is so small that "it cannot be measured."

 

 

Cancer-Goddidit, especially to cute little xtian kids, because he's got a sadistic sick sense of humor!

[Grandpa Harley]

Cancer-Goddidit, especially to cute little xtian kids, because he's got a sadistic sick sense of humor!

 

and it leads people to worship his magnificence... otherwise he'll fuck them up WORSE than the kids...

[Grandpa Harley]

Funny they didn't mention the human nose.

 

It was created by God so the glasses would fit perfectly on the ridge of it. Ain't that proof that God also had foreknowledge of the invention of glasses?

 

And lets not forget how well the foot is created to fit in the shoe, or how amazingly perfect the hand is created to fit to hold a cane or a gun or an ice cream cone!

 

and the way the ear and the mouth are spaced just right to allow us to use a phone... and then the postion of the shoulder in relation so that we can use it hands free

 

OK... two points could be a coincidence... but THREE!!!?!!!? PRAISE THE LORD!!!!

[Guest Adam T]

Hmmm. Some points to consider

 

1) Why are we concerned about fruit having a chance to ripen? What about the tree? It would take a lot longer for a tree to grow from a seed than it would for an apple to ripen. Why are you taking an all powerful and all knowing being and saying they do not have the power to make a tree with apples that were already ripe? I find this argument against creationism lacking.

 

2) Glasses and telephones are both examples of intelligent design. Intelligent beings (humans) created these devices to compliment and improve their lives. The very fact that you include these in the same category as the valves in a giraffe's neck or the hairs on gecko's feet shows that you believe the complexity of a cell phone and the biology of an animal are the same. The fact is that the biology of an animal is much more complex. However, for arguments sake let us just say that they are identical in complexity. Now let us say that you are an astronaut exploring a distant plant. On that planet you find a cell phone. Is it logical to think that the cell phone formed over billions of years just out of random chance, or is it more logical to think that some intelligent being created it?

 

3) Cancer is a terrible disease, as is AIDS. THe world as a whole is full of terrible things. Though I have a hard time understanding why you find this as proof that there is no God and that the Bible is wrong. The Bible does not pretend that suffering does not exist, infact it spends alot of time on the subject. You may want to spend sometime looking into what it has to say.

 

Adam

[Grandpa Harley]

Hans and I were mocking the whole thing...

 

and word to the stultifying mentally dull... it's EX-Christian, so there is more bible study years here than you could live, so I'd reel the attitude in if you want some respect, God Boy...

 

WE NEED A SQUIDDIE OUT OF THE BOX HERE!!!

[hoosier]

Hmmm. Some points to consider

 

1) Why are we concerned about fruit having a chance to ripen? What about the tree? It would take a lot longer for a tree to grow from a seed than it would for an apple to ripen. Why are you taking an all powerful and all knowing being and saying they do not have the power to make a tree with apples that were already ripe? I find this argument against creationism lacking.

 

2) Glasses and telephones are both examples of intelligent design. Intelligent beings (humans) created these devices to compliment and improve their lives. The very fact that you include these in the same category as the valves in a giraffe's neck or the hairs on gecko's feet shows that you believe the complexity of a cell phone and the biology of an animal are the same. The fact is that the biology of an animal is much more complex. However, for arguments sake let us just say that they are identical in complexity. Now let us say that you are an astronaut exploring a distant plant. On that planet you find a cell phone. Is it logical to think that the cell phone formed over billions of years just out of random chance, or is it more logical to think that some intelligent being created it?

 

3) Cancer is a terrible disease, as is AIDS. THe world as a whole is full of terrible things. Though I have a hard time understanding why you find this as proof that there is no God and that the Bible is wrong. The Bible does not pretend that suffering does not exist, infact it spends alot of time on the subject. You may want to spend sometime looking into what it has to say.

 

Adam

 

 

I'll leave pts. 1&2 to somone more educated in scientific matters but I will talk about pt. 3. Evil and suffering are not proofs against the exisitence of God but rather against one that is simultaneously all good and omnipotent. As far as suffering in the bible goes, there are many examples where God or his so called righteous people are the ones causing it,such as the wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants of palestine so the israelites could move in, lots cowardice in offering his daughters to be raped (although they ultimately werent),the levite priest who allowed his concubine to be gang raped then cut her in 12 pieces, jepthah sacrificing his daughter, the killing of all egyptian firstborn, execution for picking up sticks on the sabbath, jobs children being killed just because God wanted to win a bet with Satan, and many more. Now something that creationism does not prove is the existence of the christian God or the divinty of jesus. Rather, if confirmed to be true, it would give proof to Deism. I beleive that if God does actually exist, he must be of higher intelligence and morality than us, and therefore would not do these stupid and evil things that we, in the modern and civilized world find to be abhorent. I would challenge anyone, who believes that these OT examples are literal truth, to explain to me why they are moral actions. According to the OT God never punished jepthah or the levite for their actions and even praised lot in the NT as "righteous". If God is found to exist, and is all good, then the bible is a blasphemous work of slander against him having accused him of doing or sanctioning such acts.

[Guest Adam T]

I'll leave pts. 1&2 to somone more educated in scientific matters but I will talk about pt. 3. Evil and suffering are not proofs against the exisitence of God but rather against one that is simultaneously all good and omnipotent. As far as suffering in the bible goes, there are many examples where God or his so called righteous people are the ones causing it,such as the wholesale slaughter of the inhabitants of palestine so the israelites could move in, lots cowardice in offering his daughters to be raped (although they ultimately werent),the levite priest who allowed his concubine to be gang raped then cut her in 12 pieces, jepthah sacrificing his daughter, the killing of all egyptian firstborn, execution for picking up sticks on the sabbath, jobs children being killed just because God wanted to win a bet with Satan, and many more. Now something that creationism does not prove is the existence of the christian God or the divinty of jesus. Rather, if confirmed to be true, it would give proof to Deism. I beleive that if God does actually exist, he must be of higher intelligence and morality than us, and therefore would not do these stupid and evil things that we, in the modern and civilized world find to be abhorent. I would challenge anyone, who believes that these OT examples are literal truth, to explain to me why they are moral actions. According to the OT God never punished jepthah or the levite for their actions and even praised lot in the NT as "righteous". If God is found to exist, and is all good, then the bible is a blasphemous work of slander against him having accused him of doing or sanctioning such acts.

 

First I have to laugh about people telling me I need to show more respect when multiple posts are talking about how ignorant/dullwitted that Christians/I am. If you look at my post no aspect of it says anything negative about the members of this forum. I just found the arguments put forward as weak. If you want to attack my arguments please do, but lets keep this from getting personal.

 

Now I do have to say that the above response is well thought out, but is flawwed. The first problem is that you are viewing sin as a continium in which there are minor sins and major sins. This a very human view. We see little white lies as trival, where as things like murder and rape as very evil. The Bible makes clear that the wage of all sin is death. It also makes clear that we have all fallen short. In Gods eyes we are full of sin. If God did not love us and instead was just to seek justice for the sins we commit; then humanity would have ceased to exist long ago. In that light, God has shown us much more mercy than we deserve. You are assuming that the eygptian first borns were innocent and thus undeserving of there fate. The fact is that if God showwed no love/mercy he would have just eliminated everyone. However, he did show mercy and instead of just wiping the planet clean of humanity, he put a plan in works to save as many as would listen and have faith.

As far as God's righteous people doing evil, I only know of one person that God ever said he was pleased with or who was truely righteous. God did have prophets who were flawed. Moses was a murderer; David commited adultery and then killed the woman's husband to try to cover it up. The fact that these people were sinners is a reflection not of God being unrighteous, but of humanity being flawwed and God's love.

 

Now as far Creationism not proving a Christian God, I will agree with this. I was simply pointing out flaws I see in the arguements put forward.

[Vigile]

Now I do have to say that the above response is well thought out, but is flawwed.

 

Hmmm, flawed, yes, that's a good estimation of your logical skill.

 

Let's take a look:

 

1) Why are we concerned about fruit having a chance to ripen? What about the tree? It would take a lot longer for a tree to grow from a seed than it would for an apple to ripen. Why are you taking an all powerful and all knowing being and saying they do not have the power to make a tree with apples that were already ripe? I find this argument against creationism lacking.

 

Argument summed up as "goddidit." Not an argument really. You ask us to make the assumption that the claim that an all powerful being exists is valid and that he can just create things out of thin air. Not only is your claim lacking in any kind of evidence, it creates a major problem for you when we get to #3 in your argument as we will see.

 

3) Cancer is a terrible disease, as is AIDS. THe world as a whole is full of terrible things. Though I have a hard time understanding why you find this as proof that there is no God and that the Bible is wrong. The Bible does not pretend that suffering does not exist, infact it spends alot of time on the subject. You may want to spend sometime looking into what it has to say.

 

Who cares what the bible has to say about anything? Just because you xians give it authority doesn't mean that it isn't utter nonsense. The biggest problem here, though is the fact that you claim god is all powerful. The existence of evil in the world either negates god's all powerful nature or it makes him cruel.

 

I'll spell it out so that you can better understand. Either god can't fix the wrongs in the world or he has the ability to do so yet refuses. Refusing to correct wrongs, such as children born with defects and failing to save those dying of disease, starvation, and natural disaster just makes god a mean bastard.

 

And don't give me that free will argument. It just doesn't fly. Who created malaria if god is the creator as you claimed? Who created intestinal parasites? Who made a natural environment where the weak are prey of the strong and where many species simply subsist? Where does free will come into play in a harsh environment that was created by this all powerful deity?

 

And don't give me the sin argument. That's bs as well. Adam sinned, therefore baby Timmy dies at age six of a painful bone disease and conquering alpha male lions violently kill their predecessor's offspring. There was some wild magic in that apple, let me tell ya.

 

I swear they must make you xians check your logic at the door. How else can the preacher get you rubes to give him 10% of your salary?

[Grandpa Harley]

Off Topic Response to Off Topic Comment

"First I have to laugh about people telling me I need to show more respect when multiple posts are talking about how ignorant/dullwitted that Christians/I am. If you look at my post no aspect of it says anything negative about the members of this forum. I just found the arguments put forward as weak. If you want to attack my arguments please do, but lets keep this from getting personal."

 

I'm pleased you're amused... you may have the liberty to post here, but it doesn't entitle you to respect... ATM you're just another damn god botherer here to spread his pestilence like it's pearls. You can thank your family in Christ for that. It's entirely possibly you earn respect, but out of the box, you're not doing it very well... but feel free to continue down the path you've chosen...

[ShackledNoMore]

2) Glasses and telephones are both examples of intelligent design. Intelligent beings (humans) created these devices to compliment and improve their lives. The very fact that you include these in the same category as the valves in a giraffe's neck or the hairs on gecko's feet shows that you believe the complexity of a cell phone and the biology of an animal are the same. The fact is that the biology of an animal is much more complex. However, for arguments sake let us just say that they are identical in complexity. Now let us say that you are an astronaut exploring a distant plant. On that planet you find a cell phone. Is it logical to think that the cell phone formed over billions of years just out of random chance, or is it more logical to think that some intelligent being created it?

By asserting that anything complex (and functioning or allowing the universe to contain the type of life it does, etc.) must be designed, you leave a convenient and very stickily exception when somebody asks the question of where did GOD come from? Ya kinda hafta state your assumption that any complex system needs a designer and then arbitrarily pull god out of your hat as your "first cause" with nothing to support that departure from your initial assumption (which itself was unsupported).

 

Also look at microevolution. Those fat, sweet, juicy oranges you eat are a darn sight better than their sour wild counterparts, aren't they? What, you say? Selective breeding is "intelligent design?" Bzzzzzt, try again. We certainly don't breed antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria ourselves, but they respond to the same rules of selection. Nor did we interfere with the sex lives of the house sparrow introduced into North America in the mid 19th century, but they have evolved to be suited to the different climates in various parts of the countries, being larger bodied and better able to withstand cold weather in the colder northern areas than in the warm southern areas.

 

An astronaut on another planet may not find anything akin manufactured cell phone, not alive nor capable of reproducing (unless an intelligent life form made it), but he might find some mechanisms that biological life forms have to communicate over long distances if it helps them. As a matter of fact, you DON'T have to go to another planet. Behold the humpback whale!

[hoosier]

To Adam T, I believe the reference to lot being "righteous" is found in hebrews chap. 11. Perhaps Paul was unaware of lots drunken fornication with his daughters. That point aside I still do not find the bibles description of God to be very merciful. Why kill yourself to enable yourself to forgive the beings you made with free will? Why not simply forgive them? Why demand blood? I can forgive others without demanding blood so why cant a supposedly omnipotent God do the same? The fact that these stories are from the bronze age when violent retribution of this kind was commonplace explains the biblical description of God. Were the bible written today he would be descibed in a much more civilized, less bloodthirsty manner. Even in the story of jesus, which is supposedly about man being able to obtain forgiveness, God is said to demand blood( his own, which makes even less sense.) As far as the egyptian first born not being innocent, I cannot say I agree that a baby has done anything worthy of death. I find the doctrine of orginal sin to be abominable. If it were true then it should be against christian practice to have children for fear of them going to hell if they should die. I look forward to further discussion on this topic, perhaps we could go to the lions den or coliseum?

[Guest Adam T]

1) Why are we concerned about fruit having a chance to ripen? What about the tree? It would take a lot longer for a tree to grow from a seed than it would for an apple to ripen. Why are you taking an all powerful and all knowing being and saying they do not have the power to make a tree with apples that were already ripe? I find this argument against creationism lacking.

 

Argument summed up as "goddidit." Not an argument really. You ask us to make the assumption that the claim that an all powerful being exists is valid and that he can just create things out of thin air. Not only is your claim lacking in any kind of evidence, it creates a major problem for you when we get to #3 in your argument as we will see.

 

Actually I am not just simply stating God did it as you seem to think, but driving at another point. You mock Christians under the believe that an apple can not ripen in the given amount of time needed for Adam and Eve to eat it, but under this argument have conceded that the Earth was created in 6 days. Why would you concede the Earth was created in 6 days and then assume an apple can't be created in 3?

 

 

3) Cancer is a terrible disease, as is AIDS. THe world as a whole is full of terrible things. Though I have a hard time understanding why you find this as proof that there is no God and that the Bible is wrong. The Bible does not pretend that suffering does not exist, infact it spends alot of time on the subject. You may want to spend sometime looking into what it has to say.

 

Who cares what the bible has to say about anything?

 

Well quite frankly. You do. You are trying to point out what you see as contradictions in the Bible and I am trying to explain how these are not contradictions.

 

I'll spell it out so that you can better understand. Either god can't fix the wrongs in the world or he has the ability to do so yet refuses. Refusing to correct wrongs, such as children born with defects and failing to save those dying of disease, starvation, and natural disaster just makes god a mean bastard.

 

I understood this argument the first time you stated it. It is nothing new. You say not to give you anything about Adam and orginal sin, but this is where the answer to this question lies. The fact God did not just obliterate humanity when we first sinned, but instead took actions to save it from its own sinful nature speaks to his love. I take it you know this answer, but just don't like it. The fact you do not like it does serve as proof of God being evil.

Look at this way, God creates the world and Humanity. He establishes the rules of this world. He tells us the if we eat the fruit we will die. We eat it anyway, we have violated the law God created and as he told us the punishment is death. God is good and therefore just. For God to just ignore this transgression, would be no different than a police officer turning a blind eye to a thief. If God did this he would not be good.

[Vigile]

I understood this argument the first time you stated it. It is nothing new. You say not to give you anything about Adam and orginal sin, but this is where the answer to this question lies. The fact God did not just obliterate humanity when we first sinned, but instead took actions to save it from its own sinful nature speaks to his love. I take it you know this answer, but just don\\\'t like it. The fact you do not like it does serve as proof of God being evil.

Look at this way, God creates the world and Humanity. He establishes the rules of this world. He tells us the if we eat the fruit we will die. We eat it anyway, we have violated the law God created and as he told us the punishment is death. God is good and therefore just. For God to just ignore this transgression, would be no different than a police officer turning a blind eye to a thief. If God did this he would not be good.

 

I replied to this in the other thread yesterday. In that thread I accused you of not thinking for yourself as you merely parot that which you have been taught. I challenged you to show me how this system biblegod created is not tyrranical in the same way that the Stalinist regive was tyrranical. When you answer this we can move on. For now, I\\\'ll just restate that the statement in the quote above is middle-of-the-road dogma paroted by you without thought as to what it means in light of the attributes that you yourself agree biblegod has.

 

When you explain why this system is not tyrannical in your own words, then we can proceed with the discussion. I\\\'ll not reply further to typical paroted apologetics tactics. Been their, done that and it\\\'s gotten old.