Creationist Wisdom #554: Absolute Proof

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — like so many others recently — appears in the Midland Daily News of Midland, Michigan. The letter doesn’t have much of a title — Issues. The newspaper has an active comments section.

The letter-writer was also featured in Creationist Wisdom #516: The Scientist. She isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, and although she has previously claimed to be a scientist, she never provided any details — at least none that we’ve seen — so we won’t use her full name. Her first name is Barbara. Excerpts from her letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

She starts by criticizing an earlier letter in the newspaper’s seemingly endless series on The Controversy, and she says:

That letter referred to comments previously made by me about scientists who freely spoke of problems they had with evolution. It is interesting that, in the short time that she had, she claims she researched these 3,001 scientists individually and also searched all available scientific literature to determine that their thoughts had not been published. I submit that she did not do that, but was well aware that evolutionists will not allow anything but evolution to be published. She rejects Creationist websites as being biased. Aren’t there evolution websites and aren’t they biased?

You can see what we’re dealing with. It would be futile to debate with Barbara, but her letter is wonderfully entertaining. She then says this:

[T]here should be no need to prove that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, complete word of God. If one believes in God, there should be no problem with believing the Genesis account of creation.

Right. No problem at all. Nor is there any problem with the details in Genesis, because:

If it is believed that God created the world he surely had the ability to create everything he said he did, when he said he did it, as he said he did it. Why let the world direct itself for millions of years?

Convinced yet? Stay with us, you will be. Barbara goes on:

It is said that the only Bible books that don’t refer to the opening chapters of Genesis as literal are the books of Jude, Philemon and Second and Third John. Under just the heading “Creation” in Naves Topical Bible I found about 80 references, in 23 different books. Of particular interest are [bunch of bible references]. Creation is constantly mentioned.

Isn’t that amazing? The later parts of the book refer back to the earliest part. That means Genesis must be true! Barbara continues:

If Genesis one is not to be taken literally man did not sin and the purpose of the rest of the Bible, redemption, and the coming of Christ to die for our salvation are useless.

Egad — we can’t have that! Here’s more:

Is Christ mythical also? He was there and assisted in the creation of the universe and everything in it.

Okay. Moving along:

If man is created, which the Bible proves, he owes his allegiance to his creator.

Can’t argue with that. Another excerpt:

Creation is the only available option that adequately answers the question: From whence came man?

Uh … doesn’t evolution have an explanation? Barbara doesn’t think so, and she tells us why at the end of her letter:

Evolution cannot explain the origin of the universe or of life, conscience, or morality.

Wow — what a letter!

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #554: Absolute Proof

  1. Barbara has a typo in her letter. Her reference surely should be to Knaves Topical Bible

  2. Maybe she’s really a Scientologist trained in Scientology.

  3. I thought absolute proof was going to be about alcohol. It’s too bad it wasn’t because after reading Barbara’s rant I could use some.

  4. Although Babs claims to be a scientist, it’s difficult to determine her field of expertise. It’s definitely not astrophysics, archeology, biology, cosmology, geology, or paleontology. Her rant is so full of nonsense, it’s hard to know which claims to refute first.

    Starting at the end, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe — that’s the subject of several other scientific fields, about which she also clearly knows nothing. Working up the page, as the Curmudgeon pointed out, massive amounts of data about evolution certainly do tell from whence humans came.

    And, of course, anyone who has ever listened to scientists debate research would know that any statement alleged to be true has to be supported by facts. So the claim that “…there should be no need to prove that the Bible is the inerrant…” is simply silly for any scientist to say. There are many things in the bible that are clearly myths (like the sun standing still, or the great flood that none of the other civilizations around when it was alleged to happen noticed!)

    Surprisingly, Babs did get one thing right, although I’m sure not in the sense she imagines. “If Genesis one is not to be taken literally man did not sin and the purpose of the rest of the Bible, redemption, and the coming of Christ to die for our salvation are useless.” Indeed. Since the female from whom all contemporary human mitochondria originated and the male from whom most contemporary Y chromosomes originated lived at different times and in different locations, and they were each part of a population of humans, the Adam and Eve story is another myth. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the rest of the quote from Babs.

  5. She must have a Ph.D. in truthology.

  6. I agree that there is no need to prove that the Bible is inerrant.
    Just as I feel no need to prove that Richard III is inerrant, or Gone with the Wind, or Green Eggs and Ham.

  7. I’m feeling a bit persnickety tonight. So I think I’ll just tear through Barbara’s missive.

    It is interesting that, in the short time that she had, she claims she researched these 3,001 scientists individually and also searched all available scientific literature to determine that their thoughts had not been published.

    It is interesting that Barbara didn’t provide one link to one article that was “suppressed” by the worldwide evilution cabal in the first place.

    evolutionists will not allow anything but evolution science to be published.

    FTFY, Babs.

    I would like to consider what I learned growing up, not in school where neither evolution nor creation were mentioned

    So, you didn’t learn about evolution in school? Says something about your education, doesn’t it?

    there should be no need to prove that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, complete word of God.

    You are SOOOOO completely missing the point of science, Babs. To be meticulous (if not pedantic), science is about facts and evidence, not “proof”. If you want “proof”, talk to a lawyer or mathematician.

    Linguists say that a word means a 24 hour day when it is preceded by a definite number, such as first day or second day, which is the case in Genesis one.

    Which linguists? What is it the kids like to say nowadays? Oh, yeah, “Citation, please.”

    The clincher is found in Exodus 20:11 where it is specified that the creation took six literal days.

    In which version of which Bible in which language was this “literal”?

    It is said

    Yes, it is. Since you keep saying the same inanity over and over and over again, you’re getting boring.

    If Genesis one is not to be taken literally man did not sin and the purpose of the rest of the Bible, redemption, and the coming of Christ to die for our salvation are useless.

    You might be on to something here. Can I suggest a thought experiment where you run down this lead and see where it takes you?

    Is Christ mythical also?

    I dunno. Is he?

    He was there and assisted in the creation of the universe and everything in it.

    So you’re saying God needed help?

    If man is created, which the Bible proves states

    FTFY, too.

    he owes his allegiance to his creator.

    Uh, nope.

    Evolution The Bible cannot explain the origin of the universe or of life, conscience, or morality.

    I’ll give you a hand just this one, last time.

  8. Wow — thanks for doing the hard lifting, Gary. Barb’s letter was too daunting a task for me. I just didn’t know where to start.

    One line in her letter made me think, though:

    “Is Christ mythical also?”

    If his message is what matters, so what if he is a myth? The whole divinity thing and all the ritual associated with it is just to get people to comply.

  9. Doctor Stochastic

    Absolut is 100 proof.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Well, Christ is not a myth. A myth is a story told to explain some natural event or human custom in terms of supernatural origins. That is, the supernatural explanation is the origin of the story. Genesis 1-11 is largely myth. (The Flood stories might be legend.)

    Christ, in the sense the Christian Church uses the title, is a legend. A legend is a story usually with supernatural elaborations extrapolated from a core of (probable or at least credible) fact that has been amplified, often hugely, sometimes out of all recognition, and very often acquiring parts of other stories that were around in the time and place, and later. The stories of King Arthur and his knights are legends. So is the legend of Count Roland of Roncesvalles. In the latter case we can even identify the historical event at the base of the legend.

    There was very likely a nabi from Galilee whose name would sound to us like “Yeshu”, short for “Yeshua”. He appears to have taught a form of Judaism strongly divergent from the pharisaic emphasis on ritual cleanliness and legalism of that day – and in fact, since, mostly. He may well have said many of the things he is said to have said. He was probably executed by the Roman governor for claiming to be the Messiah of Israel, or at least for acting like someone who was about to make that claim.

    (Note, please that there are some who deny even this level of acceptance of his existence, and would argue from – well, not quite silence, but certainly sparseness of firm evidence – that there never was any such person. I think, as Mary Poppins says of “dociousaliexpilisticfragicalirupes”, that that is going a bit too far. Personal opinion.)

    So, no, Christ is not mythic. Now, you can argue that his legend is completely factual; that the process of elaboration didn’t happen, even though the Gospels plainly show it, and that elements from other and earlier stories of risen gods were not co-opted, but were uniquely factual in this story alone. Fundamentalists do that. Or rather, they don’t argue it, they simply assert it. Barbara is simply following that method.

    I see that every comment on the thread is critical of her screed.

  11. I would like to nominate Paul S. for comment of the year, and I am celebrating his nomination with some of his version of absolute proof.

  12. Of course the Bible isn’t inerrant, it is riddled with self contradictions and obvious fantasies. Green Eggs and Ham on the other hand *is* inerrant.

  13. Zetopan:
    “Green Eggs and Ham on the other hand *is* inerrant.”

    Ah. That would explain why theocrat Ted Cruz chose to read from it in the Senate.