Creationist Wisdom #571: Bible, Bible, Bible

Today’s letter-to-the-editor — like many others recently — appears in the Midland Daily News of Midland, Michigan. The letter is titled Bible consistent. The newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. We think he’s some kind of computer technician, but that doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. His first name is Bill. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

For centuries the view of existence has been between two opposite theories, the theory of “evolution” and “creation.”

For centuries? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Then he says:

Evolutionists have several explanations for where life comes from. “Understanding Evolution” indicates that life came from a “simple organic molecule” and “synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans.” “Scientific American” indicates that life may have come from another world.

Bill runs through a few quotes indicating that we don’t yet have a definitive answer to the origin of life. That’s true, so we’ll ignore his quotes. None of that is relevant to the theory of evolution. Oh wait — here’s one, allegedly from Nobel laureate George Wald:

The only alternative to spontaneous generation is to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.

That’s a difficult quote to pin down. We found it at a few creationist websites, but that’s all. It doesn’t matter. It’s correct that the origin of life was either natural or supernatural, so the validity of the Wald quote isn’t important. But Bill thinks it’s very important. Let’s read on:

From these theories, “evolution” comes to play.

Huh? Then he describes evolution:

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. One article suggests that “all life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor …”

Hey, he got that right! But then he goes off the tracks:

From my understanding evolutionists have no consistent explanation of where life came from and how it evolved. They are only “assuming” that life evolved but there is no clear explanation of where life came from.

Aaaargh!! We have some good ideas about the origin of life, but nothing definite yet. However, that doesn’t mean no one knows how life evolved, once it existed. But Bill thinks that if scientists don’t know everything, then they don’t know anything. He wants all the answers, and he wants them now! His letter continues:

The Bible, on the other hand, is consistent and of one accord. (Genesis 1:1 — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”) A plain, simple and absolute statement of where the universe came from. Also …

What follows are three solid paragraphs of bible quotes. We’re skipping those, even though they’re the core of Bill’s letter, presented as a sharp contrast to his previous quotes from scientists about the origin of life. Here’s his conclusion:

So there can be no other explanation of where and how the universe and life came from. There had to be a creator because creation demands a creator, life demands a life giver, and law demands a law giver.

Bill is convinced. Are you, dear reader?

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

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #571: Bible, Bible, Bible

  1. The Bible, on the other hand, is consistent and of one accord.

    Someone who hasn’t read the Bible, obviously.

  2. Ah, so it’s bogus. Thanks, Glenn. I should have checked TalkOrigins.

  3. TomS, you beat me to it. Anyone who has actually read the bible and has more than two neurons knows it’s loaded with inconsistencies. Oh, and lots of events that never happened.

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    Sorry Bill, but the talking snake part of Genesis should be a tip-off that it is just telling a story. A story of the ages, a moral story, a story worth knowing. A story, Bill !!!!

    But it shouldn’t be confused with being factual. Any more than my son’s Shakespeare book should not be confused with his Chemistry textbook.

  5. Why does the paper publish childish fact free nonsense like this? To appeal to their gullible local religious groups?

    This comment in the letter writer’s paper in response to Bill’s blathering is exactly what I was going to write. Why indeed do papers publish this gibberish? Then again, maybe it’s another republican conservative paper that puts this junk out to support religion.

  6. Bill says, “The Bible, on the other hand, is consistent and of one accord.”

    Well, as Tom. S. and Dr. Eastwood have pointed out, not quite. But even if the Bible were consistent, consistency does not equal truth. (just to amplify Charles Deetz’s comment.)

  7. @DavidK

    But have you noticed the rapier response to that comment?

    Tim Priddy · Top Commenter
    Spoken like a TRUE Humanist!!

    I mean, in the face of intellectual arguments like that, it’s hard to know whether beating one’s forehead repeatedly against the desk is sufficient or if one should find a few friends to beat their foreheads likewise.

  8. The Bible, on the other hand, is consistent and of one accord. (Genesis 1:1 — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”) A plain, simple and absolute statement of where the universe came from. Also …

    Just because the Bible says something doesn’t prove it’s true. We don’t have any real evidence that it’s really “the Word of God,” and internal consistency proves nothing; one can be both self-consistent and completely wrong.

    “So there can be no other explanation of where and how the universe and life came from. There had to be a creator because creation demands a creator, life demands a life giver, and law demands a law giver.”

    Even if the above is true, who’s to say the creator didn’t choose to use evolution as his/her/its means of creating life? Genesis is an attempt to explain the origin of the world (there was no point in worrying about the “universe” when to the Bible all that matters is Earth, because we live here) and of life, but it is, nonetheless, a fable concocted without evidence.

  9. Bill pronounces

    There had to be a creator because creation demands a creator, life demands a life giver, and law demands a law giver.

    And he thereby demonstrates that a huge steaming pile of bull-[beep-beep-boop] demands an abysmally ignorant bull-[beep-bep-boop]-er!

  10. And my post as once again suffered from my abysmal ignorance of correct HTML tagging …😦

    [*Voice from above*] My patience is infinite, even for one such as you.

  11. Murray Pendarvis

    Check this out! Another reason why Louisiana is the laughing stock of our nation. With that said there are a few of us that are trying to oppose ignorance, prejudice, and falsehood. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/louisiana-scientists-burn-stake_n_7259486.html

    Biologize, Pat Pendarvis Professor of Biological Sciences Southeastern Louisiana University

  12. If the Bible is consistent, it is in being consistently wrong about science and myriad other things. Where are the “waters above?” Why does the Sun not rotate around the Earth? Why is the Earth not the center of creation? Why are so many objects older than the Bible indicates or is God’s creation lying about how old these myriad things are? Why are we receiving star light from celestial objects that are farther than 6000 light years away if the Creation occured 6000 years ago? There are 100s of billions of such stars, each one refuting the veracity of the Bible’s narrative.

    Why is the God of the Bible such an a-hole? If you read the story of the Tower of Bable, there is no good reason that God decided to strip people of a common language other than divine mischief. The story told of human hubris does not bear up when you read the Bible.

    Christians are concerned there is a war on Christianity. The numbers of self-professed Christians is declining in the U.S. The reason? I think it is because people listened to Christian’s advice to read the Bible and the claptrap they found was the brightest pointer to the exit ever created.

    My plea to Christians is “please read the Bible,” and you will be cured.

  13. The King James Version says in Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth”.

    There are people who point to this as proof text that the Bible says that the Earth is a globe, at a time when scientists said that the Earth was flat.

    If one is dealing with such claims, what hope is there?

  14. It may be noted that medieval Icelandic historian Snorri wrote a book that starts with a reference to “the circle of the world” (Icelandic: _Kringla heimsins_). Yet he certainly believed the earth was flat, the common Norse cosmology. The reference is to the apparent circle formed by the horizon, as is also the case in Isaiah 40:22 (Hebrew,_chug ha-‘arets_ = circle of the earth, not “the globe-shaped earth”!)

  15. Techreseller

    I think these guys have finally convinced me. No more science, No more facts, No more believing my own two eyes. yes, Bible all the way.

    Well, maybe not.