Creationist Wisdom #1,037: The Cosmologist

Today’s second letter-to-the-editor appears in The Repository of Canton, Ohio. It’s titled Bible clear; God created universe in 6 days, and they don’t have a comments feature.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Richard, the same as today’s earlier letter, but it’s not the same guy. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Thousands of years before the scientific community could confirm the universe was made from nothing, the Bible so stated. [Wow!] Also, thousands of years ago, the Bible gave current day archeologists and paleontologists the sequence of events leading up to mankind: On earth, water formed; followed by vegetation; then, swarms of living creatures — first in the waters, then in the air and on land; then God created man ( [Amazing!] Genesis 1:9, 11, 20, 24, 26).

The bible was way ahead the scientists. Then Richard says:

Scientists diverge from the creation facts of the Bible on only one issue: time. [That’s the only thing they disagree on!] The Bible states creation was accomplished in six days. The Bible has proven to be ahead of science on the other facts of creation. Why then, does science not accept the Bible’s statement relative to the length of time God put our universe together?

Why? Isn’t it obvious? It’s because scientists are hell-bound fools! Richard tells us:

To humankind, the universe appears old. And yes, we see only 4% of it. [What?] Dark matter and dark energy comprise 96% of God’s universe. [Wow!]

Dark matter is currently believed to be about 85% of the universe, but dark energy — well, we’re not sure about that. Richard continues:

Cosmologists have calculated that in the beginning the universe expanded at the speed of light (and even faster during a brief period they term “inflation.”) The point is, that time (as Einstein revealed) is relative. At speeds, approaching the speed of light, time actually “stands still.” [Amazing!] To have us somewhat understand this concept, the Bible states, ”…With the Lord a day is like as a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” (2 Peter 3:8) [The bible was right all along!] Again, the point is, God is not bound by time. The six days of creation are God’s gift — spoken to us in our terms.

This guy really knows his stuff! Let’s read on:

God’s message to us is clear: Do not establish a controversy where one does not exist.

Message received! Here’s more:

Creation took six days. [Right!] God’s message to us is that the Bible speaks to each person for their own good and for their own needs. Importantly, it is to be read (studied) together. [Together? Okay, we’ll do it!]

And now we come to the end:

Finally, a good number of scientists [Idiots!] choose a quantum-particle fluctuation (out of nothing) as the author of the cosmic lawns and builder of the universe. I will take God at His word, that he is the author.

Very impressive! You agree, don’t you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2020. 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

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,037: The Cosmologist

  1. “cosmic lawns”?

  2. Charley Horse X

    It really bothers me that so many worship a god that needed 6 whole days to create just one universe.

  3. Michael Fugate

    He seems unclear on how long a Genesis 1 day was – does science match up with the Bible – so that anything scientists discover the Bible already said it?

  4. Dave Luckett

    SIgh. I don’t suppose that it would make any difference to Dick the Witless if it were pointed out that the writer of 2 Peter (whoever he was) was trying to explain the non-return of Jesus, not the expansion of spacetime or the time dilation effect.

    That piece of NT apologia – God’s sense of time is not like ours – is one of the main reasons for thinking 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphal. Simon bar-Jonah, called “Cephas”, meaning “pebble”, hence Petras, Peter, “stone”, was martyred in the Neronic persecutions of 64 CE, that is, only about 25 years after the death of Jesus. There was no need at that time to be writing elaborate explanations as to why Jesus hadn’t yet returned – plenty of people who had heard him were still alive, and it was still perfectly possible to go on believing that it would happen within their lifetimes. The crunch came later, by 80 or so, by which time something had to be fadged up to explain that the second coming might be a bit postponed. Like for a thousand years, the writer suggests. To which we can respond that he didn’t know the half of it.

    “Bible believers”, of course, have to reject this line of reasoning, and all the other evidence against Petronic authorship. They do the same for the other evidently pseudoepigraphical epistles. Why not? They insist that the “letter to the Hebrews” is of apostolic authorship, despite the fact that it makes no such claims itself and nobody knows who wrote it. Like 2 Peter, it’s in the Bible, ain’t it? That’s good enough for them, ay-men!

    And what’s this “context” thingie anyhoo?

  5. And this writer gets other things wrong about the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say that there was creation from nothing. Genesis 1 has water animals and flying animals both created on day 5, and land animals, including humans, later, on day 6. And Genesis 1 has water already existing at the beginning of God’s creating. Modern science doesn’t agree with the order of Genesis 1 – they don’t agree, it isn’t a matter of science learning that the Bible was right, after all.

  6. chris schilling

    What was the point of authoring “cosmic lawns” [sic] — “they’re real, and they’re spectacular!” — if you’re just going to obscure them with all that dark matter? And who mows them?

    Richard II doesn’t say.

  7. Michael Fugate

    One wonders if mowing the cosmic lawns was one of Jesus’ chores…

  8. Dave Luckett

    Oh, it’s not just the Bible, TomS. Richard is wrong on both counts. Science does NOT say that the Universe was made from nothing, any more than the Bible does. But even if Richard were to become aware of that fact, I think he would simply change tack: “Oh, right. So the Bible and science both say the Universe started from something, so the Bible did it first, again. Checkmate, atheist.”

    But science doesn’t say it started with a chaos of water, either.

    (Mind you, the idea that God or the gods or the proto-gods formed the world from a limitless waste of water is found in a number of mythologies, not only the Hebrew one. That seems perfectly logical. Water springs from the earth and falls from the sky. It flows from the hills, and if you go far enough in any direction, you reach the sea. So the land must be an enclave, a special case, separated from the water that surrounds it on all sides and above and below. Why don’t the waters simply close over it? That’s the nature of water. It can only be a supernatural sustaining power that causes the Universe to behave in ways contrary to its own nature. That makes perfect sense, from the knowledge available.)

    But Richard would probably dismiss the difference between Genesis and science as a piffling detail. Or say that the “spirit of God moving on the face of the waters” in Genesis 1:2 is a metaphor. Only the rest of Genesis is literal. Because.

    And you’re not allowed to ask, “Because why?”

  9. “Thousands of years before the scientific community could confirm the universe was made from nothing.”
    Huh? And I thought that something coming from nothing was impossible. Are those apologists incapable of reaching consensus on anything, I wonder?

    “God is not bound by time”
    Still Richard tries to tie him to six days.

    “a quantum-particle fluctuation (out of nothing)”
    Eh no, quantum fields are not nothing. And if Richard wants to identify them with his god he has my atheist blessings.

  10. @TomS, Why do you say that the water in verse 2 was pre-existing, rather than being part of the heavens and earth created in verse 1?

  11. I am relying, in part, on 2 Peter 3:5, that the Earth was created out of water. (NIV)

  12. Fair enough; though that’s pseudo-Peter’s gloss on Genesis, not Genesis itself.

  13. But Genesis does not say anything about the creation of the waters.

  14. @TomS, nor of the deep. My default assumption would be that “the heavens and the earth” include both of these, but I admit that it is an assumption

  15. Dave Luckett

    It depends on the translation you accept of Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning”, runs the usual, “God created the heavens and the earth”.

    The difficulty is the precise meaning of the verb bara, “created”. It means something more like “formed” or “made” than “created from nothing”. The same verb is used to describe the creation of man, from clay, and of woman, from his rib. That is, it describes God as working from pre-existing materials. True, it is only used for actions of God, but all the same it carries no implication of creation ex nihilo.

    Then there’s vs 2, usually translated, “And the Earth was without form and void, and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters”. This is puzzling. In vs 1, God is said to have formed the earth. In vs 2, it is said to be tohu, formless, void, a waste, a desert, worthless. One possible explanation is that OT Hebrew lacks a specific past pluperfect tense. The words may mean “the Earth had been without form…” But now the spirit of God moved on the face of the formless deep, the waters, and the work of creation began with God’s first words: “Let there be light”.

    That is, vs 2 and following give the specific acts of creation. Verse one is a summary of all six days of it. But that is to imply that this formless deep, this waste of waters, existed when God began.

  16. Gwyllm Griffiths

    Actually, they do have a comments section. You have scroll down a fair bit to find it, though.

  17. We Europeans don’t have access anyway.

  18. Desnes Diev

    [TomS:] “And this writer gets other things wrong about the Bible”

    There are more subtle points. For example, Gen 2:19-20 imply that Adam named all* animals (Gen 2: 19-20). But most creationists say that numerous species “microevolved” after the Flood from basic kinds (even species with différent names like “cat”, “tiger”, and “lion”). How these species could have been named before the Fall? (Except by a magical twist, I mean.)

    * The term “all” is repeated 4 times (N.I.V. Bible version).

  19. @Desnes Diev
    To “name” something is more than just attaching a label. It is to define it, to give it reality, to give it worth, and to have power over it.
    Aa long as the creationists use the word “kind” to mean something other than “species”, then there is nothing in the Bible about species. There is nothing about kinds giving rise to species, for example. But then there is nothing in the Bible that describes anything about being a kind. There is no reason to think that belonging to a kind is a stable feature of an animal (is changing from a tadpole to a frog a change in kind?)

  20. “To “name” something is more than just attaching a label. It is to define it, to give it reality, to give it worth, and to have power over it.”
    A very Greek-Hebrew-christian idea and for the largest part very unscientific.
    A planet like Neptunus already belonged to our natural reality before it received a name – long before Homo Sapiens showed up in fact.

  21. @FramkB
    Of course. I meant that in the context of Adam naming the animals. Anything else would be anachronistic .