Oh, dear … Christians.

Posted on by Ark

Sorry, Becky, I seem to have missed this reply.
I just need to clarify one point.
Are you suggesting that Yahweh created the earth mature and with fossils already embedded in rock?

Reply
  • On August 16, 2019 at 9:56 am Rebecca LuElla Miller said:

    I am, Ark. I don’t see why that isn’t reasonable since clearly He created a “full grown” man, probably with a belly button, though he’d never had an umbilical cord, and fully developed trees that likely had rings that would have suggested years of growth.

     

 

Ark

101 thoughts on “Oh, dear … Christians.”

  1. Obviously Becky isn’t to be trusted with anything more complicated than crayons since she believes her god installed the pointless stub of an umbilicus in a man who didn’t need one.
    Prime example of how ridiculous Christians appear to normal people.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    3. Crayons? Many a genius was found to dabble in that art, and it is precisely your myopic ignorance of anything outside your comfort zone which presents your limited vision of seeing things that are clear to others.

      Crayons? Maybe you should try them, and learn a thing or two about COLOUR/storms

      Like

      Reply

      2. Hi John, a bit off topic. But I was curious where your moniker comes from. What does colorstorm mean and how did you choose that name?

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          2. Let’s play a game: let’s think of similar, yet different monikers for dear old John.

            Like

        2. Kiabooks, he really wanted ‘Godsmanforeverandever’ but it was already taken by one of his good buddies. (It really was quite a mouthful anyway)

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. Not sure about that but here’s a fun fact about him: he thinks the earth is flat – as in, flat as piss on a platter. Yes, for real-zies.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m sure she does. I sincerely hope the Greenland people don’t take him seriously…
      I think the belly button thing is something she picked up from very old paintings that show adam and eve BOTH sporting belly buttons, which makes even less sense but has always made me wonder if maybe God had one too. “in his image’ , right?

      The aged rocks theory abounds; my husband’s cousin, a 7th Day Adventist, explained to me one day that glaciers never existed. “how do you explain the carbon dating–” she said, God put those rocks there and aged them…”why?” “to fool us.” She was dangerously close to the flat earthers, but I left it there. some things you never want to know.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. It’s mind numblingly stupid. Before long there might well be people stating as historical fact that a 1st Century Rabbi was crucified and came back from the dead.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

    1. Whenever I come across this level of idiocy I get a feeling of talking with someone one would normally expect to be an inmate somewhere where the standard dress code is those really cool jackets with the very long sleeves.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. It took me a long time to accept that the flat Earthers were serious. The contrary evidence is so overwhelming that I assumed for a long time that they were essentially just joking.

      I have concluded that a lot of people are not really interested in whether an issue they ‘believe’ in is true, rather so many just want to ‘believe’ it is true because it makes then feel good. As a consequence they really do not have much interest in exploring actual evidence. Rather they only really want to see material that supports the delusion, at this point enter the Biblical Apologist.

      Liked by 8 people

      Reply

    3. what frightens me, is how many of them might be using Pratchett’s Discworld as “proof” when in fact I suspect he was pulling a few legs of flat-earthers by conjuring up such a place. they do seem to be remarkably similar, if you’ve ever read his books…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

          1. Judy … why? How else can the world be stabilised on the back of the great turtle as He eternally paddles his way through the cosmos?

            Liked by 2 people

  8. Ark, it completely baffles me that, rather than read a scientific explanation, so many Christians would rather think, “God waved a magic wand and Presto! – life was created!”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. This would be the same god who created a defective product to begin with, then required a blood sacrifice to clear up the mess. . .yes, an asshole.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

  10. Whilst Becky might use such an argument to explain away inconvenient evidence it gives rise to a deeper problem in my view.

    Why would ‘God’ do so? What is the purpose, to mislead people?

    If ‘God’ cared for a person with an inquiring mind mind then surely ‘God’ would not have planted such misleading evidence.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  11. Deliberate Deceit from a god who supposedly despises dishonesty? If God was real and didn’t want people thinking that the earth was old, why have any fossils at all? To test us? To confuse us? To somehow lead us to faith in him? If God exists and is responsible for the fossils we find, there is no answer that makes sense other than what Steve suggested above…

    “What an asshole.”

    The presence of fossils make no sense…unless of course the earth is actually quite old…then fossils make perfect sense. But who’d believe in that kind of observable, trustworthy evidence anyway?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  13. I would very much like to closely examine her family genealogy, parents and their parenting, her K thru 12(?) curriculum, the specific schools she attended (unless home-schooled), and obviously what religious affiliation(s) her parents had/have as well as her’s. I am convinced that all of those facts, that comprehensive data would adequately explain her SEVERE DEFICIENCY in the Sciences and sadly critical-analysis critical-thinking. As Mgordon42 suggested… there are way too many Crayons involved. 😉

    Like

    Reply

          1. Just popped over there, and as I was reading I could literally feel my reason, sanity, and IQ beginning to vaporize; so I ran away. Such tripe is an aggressive form of cancer for human intellect.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. Exactly Jeff. If I went over there and asked all the open-ended, right questions with courtesy as a Psych Clinician does with any patient admission, trying to establish BASIC foundations of knowledge and by default ignorance… think of how long that would take and the run-around merry-go-round I would most certainly be aboard with her! Ugh. 🤢🤮 I have had my fill of non-stop bible sermons, bad exegesis or hermeneutics, with absolutely NO authenticated, corroborated contextual history surrounding their “Holy Bible” — their only tangible source verifying their blind Faith in their God/Savior claims.

            Is it worth it? 😖

            Liked by 1 person

      2. The FIRST comment? Meaning if she doesn’t like what the first one unveils or hits a tender-spot or sore-spot, she MIGHT not allow a second comment, therefore, getting the last word, God’s finality and trickery thru her? Isn’t that pseudo-Moderating? 😉 😛

        Like

        Reply

        1. If you are a first time commenter ( on most blogs, I understand) comments generally sit in moderation. After that you are good to go.
          Though for you there may be a six month waiting period!

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. 😆 And yet, THERE is the glaring symptom of a slow dying Intellectualism and sound, proper academia and reasoning. For a subject so important to FULLY understand, six months is NOTHING to me Ark!!! 😉 It’s the 5 or 10+ year studies, research, testing, rechecking, retesting, etc, that I must consider “too much” to manage or not.

            Like

  14. It’s willful stupidity..like it’s cool to be stupid..the stupider..the better…
    I’m sure these types are all trump supporters as well..birds of a feather..

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  15. “appearance of age” argument with no way to verify if it’s actually true because… you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between “actual” age and “apparent” age.
    These people don’t think.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  17. Humans contemplating if Adam had a belly button or suggesting the perceived God made the Earth with fossils already embedded and growth rings in newly created mature trees along with the God inspired flat Earthers does make one wonder if the whole Christian story was planted on Earth by aliens who have a great sense of humour and knew they would get a laugh out of some stupid humans.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  18. Well, Ark … you did ask~!
    Ask and ye shall find, seek and ye shall trip over the fossils. (I still think it was clever of ol’ God to create virgin layers with fossils already in ’em. But He’s clever like that, no?)

    Like

    Reply

  19. You dum’ atheists!
    To misquote some bugger: “Mock on, mock on, ’tis all in vain! You cast the sand against the wind; and the wind blows it back again!” … ya gotta get in firstest with the mostest, and THAT’S where they got ya by the curlies!

    So, it’s not illegal to indoctrinate infants with cra— rubbish. But it would be moral to teach ’em how to think for themselves, despite all the indoctrination. AND teach ’em discretion, too, ‘cos religious folks are more than happy to apply their drivel with a big stick …

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. The belly-button reference came from a book published shortly before On the Origin of Species which was entitled Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. If you’ve never heard of it, there’s little wonder because in the author’s words, the book fell from the press and along came Darwin’s tome shortly afterwards anyway.
    However, there is a consistency of explanation that ought to be resurrected by Creationists so you do good service by drawing attention to it. The process that leads from a single cell to an adult human follows a fairly narrow developmental path and making an adult body from scratch, as it were, would obviously be far more difficult if even purely historical structures — such as an umbillical scar — were not included in the construction. We have a similar failure to make things more complicated with male nipples.
    In the same way, if a planet in the process of development is made all at once, one would expect there to be a developmental history written in the rocks even as they are being made.To make chalk or coal all at once and have them consist of something other than fossils would be at the very least a tremendous waste of energy.
    Yours,
    John/.

    Like

    Reply

        1. I had never heard of the book JK refers to so I googled it.
          Interesting there are several different perspectives from an assortment of characters, one being Gould.
          He asserts that the arguments laid out in the book are unassailable, in as much as the earth would look exactly the same had it been created old or new -or this is my understanding of his comment.
          But again, the question of a creator’s motivation is not answered so all one is left with is speculation.

          As you say, John, deliberate deception.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Deliberately misleading people, knowing the *evidence* will contradict the story. That’s not just nasty, but, considering the proposed (eternal) punishment for not believing, perfectly malevolent.

            Still, hoping to hear a good excuse.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Of course I don’t think it’s deception at all, John,
            but the conviction that the Omphalos hypothesis would have to imply divine deception has always nipped discussion in the bud. It seems to me also that the major question — how does the Bible avoid the charge of Last Thursdayism — gets swamped by the scholastic misconception that the Bible near as makes no difference gives us a date for the Creation having taken place, but dealing with the deception questions before examining the Omphalos hypothesis itself is to put the cart before the horse.
            Basically there are three processes that can be traced back to a beginning so that we conclude for each that there must have been a beginning: 1. of the expansion of the universe 2. of the formation of the geological strata 3. of the development of life. The Omphalos logic is that if God can make a fully-formed human ready to engage in all the processes of life (lacking only another compatable human for reproduction and companionship) when everyone knows that the process starts with a single cell, then there is no reason why God cannot have created the universe, the earth, and life at particular points in the natural progress of the processes. If you like, though Adam had lived for one day on the seventh day of Creation, there is no deception in describing him as a fully-grown man. So why would a recently-created universe look old? Because the processes of expansion, formation and development take a long time and are still in progress at the natural pace of their ordering.
            Yours,
            John/.

            Like

        2. I don’t know, I’m old and I’m always tryin’ to look young! Ain’t many young folks out there trying to make new things look ancient, but, as the Christian always says, God works in mysterious ways. All we can do is cherry pick the things about Her we like, and toss up the stuff we don’t to mystery. Seems like a fine, fine way to live.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a comment