Funniest creationist E-mail I've gotten in quite a while.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-03-29 04:05pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote: Not even the oldest, most eccentric professor I had wore such stereotypical garments. It's like expecting the RAF fighter jockeys to cry "Tally ho!" nowadays.

Actually I'm pretty sure they do. it's in common use to acknowledge spotting aircraft reported by another pilot or traffic control.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2007-03-29 05:29pm

The Vortex Empire wrote:I'm saddened that it's even possible that someone can be this stupid. Over 99% of our DNA is the same as a chimps, so shouldn't most of our babies be chimps? 65% of our DNA is identical to a rat's, so shouldn't more than half of our babies be rats?

Nitpick: It's been revised to be more like 94%. You're still right of course.

It's like when people tell me that the human body is over 90% water.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-03-30 12:46am

Darth Wong wrote:If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he choose all of the dumbest people on Earth to be his most devout followers?

Because they're easy to lead and tell them what to do. If God were to appear in front of you and tell you to do some of the crazy shit in the Bible, you'd stare at him funny and ask why. The dummies OTOH would just reply, "yes, master".

Teleros · Post by **Teleros** » 2007-03-30 01:10pm

Darth Servo wrote:If God were to appear in front of you and tell you to do some of the crazy shit in the Bible, you'd stare at him funny and ask why.

Not to mention prove he was God, then get side-tracked into asking for a theory of everything etc

.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-03-30 03:55pm

Teleros wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:If God were to appear in front of you and tell you to do some of the crazy shit in the Bible, you'd stare at him funny and ask why.
Not to mention prove he was God, then get side-tracked into asking for a theory of everything etc .

Wouldn't that technically be The Law of the Universe, since he is infallable and thus it's true ALL the time?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2007-03-31 06:45am

since he is infallable and thus it's true ALL the time?

Not according to the Bible.

Oh, the irony. :P

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-03-31 11:39am

Darth Wong wrote:If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he choose all of the dumbest people on Earth to be his most devout followers?

Isn't that the fundamental flaw in all of their teachings? Even above and beyond stupid people, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, why is either the laws he set up flawed or why are the people he created to follow the laws flawed?

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-03-31 01:23pm

Knife wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he choose all of the dumbest people on Earth to be his most devout followers?
Isn't that the fundamental flaw in all of their teachings? Even above and beyond stupid people, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, why is either the laws he set up flawed or why are the people he created to follow the laws flawed?

There are multiple interpretations of this depending on what religion or sect of a religion one follows. For example, one could argue that God does not choose anyone to carry God's message. Nor does God create people with any specific purpose in mind, or create people at all for that matter. Humans beget humans, some of them may chose of their own free will to preach what they see as God's message, but that is their choice.

If by "their teachings" you mean fundamentalists specifically, then I think one of their key flaws is insisting in taking the Bible literally. It shows too much shoddy editing, plot holes, and general lack of professionalism to be taken as the literal word of God, something that the Bible does not even claim to be. If one wants to follow a holy book literally, then I would suggest converting to Islam.

Uranocene · Post by **Uranocene** » 2007-04-02 04:53pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:If by "their teachings" you mean fundamentalists specifically, then I think one of their key flaws is insisting in taking the Bible literally. It shows too much shoddy editing, plot holes, and general lack of professionalism to be taken as the literal word of God, something that the Bible does not even claim to be. If one wants to follow a holy book literally, then I would suggest converting to Islam.

Biblical literalism among fundamentalists is often taken in places where the obvious message is more symbolic than anything else. I'd rank a good portion of Genesis and all Daniel and Revelation up there with the pinnacle of symbolism in the Bible. Daniel is certainly more interesting when viewed through the lens of symbolism.

What most creationists and ID'ers these days mistakenly do is take much of Genesis literally when in fact much of it was either borrowed or just simply used to provide a lesson (the common one in Genesis being the consequences of disobedience). Considering that Abrahamaic religions originated in Mesopotamia, it's no surprise that portions of the Tiamat and Gilgamesh legends made it into Genesis.

I honestly find many attempts to debunk evolution based solely on the Biblical account or the "it's too complex" copout to border on pity. Evolutionary theory makes more sense than the Tiamat legend and would seem to indicate a more complex plan that YEC's and ID'ers are willing to accept. Then again, denial is a comfortable state for many people.