Cretinism or Evilution? Nos. 4&5
Edited by E.T. Babinski
Genesis is a Jokesis!
Genesis is a Jokesis!
Personally, I do not pretend to know what language God used to call forth Creation. It appears that only angels were listening to God's speech at the time, and I hesitate to declare if these were Hebrew, Islamic, or Hindu angels. Therefore, I find it easiest to assume that creation by the "word" of God is merely a poetic description of how God "called" the cosmos into being. But if the description of God "speaking," and the record of His alleged "words," is poetry, what does that say about how the rest of the story in Genesis should be viewed?
- E. T. Babinski
Did our lonely planet twiddle its continents as it waited for the sun to be created, which would grab our earth with its superior gravitation and girdle our planet round its fat fiery waist; waited for the moon to be created to fuel the earth's tidal engines; waited for billions and billions of gargantuan flaming balls to be created, whose light extends in all direction to the farthest reaches of the cosmos (and which do not merely exist to "light the earth" and "for signs and seasons" on earth)?
According to the same chapter of Genesis, even vegetation and "fruit trees" were created before the "sun, moon and stars." As if God had decided, "Fifty-billion galaxies, including the sun, planets and many moons of the solar system must remain uncreated; in fact all the empty space in the cosmos must remain unfilled, until I have fashioned some orange, banana, and coconut trees on earth." Talk about an earth-centered creation account!
Other "earth-centered clues" include the way that the earth and all that lives on it took "four days" to create while the rest of the cosmos, like the "sun, moon, and the stars also," only took "one day" to create. So the Creator spent "four days" on the earth and only "one day" on the rest of the universe?
All of this leads me to doubt that the Hebrews ever viewed the earth as one among many "planets" or viewed the stars as "distant suns, or, distant `lamps' equally as `great' as the sun." The ancients simply viewed the "earth" as the "lower half" of creation, with the "upper half" being the "heavens" in which the sun, moon and stars were "made" and "set" to light the lower half. It's a flat world after all!
- E. T. Babinski
- E. T. Babinski
(God goofed, making Adam the first "Martin Gardner," whose thirst for knowledge couldn't be satiated by merely thumbing through a Farmer's Almanac. He had to taste the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. Mr. Gardner is an ex-fundamentalist Christian, the author of Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, and, The Whys of A Philosophical Scrivener. He was also the mathematical puzzle columnist for Scientific American magazine for several decades.)
- E. T. Babinski
On the other hand, did Adam's names resemble scientific nomenclature? Did Adam divide every living thing into its phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Did Adam start the branch of science known as cladistics, which studies everything it can about a living thing's anatomy and genes before fitting it into it's proper category?
No, I don't think Adam did that either.
So maybe Adam gave the animals colloquial "artsy sounding" names?
In any case, why should I be interested? We don't use Adam's "names" anymore. Besides, if I ever run into Adam or his immediate children in the next life I don't want to waste time arguing over whether a pig ^. .^
should be called a "pig," or must be called a "dooble-hizpot," because that's what "Father Adam" named it "in the beginning."
Creationists think the story points to Adam having had a "super brain," able to invent names for millions of creatures in a matter of days or hours, and remember which creature each name belonged to. Yeah, but could he do it again on a TV talk show, for us all to see, like Harry Lorraine the "memory expert" did, who memorized the names of every audience member, and then recalled them all on sight a little while later?
Then again, what's the point of God having Adam "name" all these creatures, especially ones that Adam was not likely to see or encounter again, like creatures deep in lakes, oceans, caves and burrows in the earth, or high up on mountainsides, or in the tallest branches and leaves of tree-canopied rain forests, or for that matter, having him "name" creatures so tiny that no one would even know they existed until after the microscope had been invented "six thousand years" [sic] hence?
The Hebrew tale about "Adam's naming of the animals" tells us more about ancient Hebrew ignorance of the breadth and depth of the biological world (or more about their mythic thought patterns) than about "Adam's super brain."
And what about naming all the plant species? The Bible says nothing about that. I guess even Adam's "super brain" had its limitations. Yet since Adam was given "every green plant to eat" and couldn't eat any of the animals "in the beginning," wouldn't it have been more useful for him to start off by naming all the plants rather than all the animals? Or did Adam point out food to Eve by saying, "See that `dooble-hizpot' over there? That green stuff it's munching is really good, I tried some yesterday."
Too bad good old Adam couldn't keep focused in the forefront of his "super brain" the one thing worth remembering according to the Bible fable, which was, "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge." But then how could a "super brain" resist the temptation to ingesting more "knowledge?" Sounds like a sting operation to me.
Needless to say, creationists take this stuff very seriously, as in the July 1995 "Impact" article #265, "Could Adam Really Name All Those Animals?" by William J. Spear, Jr., part of a series of "Vital Articles on Science/Creation" produced and distributed by the Institute for Creation Research, and mailed out to probably tens of thousands each month. Spear says that God used something similar to modern day VR (virtual reality) technology, i.e., when God "formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air out of the ground...and brought them unto Adam to see what he would name them." (Gen. 2:19-21)
I'm tempted to add a final word about this "vitally scientific" ICR article, but I can't. Some stuff just writes its own punch line.
- E. T. Babinski
- Robert Ingersoll
This agitated Adam,
Handsome, tall and slim,
Seeing two of everything
But only one of him.
But when the Lord came by one day
And took Adam by the hand,
He asked him to name the animals
In air and sea and land.
"From all the animals I made,
I expect you to choose a mate,
Some charming little female
With whom you can have a date."
But when the job was finished
Poor Adam stood alone,
There was no mate that he could date,
None he could call his own.
Now Adam was disconsolate,
He began to fret and grieve.
It was then the Lord got busy
And made him Mother Eve.
Just think what might have happened
To folks like me and you,
If Adam had selected as his mate
A female kangaroo.
- Sam Hill
- Erma Bombeck
- E. T. Babinski
- E. T. Babinski
- The Roman Emperor Julian in his critique of Christianity, Against the Nazarenes (of which all the original copies were destroyed by Christians who would not put up with criticisms of their beliefs; mere fragments of Julian's work have survived in a Christian apologist's attempted rebuttal to Julian's embarrassing insights)
- E. T. Babinski
Actually, Genesis, chapter one, is about how man got swindled out of eternal life. Adam and Eve are hustled from the garden by a frightened deity after they've tasted of the tree of knowledge "and become like one of us" [like "gods," or like "God," depending on your translation]. Better evict them before they take a bite out of the "tree of eternal life," and become even more like gods.
Such myths were invented to explain why man was so superior to the animals in having a "god-like mind and amazing creative abilities like speech," yet still suffered the ignominy of death along with all the other animals. Hence, myths arose about man being "cheated" out of the other god-like quality he wished he had along with his intelligence, namely eternal life.
Speaking of having "god-like" qualities, Genesis plainly states, as many theologians have pointed out, that man was created in God's literal physical image: "When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God...[And] Adam became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth" (Gen. 5:1,3). Ancient near eastern peoples also told tales about how the gods found human females physically "beautiful" (compare Gen. 6:2), supposedly resembling the gods' own "beautiful" faces? So, there are examples even in the Bible where "God" is depicted in an all-too-human fashion reminiscent of other ancient deities like Zeus or Apollo, to whom the ancient Greeks believed they bore a physical resemblance.
- E. T. Babinski
- Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Harvest, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983, p. 109
"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, `Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they propose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'" (Gen. 11:5-7)
This "God" sounds a bit frightened - not as much as in Genesis, chapter 3, but still frightened - in this case, that man will "reach heaven" by "building a tower."
What I want to know is how tall was the "tower of Babel?" Was it taller than a Babylonian ziggurat? Taller than the pyramid of Cheops? Taller than the Twin Towers of Manhattan? Taller than the tallest mountain on earth? Reaching higher into heaven than mankind's deepest space probe? Just where does "God" draw the line between the "earth" and things that "reach into His heavens?"
The "tower of Babel" must have been taller than the tallest "tall tale" ever told by Mark Twain for God to have "come down" to take a look at it, fearing it would "reach heaven," and then confuse our language.
Heck, we're at the point where we name our heaven-going spacecraft after pagan gods, like "Gemini and Apollo," and then leave our footprints on "God's" moon in "His heavens!" And God won't "come down" and raise a ruckus again? Maybe Bible lovers who are busy picketing abortion clinics should shift gears and get busy picketing NASA before something "really bad" happens.
- E. T. Babinski
I want to know, were they created with anuses? Did they use leaves to wipe themselves? Was Adam sometimes just out of reach of leaves and had to ask Eve to find him some nice soft ones?
What about fecal odor? Did their farts smell? Did their underarms smell from the excrement of bacteria? What about foot odor? (Did God feel the least bit obliged to give them the recipe for soap?) Did they burp?
In other words, wouldn't Adam and Eve have been ashamed of a number of things long before they were "ashamed" to discover they were "naked?" And what does all this imply about the "perfection" of the Biblical God's creation?
Even in Genesis it says that God cursed woman by "increasing or multiplying" her pain during childbirth, which implies that God had already designed pain and suffering.
- E. T. Babinski
- George Carlin (from his comedy routine on "God")
- McCoy (on Star Trek)
I answered, "He doesn't make it very well known to most of us, except of course to lucky old doubting Thomas. Instead, everyone on this planet is equally blessed in being able to detect the undeniable `presence' of earthquakes, tornadoes, genetic defects, diseases, hunger, boredom, ignorance, and strife, praise God!"
- E. T. Babinski
E.T. BABINSKI
Home Page |
Browse |
Search |
Feedback |
Links
The FAQ |
Must-Read Files |
Index |
Creationism |
Evolution |
Age of the Earth |
Flood Geology |
Catastrophism |
Debates