My roommate is a computer-hog. I want to put her into a space shuttle and secretly remove the explosive bolts on the SRB and external fuel tank. That'll show her. Who'll be laughing THEN? BING!! THAT'S WHO, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm back. Went to the scary place for a second.
I'm sitting at the world's oldest functioning computer, writing a blog entry on punchcards. Damned thing doesn't even recognize my (other) jump drive. I'd like to write something substantive, but PZ beat me to two stories while I was out of town. The first was professional victim and unpleasant man-bitch Bill Donohue, who actually suggested that child abuse was just fine. Seriously. I think I kept the press release. Nope. Didn't. But go to the Catholic League's website and read his apology for Irish pedophile priests. His defense seems to be: "It's just a little child butt rape. What's the big deal?"
Oh, the other thing is Ida, the early mammal, who is neat for lots of reasons. PZ did the creationist round up for me. What could a professional biologist possibly have to add to anything that I, a literary scholar, would say? Please, PZ, stick to your strengths.
Luckily, Bodie Hodge has swiftly gotten over becoming a father and is back out to ruin his family name with lunacy! Yay! Some things never change. Ah, Bodie, Bodie, Bodie. He is answering a letter that is called: "Feedback: Talking Snakes and Magical Trees."
Dear AiG,
I've noticed a lot of evolutionists will try to mock creationists
and make our beliefs seem ridiculous by saying things like "You creationists
believe a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
How should creationists respond to remarks like that?
Thanks and God
bless,
Dylan.
Now this person is hitting on something very important which I have talked about here. Talking snakes convincing a rib lady to eat a knowledge apple somehow caused syphillis and blimp accidents. I mean, and I am thinking this in the voice of Cartman, seriously weak. But, if you are going to believe that the Bible needs to be interpreted literally, well, then you need to believe that those events are historical and, if you believe in the thoroughly unfair doctrine of Original Sin, then you the second part of that sentence is true.
Even Bodie realizes that there is a problem, because instead of saying boldly and proudly, "Yes, that is what I believe," he feels that he must tapdance his way around it:
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Those making these sorts of
comments are not likely even looking for a response, but are primarily poking
fun without even knowing much about what they are ridiculing. In cases like
this, sometimes it may be good to illuminate the humor of their own belief such
as: “And evolutionists believe everyone in the world ultimately came from rock.”
Then point out that if they have trouble with talking animals then they mustn’t
believe parrots exist either!
Yes. We want you to say it out loud, to admit, that yes, you believe that a fable is literally true. Say it, Bodie. You can't, because you know how sad it is. And your defense is the type of pathetic tripe that only Bodie Hodge could come up with. I've gotten good enough at these to be able to tell just by the crudeness of thought which articles come from Bodie and which come from others. And let me tell you, it really is hard to out-stupid Georgia Purdom.
1) The proposition that life comes from lifeless chemistry has the benefit of a) being true and b) not depending on talking snakes. The parrot thing is a red herring. It is a false analogy. It is equivocation. It is 3 logical fallacies all at once! (Wow. Are you sure someone didn't try to mercifully smother you at birth, Bodie?) It is a red herring because it does not answer the question, merely brings in parrots for some reason. It is equivocation on what it means to be a "talking animal." For much the same reason, it is a false analogy because the imitative sounds a parrot makes are nothing like the type of speech visible in the serpent. For instance, look at the punishment from God that the snake receives:
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art
cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly
shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
First of all, the snake is clearly morally culpable--it is conniving and "subtle"!
It is the
agent who is punished. But Bodie is a rotten literalist. Instead of just saying, "Yes, at least one snake could talk, and he was mean," he tells a fanciful yarn, and even brings in some new characters:
In this case, explain that, like the talking donkey that Balaam rode, the
talking serpent was a vessel enabled for another being to use or speak
through—Satan, in the case of the serpent.
Woah, where is the devil? Yo, buddy. No devil. Just a talking snake. And if this is true, the snake gets punished for
being used as a tool. Fuck justice. Yahweh has a petty tantrum that needs to be satiated. So this fallacy is...wow, just innacuracy. There is no cure for stupid, Bodie. (Also, donkeys don't talk, unless you mean that Bodie is talking out of his ass. Ba-ZIIING!)
And nowhere does the Bible call the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
“magical.”
He goes on this for a bit, whether or not the damned thing is magical, which misses the point of the question entirely: "How do we account for patent absurdities?" (The question was phrased as a "how do we answer things things
like...") Bodie seems to think that deliberately misunderstanding the intent of the question somehow relieves him from the responsiblity of answering it. Not in my class, bucko.
Humor aside though, today we see people dying, which is exactly what God said
would happen because of Adam and Eve’s rebellion and sin. Today, we also see
serpents slithering (snakes), which was what Genesis says. And yet, no one sees
people coming from rocks, algae, or even lemurs! The Bible explains the world we
live in, and it is the evolutionary position that simply begins with and ends
with absurdity and irrationality.
First off, there was no humor. You're pathetic, and I do not find that funny. Nor should you.
Can we think of a reason why, without resorting to an unconfirmed, all-knowing, all-powerful amorphous glob of improbablility that is god, one might find these elements inside the story? How's this one: snakes slithered and people died when the story was written. You have cause and effect backward, as usual, Bodie. It's like a literary anthropic principle. The world is not "finely tuned" for us, rather, we are the product of this world, shaped by natural forces over eons to thrive in this world, which is why it feels so cozy all the time. And you skip over the big missing element. Snakes don't talk. Dick.
So, Bodie's defense is to pretend to not hear the question. Pathetic. Just pathetic in every way.
HJ