October 25, 2006

Interview With An Honest Young Earth Creationist


hat tip Lemons and Lollipops

Beaj: Hi John, now you promise to answer all my quesions sincerely and honestly, correct?

John: As God is my witness.

Beaj: Great. Now tell me about your beliefs. How old is the earth and do you believe in evolution?

John: I am a Young Earth Creationist. God created the earth and universe and man all less than 8,000 years ago. Evolution is a crock because God created man in his image. The bible says it is true, so it must be true.

Beaj: But all the scientific evidence points that evolution is fact and the earth and universe is ancient. What do you think about scientific evidence?

John: The scientific evidence can't be true. Besides, there are lots of holes in evolution theory, for one thing it is only a theory.....

Beaj: ...I thought you agreed to be honest. You don't really understand evolution theory do you?

John: No I don't really understand it, and I don't really care to. Unless someone argues against it, I'm not interested. It goes against my literal bible, so I don't want to deal with it. Sorry about being deceitful.

Beaj: Why do you think that there are no scientific studies that prove the earth is young or disprove evolution?

John: There are lots I thought. Lots of good Christians present holes in evolution and ancient earth theory. There are many websites run by good Christians. Why would they lie?

Beaj: Again, I thought you were going to try to be honest and forget about mentioning "holes." If there was merit to a young earth there would be lots of ways to measure it. There would be a way for science to refute the age of fossils and actually measure them as dates of less than 8,000 years, for example. There would be lots of evidence and scientific studies that question or even refute evolution. There are none.

John: Well maybe God put these fossils on the earth to make them appear old.

Beaj: Why would he do that? He wants followers doesn't he? Why would he leave so much evidence that the earth is ancient and that man evolved? And no evidence that the earth is young and that man was created less than 8,000 years ago.

John: Good questions. I don't have all the answers. Only God can answer these types of questions.

Beaj: So you admit that your argument against science is purely based on faith, and you basically have to ignore scientific fact in order to believe what you believe.

John: I guess so. If what you are telling me is true. Are you sure there are no scientific studies that prove the earth is young or that man only goes back 8,000 years?

Beaj: Yes I am sure.

John: Well then, it must be the work of the devil. There is no other explanation possible.

Beaj: Thanks for the interview.

John: You are welcome, and God bless.



Note: John, the honest Young Earth Creationist, was purely fictional and does not exist.

For a rhetorical assmonkey argument against Atheism please go here and check out his second last post too. Warning: verbal diarrhea alert.

UPDATE: Looks like Mr. Rhetoric, the clinical psychologist, decided to with a third post.

19 comments:

  1. You had me fooled.

    Sounds like every religious debate I've ever had.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure that terms 'assmonkey' and 'verbal diarrhea' are particulary sophisticated counter-arguments to the entertaining dissertations to be found over at One Cosmos.

    Also readers should be aware that the bobbleheads are not into young earth theories or even divine creation.

    I would be interested to read the comments of anyone who finds the writings over there strangely fascinating or even just a tad entertaining. Particularly if you were intrigued enough to delve further into the archives. Or not as the case may be. I fear I may have caught a bit of that verbal diarrhea as well so be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AA, I think you are impressed to easily by his phenomenal vocabulary. It makes him sound a lot smarter than he is. His addiction to rhetoric needs to be cured though.

    I started a thread about him here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John is way too reasonable to be a YEC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thats hilarious, sounds like a 4 year old arguing against an adult.

    If its meant to be a joke I think its funny, if its not then its even funnier.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yay, I just got my comment at One Cosmos quoted in todays main posting. High fives everyone. First Ka then BEAJ and now me – you get mentioned again Bacon.

    Though it’s probably not such a great acheivment as we are simply adding grist to the mill over there and it appears that Bob generates a long post daily. I’m sure they’ll miss us when we, the ‘barbarian visitors’, are gone. I thought he lowered the tone a little by calling us ‘dorks’- could a crack be appearing?

    I’ll check out the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that John does exist. He simply exists outside the realm of your limited, human knowledge. Obviously.

    But there is no sense in arguing. All you ajohnists are irrational and superficial anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AA:
    I noticed that.
    You may want to let the good doctor in on what you meant by 'prosaic'.
    'Cause I can wax as eloquently as he can, & I have no PHD.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm with BEAJ's take on Gagdad Bob, or whatever the hell his name is: fine vocabulary, a deep well of erudition, and a decent understanding of Logic 101.

    Yet his premise comes the most faith-based faith I've seen in a long time. His syllogism can basically be reduced to the following:

    * Bob spelled backwards is Bob
    * Therefore every word means what it reads when you reverse the letters.
    * Dog spelled backwards is God.
    * Therefore, a dog is God.
    * I have a dog.
    * I have God.
    * If you don't agree, it's because you don't have the non-intellectual capacities of love, humility, undying respect for my opinions, flashbacks from the blotter acid I dropped in 1978, a great imagination, and a father who beat the shit of me that time I said I thought God was a lie.

    The only worse is the crew of unthinking sycophants that whoop and holler in support of his logical illogic.

    Dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Flamingo, lol.

    Mike, I posted your comment on the rhetoric master's blog. It was too good not.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks . . . I guess!

    Does this mean he'll include me with you and Atheist Jew as one of the unenlightened morons who lack brain power and shamanistic magic?

    I mean, I am a Jew, and an atheist, though neither concept appears in the name "Mike."

    Unless, you have that level of enlightenment, then you have "rock solid evidence" that both concepts are embedded between the "I" and "K" of Mike, even though science wouldn't prove it.

    Ok, I'm rambling, enough of that . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. “You may want to let the good doctor in on what you meant by 'prosaic'.”

    My comment was cleverly designed to be noticed. I needed to expose the soft underbelly of Atheism to draw an attack. You see, I have always believed that Atheism should not be for general consumption - a little bit like homosexuality, once it is common it loses its appeal and becomes banal. It’s not for the common man who wouldn’t know a Buddha from an Olympian. Real Atheists need to have a good understanding of religion and its origins. Real Atheists have journeyed through the landscape of the Divine and rejected it because of its callous cruelty and frankly monstrous gods. Ironically the Atheist struggles with God and then realizes that he is struggling against something that has no intelligence, no morals, no sympathy and no substance. This realization is another milestone on the journey to the end of the Way. Not for nothing is Buddhism sometimes described as an atheistic religion.

    Enlightenment is approached upon realizing that omnipotence is not what it is superficially supposed to be but almost it’s very opposite. The Infinite is not cruel or kind - it is indifferent to suffering and unaware of its creativity yet it created kindness. God is absolutely an ideal and can only be ‘seen’ reflected through the mind of man and nothing else. The Bible alludes to this when it states, “we peer through a glass darkly.” The mind of man is the only mirror through which absolutes can be defined and this helps to make man himself divine.

    Notions of divinity, gods and demons, exist in the imagination of man. There is the world, to be sure, but more real than the world itself with all its animate and inanimate objects is the landscape of the human mind – here monsters and gods dwell, in our dreams and nightmares and our waking moments, ready to leap from one mind to another.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AA, they totally ignored your comment. The flock there is not into intellectual debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You’re right Bacon. I tried to converse in a style I thought they would appreciate but they appear to be circling the wagons.

    It’s funny really as many of them confess to being unbelievers at some stage so you would think they may see me as someone who is redeemable. I will change my opinion when presented with a reasonable argument..

    Another point I sought to make in my first comment was completely ignored as well and that was if God is an actual sentient being capable of intervening in the affairs of mankind then why can we not confront him about his inaction when innocents suffer. He could be likened to a man walking away from a drowning person even though there was an alarm or life ring close at hand. Some might consider it criminal negligence. Of course to me he is metaphorical and so incapable of answering but to the bobbleheads he is apparently real but mystical. It’s a mystery why he just walked away and let that man drown or that child starve. It’s a mystery that they could equate neglect with love.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can't believe that I read through most of the comments over there. Many a time I was moved to post but felt I ought to read more before putting finger to button.

    I think in the end the futility gene kicked in and I was "saved" from having to go back there to repeat the well worn arguments.

    I was especially amused by the description of Islam as a cult.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here is a much more civilized debate by a religiously inclined psycho-analyst and his readers:

    http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/10/is_nothing_sacr.html#more

    ReplyDelete
  17. What beats me is when creationists start pointing to the "missing link".

    We can verifiably trace our heritage so close to monkeys that I wonder how they imagine God, who created the first human in his image. Do they think God looked like an australopithecus?

    ReplyDelete
  18. God must be a bacteria, because I believe we all evolved from a simple bacteria.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am a Young Earth Creationist. And all of you should be.

    ReplyDelete