How Do Creationists Explain Dolphins?

Mystman

Atheist with a Reason
Jun 24, 2005
4,245
295
✟22,286.00
Faith
Atheist
This arguement against creationism is not an improvement on arguements creationists themselves make..... I mean, "Why would God have ____," arguements are no different from "Goddidit" arguements, are they?

I think not.

The problem is, that creationism makes no predictions. Science-y people like predictions.

People try to come up with predictions for creationism like... "the omni-max God presented in the Bible would create creatures X, Y and Z".

It actually IS of some use. Arguments like..

A. God very much dislikes suffering.
B. Many (most?) creatures on earth base their entire life on the suffering of other creatures.
C. Thus, God can't have created those creatures.

..are logically consistent.

Unfortunatly, Christians have made up a bunch of explanaitions that remove any predicting value.

Creature is the epitome of niceness and perfectness? Evidence of creation!

Creature is nice and all but a bit impractical? It's there to glorify God!

Creature lives of feeding on the brains of small children? Blame the Fall! And Satan! And Eve!

So yeah, at the moment, "how do christians explain xyz" arguments are useless. But I think that it's good for every atheist to at least know and understand this problem, since it's quite a big one for christianity (imho).

And ofcourse... all of this has very little to do with CreVo (wether God allowed creatures to evolve or created them instantly makes no difference since time has no meaning for God)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pats
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The problem is, that creationism makes no predictions. Science-y people like predictions.

People try to come up with predictions for creationism like... "the omni-max God presented in the Bible would create creatures X, Y and Z".

It actually IS of some use. Arguments like..

A. God very much dislikes suffering.
B. Many (most?) creatures on earth base their entire life on the suffering of other creatures.
C. Thus, God can't have created those creatures.

..are logically consistent.

Unfortunatly, Christians have made up a bunch of explanaitions that remove any predicting value.

Creature is the epitome of niceness and perfectness? Evidence of creation!

Creature is nice and all but a bit impractical? It's there to glorify God!

Creature lives of feeding on the brains of small children? Blame the Fall! And Satan! And Eve!

So yeah, at the moment, "how do christians explain xyz" arguments are useless. But I think that it's good for every atheist to at least know and understand this problem, since it's quite a big one for christianity (imho).

And ofcourse... all of this has very little to do with CreVo (wether God allowed creatures to evolve or created them instantly makes no difference since time has no meaning for God)

As I said to you in my rep message, which I would also like to make public, this is a very good and well thought out reply. Thanks.

Yes... Creationists would just blame the fall for the issues you're raising... there are times when I do it myself... "This is not a perfect world.." type explinations, to be honest.

But, like you said, we're just vearing off into crevogetics here... lol. Something best kept to the GA forum. ;)
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
...I use to believe the world was around 12,000 years old. Now that I have studied the scientific evidence I see the world we live in is around 12,975 years old.

R-O-F-L-!-!


So what scientific evidence caused you to believe that the world was 975 years older than you have previously believed?
^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pats
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Pats in post #19:
"This arguement against creationism is not an improvement on arguements creationists themselves make..... I mean, "Why would God have ____," arguements are no different from "Goddidit" arguements, are they?"

Ignoring the Creationist viewpoint fails to bridge the gap between Creationism and a more scientific view.

If God created the world so that humans could have a place to live, fine. Dolphins aren't necessary for humans to have a place to live. As for dolphins being majestic and beautiful, God could have given us the aesthetic sense to appreciate whatever does exist.

Certainly some of the plants and animals we share the world with are useful to humans, but some are not. Some are a nuisance. Why did God create mosquitos?Besides being aggravating, they spread disease. I don't think we can really draw any conclusions either from the usefullness or beauty of animals or plants.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Chalnoth in post #3:
"Except there are fish that leap out of the water, too."

Yes, there are. Besides the famous flying fish, many other fish jump. I've seen mullet jump five times in a row, then go back to the starting point and do it again. Some of the fish that jump are quite small. Aquariums are often kept covered because the fish in them have a tendency to jump out.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Mystman, after I thought more today I had more thoughts I really should've included in first post.

While I completely understand your post and your POV, science is and always has been utterly useless in matters of religion. Ergo, my response to the OP. Christianity and faith is that it is not testable by means of science, they are matters for the religious and the philosophical, IMHO.

This is why I have a problem with mixing creationism and science at all.... "Creationism" is by definition an unscientifaclly testable miracle. For those who hold to its literalism, it is a mistake for them to make attempts to show "proof" that it occured by science. Contrary wise, we have verifiable scientific evidence that speaks volumes against literal creation... there's no scence in these "If God created everything, then why did or didn't he do xyz?"

Pats in post #19:
"This arguement against creationism is not an improvement on arguements creationists themselves make..... I mean, "Why would God have ____," arguements are no different from "Goddidit" arguements, are they?"

Ignoring the Creationist viewpoint fails to bridge the gap between Creationism and a more scientific view.

I am by no means suggesting it be ignored. I am suggesting that the OP does not make a better arguement against creationism than creationism makes in favor of itself.

If God created the world so that humans could have a place to live, fine.

I am not a Creationist. However, I certainly do not think the purpose of God's creation was strictly to provide humans with a place to live... therefore, I'm going to with hold comment on your other points. :)
 
Upvote 0

c'mon sense

Active Member
Mar 18, 2005
316
16
41
✟15,528.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Pats in post #19:
Dolphins aren't necessary for humans to have a place to live.

That attitude is suicidal. Humans heavily rely on all those pesky little creatures that you think we could dispense with, including those who spread death and disease. If all those creatures were hypothetically removed, humanity would be almost instantly faced with extinction or perfect enslavement. Someone would have to do all those dirty jobs these creatures are quite happily doing in their self-interest and incidentally help us as well.
Life is an economy with all agents playing an essential role. We should not lose sight of that.
In a very intricate and entangled sort of way, dolphins are necessary for us to have a place to live. We rest on the shoulders of dwarfs and giants alike.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Now that I have studied the scientific evidence I see the world we live in is around 12,975 years old.

R-O-F-L-!-!


So what scientific evidence caused you to believe that the world was 975 years older than you have previously believed?
^_^

So where's that evidence John? Oh...that's right you're not too hot on providing evidence are you. Ho hum....
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Pats in post #19:
"This arguement against creationism is not an improvement on arguements creationists themselves make..... I mean, "Why would God have ____," arguements are no different from "Goddidit" arguements, are they?

I think not."

Pats in post #28:
"I am suggesting that the OP does not make a better arguement against creationism than creationism makes in favor of itself."

You seem to be saying that no conclusions can be drawn from the natural world. Yet the Bible does draw conclusions from the natural world.

6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,

8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.

9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?

Proverbs 6:6-9 NIV



24 "Four things on earth are small,
yet they are extremely wise:

25 Ants are creatures of little strength,
yet they store up their food in the summer;

26 coneys are creatures of little power,
yet they make their home in the crags;

27 locusts have no king,
yet they advance together in ranks;

28 a lizard can be caught with the hand,
yet it is found in kings' palaces.



Proverbs 30: 25-28 NIV





26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

28"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'

-Matthew 6:26-31 NIV



24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

27"Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!

Luke 12:24-28



The Bible does teach that we can learn about God's purposes by studying plants and animals in the natural world.
 
Upvote 0
J

JesusWalks78

Guest
Why did the Creator give us dolphins, those fishy looking mammals? Why would there be mammals who spend most of their time underwater?

Why shouldnt there be?

According to science and the laws of Aerodynamice the bumblee bee is supposed to be incapble of flight.

Science and its inconsistencies eh...go figure? I wonder how you justify that with your anti god ranting.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Elduran

Disruptive influence
May 19, 2005
1,773
64
41
✟9,830.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why shouldnt there be?

According to science and the laws of Aerodynamice the bumblee bee is supposed to be incapble of flight.

Science and its inconsistencies eh...go figure? I wonder how you justify that with your anti god ranting.
You should really check on these things before you claim them. There have been articles published this year on further developments of bumble bee flight models, and I think they even made a scale model to help confirm it.

So no, bumble bee flight isn't impossible according to science. It just meant that the mechanics of it were fairly complicated.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums