Praise God for Wicked Plants!

There are 58 poisonous plants, some milder than others (it depends on which part is eaten, roots, leaves, seeds, flowers, fruits, etc.). Possible fatal ones include: Autumn crocus, Castor bean, Daffodil, Hyacinth, Hydrangea, Jimson Weed, Lily of the Valley, Mistletoe, Morning Glory, wild Mushrooms, Poinsettia, Hemlock, Sumac, Rhubarb, White Snakeroot (which was one of the most common causes of death among early settlers in America), Yew (eat it and you die within minutes), and so on. If they don’t kill you they may cause diarrhea, convulsions, paralysis and even comas.

A new book out called Wicked Plants tells us about them. In order for human beings to learn these plants were poisonous people had to die from eating them. That's a nice way to learn about them. Praise God for his creation! Praise God for informing us about them! God is Great!

44 comments:

Joe E. Holman said...

But you forgot, John. We're all sinners, and so we deserve death. If we avoid it, it's only by the grace of Jesus. That means, if we manage not to die by accidentally consuming it, we should thank God because "this is the day that the Lord hath made."

(JH)

Bluemongoose said...

Oh, please, John. Seriously? Wicked plants? You know as well as I do that some of those plants have beautiful flowers, some we can get medicine out of, wild mushrooms help decomposition in the forests. Sumac trees, while they can cause allergic reactions to some humans, they can provide protective covering for the animals that you love so much.

Ultimately I expect better from you, and you can do better.

Anonymous said...

Blue, why didn't God tell us which ones would kill us? And why did so many people die before we discovered penicillin, and vaccines for Tuberculosis and polio? A good God would've told us how to discover these things so that so many people would not die by trial and error.

You just do not understand the problem so you cannot offer any advice on the solution.

Go away idiot. I've had enough of your ignorance.

Unknown said...

But I thought that Evolutos, the God of Evolution, was responsible. Do you recall that Jehovah God placed a curse on the Earth along with honey and chocolate. The Heathen has always rejected God because He doesn't conform to how they would govern the Earth.

Joe E. Holman said...

Bluemongoose said...

"some we can get medicine out of"

My reply...

Uh, why do we NEED medicine, you stupid tard! And why must this medicine come in poisonous plants that kill?

(JH)

ANNOYED PINOY said...

You guys/gals seem to forget about the Fall. If Adam and Eve never fell, they (and their children) would not have been susceptible to the poisons in plants.

Besides, with a Calvinistic theodicy, God allows and permits (yes, even ordains) evil to exist for the purpose of a second order good.

Btw, I'm an Old Earth Creationist (like Hugh Ross), so there's no point in pointing out that animals could have still eaten those plants and have died. I believe that there was death in the animal world prior to the Fall.

Anthony said...

I just checked and found that I already have this book on my ever growing wish list. So many books to read, so little time.

Scarecrow said...

"that some of those plants have beautiful flowers, some we can get medicine out of, wild mushrooms help decomposition in the forests. Sumac trees, while they can cause allergic reactions to some humans, they can provide protective covering for the animals that you love so much."

And an all good god could have made those plants perform those functions with out them (the plants) being harmful. since she didn't she is not all good or doesn't really exist.

Rev. Ouabache said...

Small correction: mushrooms aren't plants, they are fungi. We know what you meant though.

Joe E. Holman said...

Annoyed Pinoy said...

"You guys/gals seem to forget about the Fall. If Adam and Eve never fell, they (and their children) would not have been susceptible to the poisons in plants."

My reply...

No, we haven't forgotten about it. We're just smart enough to know that "the fall" is not a rational answer or explanation for anything in the world we live in. Only stupids believe that.

(JH)

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

HI John,

I cannot help but think again, why is this an upsetting position for an atheist? These plants are just part of the 'survival of the fittest.' The problem is if you evoke God but you don't. So I assume that this is a internal contradiction argument for the theist.

The Christian theist can easily argue as Annoyed Pinoy did that the fall is a sufficient answer thus leaving no contradiction. Consequently, Joe E. Holman's rebuke that it is stupid to invoke the fall as an answer is paronymous. The notion used to make the statement is subsequently 'stupid' as God must be invoked for it to have logical force.

Regards, rev, Phil.

Northlander said...

In order for human beings to learn these plants were poisonous people had to die from eating them. That's a nice way to learn about them. Praise God for his creation! Praise God for informing us about them! God is Great!

According to Genesis, God did inform Adam and Eve that one particular plant in the Garden of Eden was poisonous, such that eating its fruit would cause them to die. However, he lied.

Northlander said...

I believe that there was death in the animal world prior to the Fall.

I believe that, due to their dietary habits, fruit bats in the Garden of Eden are immortal but are ashamed to be seen naked. God has therefore thoughtfully fashioned little bikinis for them.

Corky said...

Rhubarb? I've ate an awful lot of rhubarb pie in my day. I had no idea it was even poison at all, much less possibly fatal.

Joe E. Holman said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

"I cannot help but think again, why is this an upsetting position for an atheist? These plants are just part of the 'survival of the fittest.' The problem is if you evoke God but you don't. So I assume that this is a internal contradiction argument for the theist.

The Christian theist can easily argue as Annoyed Pinoy did that the fall is a sufficient answer thus leaving no contradiction. Consequently, Joe E. Holman's rebuke that it is stupid to invoke the fall as an answer is paronymous. The notion used to make the statement is subsequently 'stupid' as God must be invoked for it to have logical force.

Regards, rev, Phil."


My reply...

Why would this be "a internal contradiction" to an atheist? Survival of the fittest dictates we would find things like this. It's not a problem for the atheist. That's the way it really is.

Your fictitious Genesis world is the one that isn't. But if your deity exists as you claim, the fact that killer plants also exist is inconsistent with that.

The only thing you can then say is that there is "a curse" that is responsible for it, which is an answer that African tribesmen use to explain why a hut fell down while a family was living in it. It's because of a curse!

That is not a SUFFICIENT or rational answer that a rational man can entertain. Only a biblicist can hold such a position.

(JH)

goprairie said...

58??? there are thousands and thousands and thousands of poisonous plants. in fact, most plants have some part or parts that are poisonous. apples can make you very very sick if you eat them before they are ripe. the green leaves of more plants than not will cause some form of digestive upset if eaten. it is more normal for a plant to be posionous or irritating than not, because plants evolved defenses to avoid being eaten or damaged until the 'right' time, which is when the seed needs to be dispersed. so plants then attract attention by being tasty and nutritious for birds and animals (of which humans are merely one of many) so that they will move the seed from the parent plant and mess around with it such that the seeds are spread, either by eating the ripened fruit and pooping out the seed or eating around the seed and leaving it on the ground to sprout. it took a great deal of trial and error to find the relative few plants and the few parts of them that are edible. evolution involving plant protection drom damage and then seed dipersal are such obviously better answers than 'god designed it' that it make a creationist look more than foolish.

Unknown said...

I cannot help but think again, why is this an upsetting position for an atheist?

The abundance of poisonous plants could be perturbing to an atheist for exactly the reasons one might be perturbed by any unpleasant phenomenon. I daresay that most atheists rather enjoy living long, healthy lives.

These plants are just part of the 'survival of the fittest.'

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that atheists regard the theory of evolution as a kind of prescription for living our lives.

We don't.

The theory of evolution explains how life has diversified on the planet Earth, nothing more. It is no more salient as to what sorts of life we should appreciate than the theory of gravity is to the question of whether we should approve of people falling off of tall buildings.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Joe E. Holman,

You said,...
Why would this be "a internal contradiction" to an atheist?... It's not a problem for the atheist.

My Reply,

That's my point, so the force of your argument is that for the atheist our theodicy does not make sense, however it is a redundant exercise because God to you does not make sense???? So clearly this is a rhetorical post nothing more.

You said,

Your fictitious Genesis world is the one that isn't.

My Reply,

Interesting, funny how a new book entitled 'The Genesis Engima' has recently been published shows the Genesis account is currently confirmed by science. See my blog, http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-enigma.html It appears that you may be mistaken.

You said,

The only thing you can then say is that there is "a curse" that is responsible for it,

My Reply,

Correct, by evoking science alone to explain carbon based life is statistically so far fetched it would be even more absurd evoking a curse.

Regards, Rev, Phil.

Joe E. Holman said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

"the force of your argument is that for the atheist our theodicy does not make sense, however it is a redundant exercise because God to you does not make sense???? So clearly this is a rhetorical post nothing more."

Rhetorical? It doesn't matter. Any argument against theism has been repeated. There are none that are new, and therefore, they are all redundant. The key to dispelling superstition like we do is to remind our readers of the many clashes with common sense that holding your worldview entails.


"Interesting, funny how a new book entitled 'The Genesis Engima' has recently been published shows the Genesis account is currently confirmed by science. See my blog, http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/2009/08/genesis-enigma.html It appears that you may be mistaken."

Ah yes, always some NEW book to explain how the Bible isn't a book of cobwebs. Why isn't your bible enough? Why do I need books by limp dick apologists like yourself? Why all these websites to make sense of what should be obvious to us all? You can't answer, can you?


"Correct, by evoking science alone to explain carbon based life is statistically so far fetched it would be even more absurd evoking a curse."

So you admit that your reasoning is absurd????

Nice! We're off to a good start! If both of our ways are absurd, degrees of absurdity don't really matter. What does matter is that in a universe where poisonous plants exist, my Great Natural Selection is a better answer for things than your Great God.

(JH)

Scott said...

Rev. Brown wrote: I cannot help but think again, why is this an upsetting position for an atheist? These plants are just part of the 'survival of the fittest.' The problem is if you evoke God but you don't. So I assume that this is a internal contradiction argument for the theist.

Reverend,

What John is doing here is applying the Null Hypothesis to the existence of Christian God retarding the various kind of plans we observe. Essentially, he's asking if various kinds of poisonous plans we see are what one would expect if the Christian God did NOT exist.

We are NOT applying this test to a naturalist position or even other theistic Gods. As such, whether or not these plants have developed though evolution is a red herring.

The Christian theist can easily argue as Annoyed Pinoy did that the fall is a sufficient answer thus leaving no contradiction.

Yes, he can attempt to make that argument, but this does not mean such an argument is actually successful or sufficient.

First, the idea that the Fall effected nature is not Biblical, it's theological conclusion based on Biblical interpretation.

Second, just because God could have caused the fall to effect nature doesn't mean he must have, or that you've presented sufficient motivation for him to have actually done so.

Third, there is no historical or scientific evidence that suggests plants changed in a way which collaborates this claim.

As such, it seems that you're arguing a position that is merely logically possible instead of probable. Therefore it's not sufficient or successful.

Scott said...

Rev. Brown wrote: Interesting, funny how a new book entitled 'The Genesis Engima' has recently been published shows the Genesis account is currently confirmed by science.

Funny how this book hasn't even been released, yet you assume it presents a sufficient argument as to how Genesis is scientifically accurate.

Anonymous said...

Re: The Genesis Enigma -- As PZ notes, it is a post hoc retrofit; a retcon; a kludge.

The analysis linked to is a thing of snarky delight.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

HI All,

Some interesting responses I will deal with each in turn.

@ (JH)

You said,

Why would this be "a internal contradiction" to an atheist

My Reply,

It isn't. It is for the Christian. You seem to miss my point. I am sorry for my lack of clarity. My position is that the only argument an atheists can level at a theist based on evil in the world is that it is a perceived 'internal contradiction' nothing more. Consequently when answering this objecting using theology to the atheists the atheist cannot disregard that piece of theology because it is theology then renders the original argument void.

You said,

But if your deity exists as you claim, the fact that killer plants also exist is inconsistent with that.

My Reply,

No, this is explained in theology as a result of sin. So theology does have an explanation how is this inconsistent?

You said,

That is not a SUFFICIENT or rational answer that a rational man can entertain

My Reply,

But neither is carbon based life a sufficient or statistical rational answer. All we now do is entertain sophism on what actually is rational and sufficient.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Joe E. Holman

You said,

That is not a SUFFICIENT or rational answer that a rational man can entertain

My Reply,

Rhetorical is not repetitious. As I have just explained the only force of the logical is that theists have a 'perceived' internal contradiction which has been answered.

You said,

Why isn't your bible enough

My reply,

Hmm... that's the premise of the book. Science confirms the Bible therefore meaning it is enough, perhaps a reading of it would help?.

You said,

Why do I need books by limp dick apologists like yourself?

My reply,

Oh yes here is where the sledging, name calling and abuse comes in, I remember this happened before, sorry you have been reduced to this. But to answer your question because it runs counter to your claims and since both cannot be right it would be helpful to address the issues that pertain to a contradiction position.

You said,

Why all these websites to make sense of what should be obvious to us all? You can't answer, can you?

My Reply,

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean why aren't you convinced there is a God?

You said,

So you admit that your reasoning is absurd????

My Reply,

No, but I do think it sound initially silly, but then again so does life just 'popping' into existence??? As well as others.

You said,

my Great Natural Selection is a better answer for things than your Great God.

My Reply,

Why? How does it 'make more sense?'

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Scott

Hi Scott,

No I don't think it is that simple. John's argument is based upon many materialistic assumptions, scientism being just one of them. However, nonne of these assumptions are defined or even articulated. Therefore it really is a rhetorical play on the 'Problem of Evil.'

You said,

We are NOT applying this test to a naturalist position or even other theistic Gods.

My Reply,

Yes but to even state their existence is based on a naturalistic assumption? It appears you would like to eat your cake and have it also?

You said,

First, the idea that the Fall effected nature is not Biblical, it's [sic] (a) theological conclusion based on Biblical interpretation.

My Reply,

Interesting. So a theological conclusion based on biblical data in not biblical? Explain how that can be?

You said,

Second, just because God could have caused the fall to effect nature doesn't mean he must have, or that you've presented sufficient motivation for him to have actually done so.

My Reply,

True. What would convince you of this position?

You said,

Third, there is no historical or scientific evidence that suggests plants changed in a way which collaborates this claim.

My Reply,

But now you are making theological distinctions and then attempting to assess them. Just because we find poisonous plants does not necessarily mean that they had to change from Christina theology. You are now demonstrating the same theological interpretation you took issue with in the beginning.

You said,

As such, it seems that you're arguing a position that is merely logically possible instead of probable. Therefore it's not sufficient or successful.

My Reply,

But the same can be said of the original existence of carbon based life on earth. Do we disregard that also?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Scott,

You said,

Funny how this book hasn't even been released, yet you assume it presents a sufficient argument as to how Genesis is scientifically accurate.

My Reply,

I suggest you check you facts again and the geography of where it was printed?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

«"My position is that the only argument an atheists can level at a theist based on evil in the world is that it is a perceived 'internal contradiction' nothing more. Consequently when answering this objecting using theology to the atheists the atheist cannot disregard that piece of theology because it is theology then renders the original argument void.

Unfortunately, theology does not render the problem of evil void. It merely masks it and distracts from it, and calls that distraction a void.

«"No, this is explained in theology as a result of sin. So theology does have an explanation how is this inconsistent?

The problem is that the explanation is vacuous. Define sin, and explain how sin can have an affect on plants, and maybe we'll get somewhere. Or maybe not. It will certainly give the argument more substance -- but if it has more substance, that substance can also be disputed.

«"But neither is carbon based life a sufficient or statistical rational answer. All we now do is entertain sophism on what actually is rational and sufficient.

"Carbon based life" is certainly not sufficient or rational, but neither is it the sort of argument an atheist would make. Why are you knocking over this pathetic strawman? Do you know nothing at all about biology?

«"Science confirms the Bible

It most certainly does not. Or at least, not anything beyond the most trivial details of geographic regions.

«"No, but I do think it sound initially silly, but then again so does life just 'popping' into existence?

Again, this is a strawman caricature of biology the demonstrates deep ignorance of the subject.

«"How does [Natural Selection] 'make more sense [than God]?'

It is self-sufficient as an explanation. Life evolving according to the natural effects of the environment upon a population of organisms, and as an effect of genetic changes in general, requires nothing more than the materials of life itself, and the environment.

God, though, requires an explanation for his existence, and why, if he is supposedly a rational being, he does not act like a rational being.

«"So a theological conclusion based on biblical data in not biblical? Explain how that can be?

People make up their own explanations about what is in the bible. These explanations are extra-biblical, and therefore not biblical in and of themselves.

«"True. What would convince you [that "God could have caused the fall to effect nature, or that you've presented sufficient motivation for him to have actually done so"]?

God speaking for himself, rather than requiring a human apologist to make his case for him.

«"But now you are making theological distinctions and then attempting to assess them. Just because we find poisonous plants does not necessarily mean that they had to change from Christina theology.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Did you not imply that "sin" -- whatever that might be -- caused plants to change to being poisonous -- by whatever mechanism? If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean by invoking "sin"?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Olwmirror,

You said,

It merely masks it and distracts from it,

My Reply,

This is an opinion, something I cannot contest with. If you argue why is masks it and distracts from it then that would be more helpful.

You said,

The problem is that the explanation is vacuous. Define sin, and explain how sin can have an affect on plants, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

My Reply,

But this is off topic. The post asked for an explanation one given. If you need further definition of sin you can see my blog on the problem of evil simplistically.

You said,

Why are you knocking over this pathetic strawman? Do you know nothing at all about biology?

My Reply,

Not sure what you are getting at. The previous objection, (which was not directed at you by the way) was that a 'curse' answer for wicked plants is irrational. I simply pointed out the the assumption of plant life at all with out a God is also irrational based on what we know. I fail to see your straw-man.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

It most certainly does not.

My Reply,

This was a quote from a recent published book. You are now taking things out of context and using equivocation to sound more forceful. Not particularly becoming for dialogue.

You said,

Again, this is a strawman caricature of biology the demonstrates deep ignorance of the subject.

My Reply,

Interesting, I was referring to cosmology... ;-)

You said,

It is self-sufficient as an explanation.

My Reply,

Lets start with how did they get there in the first place...

You said,

God, though, requires an explanation for his existence.

My Reply,

So does the universe.

You said,

if he is supposedly a rational being, he does not act like a rational being.

My Reply,

What particular irrationality are you referring to?

You said,

People make up their own explanations about what is in the bible. These explanations are extra-biblical, and therefore not biblical in and of themselves.

My Reply,

In which case then it is not based on the Bible. We seem to be on the same page.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

God speaking for himself, rather than requiring a human apologist to make his case for him.

My Reply,

And what would that look like for you? His presence.. the Bible... what?

You said,

If that isn't what you meant, what did you mean by invoking "sin"?

My reply,

I would be more than happy to discuss this, can I suggest I post it on my blog and we continue it over there as it is off topic for this post?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

«"But this is off topic. The post asked for an explanation one given. If you need further definition of sin you can see my blog on the problem of evil simplistically.

It is not off topic: I am asking you to expand on your explanation. So, again: define what "sin" is and how "sin" can affect plants. Is sin mutagenic or teratogenic or carcinogenic? Is it a chemical or a form of radiation, or what?

«"I simply pointed out the the assumption of plant life at all with out a God is also irrational based on what we know. I fail to see your straw-man.

Your original wording was terribly confused and incoherent, and as such, was a strawman. Your current wording is a complete rephrasing.

Of course, it is also utterly wrong. Plant life without a god is not "irrational" based on everything we know about plants.

«"This was a quote from a recent published book. You are now taking things out of context and using equivocation to sound more forceful. Not particularly becoming for dialogue.

The recently published book was wrong; the author made a fallacious argument of a post hoc rationalization that does not match the actual text of the bible.

I am not taking anything out of context, nor using "equivocation". I am making a statement. Argue against it if you wish, but do not call it something that it is not.

«"Interesting, I was referring to cosmology... ;-)

This is a complete non-sequitur. You referred to "life just 'popping' into existence", which is a matter of biology. If you are joking, as indicated by your "smiley", well, it does not make for a coherent argument.

«"Lets start with how did they get there in the first place...

How what got where? Can you possibly express yourself a little more clearly?

«"So does the universe.

The universe does not require an explanation that requires an intelligent creator.

«"What particular irrationality are you referring to?

In addition to the multiple levels of irrationality of Christian theology, all rational beings speak for themselves. God does not.

«"God speaking for himself, rather than requiring a human apologist to make his case for him.

And what would that look like for you? His presence.. the Bible... what?

Communication, in speech or writing. Something similar to what you are doing right now would work, only from a being that is able to demonstrate that it is in fact omniscient, or at least knowing more than any human could know. Or simply ordinary speech. Humans talk. An omnipotent God could also talk, or generate sounds that sounded exactly like ordinary speech to human ears.

«"I would be more than happy to discuss this, can I suggest I post it on my blog and we continue it over there as it is off topic for this post?

I think that understanding what "sin" is and how "sin" affects plants is on topic for this post. If John disagrees, I hope that he'll let us know.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror,

You said,

Your original wording was terribly confused and incoherent, and as such, was a strawman.

My Reply,

Here is my original wording...

Correct, by evoking science alone to explain carbon based life is statistically so far fetched it would be even more absurd [sic - than] evoking a curse. (You can check it out by scrolling up).

So when I say...

I simply pointed out the the assumption of plant life at all with out a God is also irrational based on what we know. I fail to see your straw-man."

As you can see they say the same thing except for a typo. Are you reading the post correctly you seem confused.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror,

You said,

Of course, it is also utterly wrong. Plant life without a god is not "irrational" based on everything we know about plants.

My Reply,

Ah yes, and what are the chemical elements and the precise environment required for carbon to from so the plant life will exist? And what is the likely hood of that happening with what we know about the universe?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Olwmirror

You said,

The recently published book was wrong; the author made a fallacious argument of a post hoc rationalization that does not match the actual text of the bible.

My Reply,

If you are referring to the lights in the sky as sight perhaps you have a point but that's it. Furthermore the cultural, historical and grammatical wording of Genesis leaves massive room for a not literalistic reading of the text so your point is irrelevant, unless you can show that Genesis must be taken literally and therefore answer why there are two contra-dictionary accounts in the creation narrative.,

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

I am not taking anything out of context, nor using "equivocation". I am making a statement. Argue against it if you wish, but do not call it something that it is not.

My Reply,

I Just did, and as you can see it is equivocation. Your hyper-reduction of the word in Genesis which translates as lights, thus giving to you (only) a meaning which may or may not be and to your understanding of cultural understanding of what light is precisely equivocation.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

This is a complete non-sequitur. You referred to "life just 'popping' into existence", which is a matter of biology.

My Reply,

Only from your time frame. Again equivocation.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

If you are joking, as indicated by your "smiley", well, it does not make for a coherent argument.

My Reply,

Look close its a wink ;-) Not a smiley.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

You said,

How what got where? Can you possibly express yourself a little more clearly?

My Reply,

How did the first plant start? What was needed to grow it.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

@ Owlmirror

Got to work will finish fisking later.

P.

Scott said...

I suggest you check you facts again and the geography of where it was printed?

Amazon UK has a version for sale, but it looks like it hasn't quite made it's way across the pond yet.

Both the US Barns & Noble and Amazon has the hardcover on pre-order, shipping on Oct 8th.

Joe E. Holman said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

"Hmm... that's the premise of the book. Science confirms the Bible therefore meaning it is enough, perhaps a reading of it would help?."

No, your silly book that simply affirms what you already believe shows that the bible is not enough. We should not need any other book. The reason people doubt your spook is because, as with killer plants, the universe doesn't conform to what we would see if he existed.


"Oh yes here is where the sledging, name calling and abuse comes in, I remember this happened before, sorry you have been reduced to this. But to answer your question because it runs counter to your claims and since both cannot be right it would be helpful to address the issues that pertain to a contradiction position."

Did you take that personal? Do you HAVE a limp dick? I'm sorry, if you do, but the rest of your reply makes no sense. Answer the question: why do we need apologists? They are worshipped more than Jesus. You should be ashamed of yourself, you idolater!


"I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean why aren't you convinced there is a God?"

I mean, why isn't belief in your spirit obvious to all? I know killer plants are obvious. Why can't God be?


"Why? How does it 'make more sense?'"

It makes more sense because I live in a world where death and natural selection is unavoidable. You defend the existence of a spirit that is "good," but the universe we see and the laws that make it up are cruel and far from good--like killer plants. So it's more logical to believe that no god exists and killer plants evolved than it is to believe that a good god put a curse on everything and made killer plants. See?

(JH)

Scott said...

No I don't think it is that simple. John's argument is based upon many materialistic assumptions, scientism being just one of them. However, nonne of these assumptions are defined or even articulated. Therefore it really is a rhetorical play on the 'Problem of Evil.'

Actually, it is that simple.

Techniques such as the Null Hypothesis are valuable tools for increasing the accuracy of our knowledge. You reap the benefits of these techniques every day. Yet you seem to object to it's application in this case.

Yes but to even state their existence is based on a naturalistic assumption? It appears you would like to eat your cake and have it also?

More red herrings?

What part of John's descriptions about plants depend on naturalistic assumptions? Please be specific.

Interesting. So a theological conclusion based on biblical data in not biblical? Explain how that can be?

Are you a Calvinist? Will only God's "elect" be saved? While it's a theology that you might not agree with, it's a theology based on Biblical "data" none the less.

True. What would convince you of this position?

Given enough years and enough biblical scholars, this is the kind of account one would expect. We can distill it down to: Since God exists and the Bible says what God created was "good" and what we see now isn't "good" then it must have been the Fall that was responsible. It's depending on other unsubstantiated claims.

Instead, I'd want a motivation for God beyond what appears to be an ad-hoc explanation for what we observe.

Just because we find poisonous plants does not necessarily mean that they had to change from Christina theology.

You do not agree with Annoyed Pinoy, that the Fall is a sufficient explanation, but support his right to make the argument?

Again, we observe plants that are poisonous, right?

Should there be scientific or historical evidence that plants did change in a way that supports your claim, would you not be using that evidence as part of your argument right now, just as Andrew Parker is using the scientific discovery of the Big Bang in his book?

But the same can be said of the original existence of carbon based life on earth. Do we disregard that also?

Rev., you seem to have lost sight of the Null Hypothesis again. We're specifically applying it to the Christian God in regards to poisonous plants. Some other God with some other creation story might not fail this hypothesis. For example, should this God have created evil or have some good motivation to create poisonous plants that doesn't appear blatantly ad-hoc, they might pass this test.

In fact many concepts of God(s) held in the past would pass this test, as they do not define God as being "good" or all knowing, etc. Instead, these Gods act like us, except they are more powerful.

But, so far, no such motivation has been provided for the Christian God. It merely appears to be an attempt to harmonize what we observe with Biblical claims.

Life might be explained by some kind of deistic God may have pointed things in a general direction by sparking the Big Ban and left the universe to run on it's own.

However, as a Christian, you claim that God has very specific properties. These are the properties that John is evaluating.

Anonymous said...

«"you seem confused.

I assure you, any confusion is entirely your fault. The sentence that I replied to was "But neither is carbon based life a sufficient or statistical rational answer." This is grammatically, syntactically, and semantically incoherent.

«"Ah yes, and what are the chemical elements and the precise environment required for carbon to from so the plant life will exist? And what is the likely hood of that happening with what we know about the universe?

Given that it has happened, the "probability" is certainty.

It is certainly not irrational to state that plant life does exist, in addition to all of the necessary precursors.

«"If you are referring to the lights in the sky as sight perhaps you have a point but that's it.

No, there's more to it than that.

«"Furthermore the cultural, historical and grammatical wording of Genesis leaves massive room for a not literalistic reading of the text so your point is irrelevant, unless you can show that Genesis must be taken literally and therefore answer why there are two contra-dictionary accounts in the creation narrative.,

I indeed agree that Genesis cannot be taken literally. It is a collection of myths. Myths are not compatible with science unless science can verify the literal details of the myth -- which it cannot do in the case of Genesis.

«"Your hyper-reduction of the word in Genesis which translates as lights, thus giving to you (only) a meaning which may or may not be and to your understanding of cultural understanding of what light is precisely equivocation.

LOL. Excuse me while I double-check the dictionary.

verb [I] FORMAL
to speak in a way that is intentionally unclear and confusing to other people, especially to hide the truth:

to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge

Yes, it is indeed you who is equivocating.

Also:

Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

And so too does Professor Andrew Parker commit the fallacy of equivocation about the meaning of the word "light".


«"Only from your time frame. Again equivocation.

Yes, you are again committing equivocation. What does "time frame" have to do with fact that the science of life is biology?


«"How did the first plant start? What was needed to grow it.

The first plants were eukaryotes that had evolved and combined with photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (which became chloroplasts) and oxygen-metabolizing bacteria (which became mitochondria). What was needed to grow them was carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight.


«"Got to work will finish fisking later.

I hope you will cease appending your "arguments" as a single response per comment. When the number of comments goes past 200 or so, they are no longer included in the main page.

Oh, and I hope you will make a greater effort to be coherent and clear in what you are trying to say. Is basic grammar too much to ask for?

I note that John has not yet told you to cease because of you being off-topic, so let's see if you annoy him going forward with the topic of the effect of "sin" on plants.

paleo said...

One thing I've never understood about those who appeal to "original sin" as a rationalization for any Biblical atrocity or problem. Just how is it fair for all of humanity to be condemned for the sin of one man? Even if one could justify adults dying from accidentally eating poisonous plants, how in heaven's name can one justify innocent children dying this way or any other premature, painful way, unless again, one uses "original sin". Those who use this doctrine as a catch-all excuse for suffering and injustice can pretend all they want that it makes sense to them, but if I hooked them up to a polygraph machine, I bet it would register that most actually have a problem with it, and that they do not really think little children deserve to suffer and die just because of "original sin." I think their hearts tell them babies and little children have done nothing deserving of severe suffering and death.