Could morality have come from anywhere but God? Nope!

Greetings, mortals!  In my Twitter ministry, I have encountered a great number and variety of atheists, including a atheistic, Canadian expy of Captain America who writes an excellent blog.  With the exception of the ones who freely admit they eat babies, however, one theme is common to their tweets: Atheists claim to be moral without believing in or obeying God.

But are they correct?
I will admit it certainly appears that way.  There is overwhelming evidence that atheists are, at the level of populations, law-abiding, egalitarian, and tolerant.  Dr. Phil Zuckerman has found that atheists are less likely than the religious to "harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes."  In his paper Atheism, Secularlarity, and Well-Being, he concludes that

[a]theism and secularity have many positive correlates, such as higher levels of education and verbal ability, lower levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, racism, and homophobia, greater support for women’s equality, child-rearing that promotes independent thinking and an absence of corporal punishment, etc. And at the societal level, with the important exception of suicide, states and nations with a higher proportion of secular people fare markedly better than those with a higher proportion of religious people. 

But what appears to be correct and what's actually correct are, of course, two different things.  For example, modern science appears to be correct -- despite contradicting the Bible -- on such fundamental issues as the origin, age, and composition of the Universe, whether the Earth is an oblate spheroid, the existence of unicorns, how to breed striped goats, and the origin and development of all known life.  But does that mean it's actually correct?  Of course not.  Modern science contradicts the Bible.  Therefore, it's actually incorrect.

How do we know one can't be moral without God?
First, and most importantly, the Bible says so.  Boom, QED, end of discussion.

Second, if you insist on further discussion, just look at morals.  They're so complex!  Atheists tend to claim that these incredibly intricate codes of behavior emerged from human empathy.  But no one could possibly accept something so complex coming from something so basic.  In fact, for atheists to claim in an intellectually honest way that rules and patterns as complex as morals could emerge from something as basic as the human impulse to empathy, they'd have to show that such emergence is evidenced elsewhere in the entirely naturalistic universe in which they claim to believe.

And that's just not possible.  It's not like you see, say, significant changes in butterfly phenotypes based on small changes in genotype.  Or even complex patterns emerging from simple rules in binary cell automation.  So, clearly, you wouldn't see varied, intricate moral codes emerging from something as straightforward as the capacity to see things from another's perspective.  They must, therefore, have come from the God of the Bible -- as the Bible says.  QED again.

Third, if you believe (like atheists laughably do) that human characteristics are the product of evolution from an ancestor common to all known life in response to selective pressure, you'd naturally expect to see some form of morality in other social animals -- which is ridiculous.  Do you see altruism in insects?  Chimpanzees risking or sacrificing their lives for one another, or gibbons voluntarily going hungry when they know that they have to hurt others to eat?  Or elephants showing sympathy for the plight of trapped antelope?  Despite the evidence of exactly those things, no, you don't.  So morality just couldn't have emerged from evolutionarily advantageous traits.

Since there is no secular, naturalistic explanation for human morals, they must be given to humanity by God.  Atheists, who reject God, are therefore immoral despite all evidence to the contrary.

So...if atheists are immoral, why do they, on average, behave in moral ways more consistently than the religious?
It has to be Satan making atheists look good to trick people into becoming irreligious, thus earning themselves condemnation to Hell by omnibenevolent God.  What other sensible explanation is there?

Thank you, mortals, as always, for reading!  I look forward to your thoughts in the comments section.

Evidence that the building blocks of life are abundant in the interstellar medium? Yes, but it's not a big deal.

Greetings, mortals!  Earlier today, scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy announced their finding that isopropyl cyanide, an organic molecule, is abundant in the interstellar medium.  They made this "discovery" by observing the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) of radio telescopes to analyze the radiospectrometric signatures of the various molecules that make up the gas cloud. 

While researchers have previously detected organic molecules in space, isopropyl cyanide is the first such organic molecule seen that has a branched carbon backbone.  It, unlike any of those previously-observed molecules, is thus more like the amino acids that your sciences (incorrectly) believe form the building blocks of life here on Earth.  Because the amino acids, like isopropyl cyanide, have a branched, carbon-based structure.

What's the significance of this?  Well, if you believe life on Earth arose naturalistically, this finding strongly suggests that other branched carbon molecules -- including, possibly, amino acids themselves -- exist in abundance in space.  That would further support the theory that life arose on Earth without any supernatural intervention because it means those building blocks were likely already present here on Earth and didn't have to form from simpler molecules under the right conditions.

In other words, if branched carbon molecules are abundant in space, they were likely abundant on Earth from its earliest days.  And if that's true, the number of steps humans thought were needed to move from molecules present on Earth to the emergence of life decreases.  It also increases the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Said another way, given the existence of branched carbon organic molecules in space, the number of assumptions in the chemical synthesis-based hypotheses of abiogenesis goes down.  And as scientists are always fond of telling us, the simpler a hypothesis is in relation to competing hypotheses, the more likely it's true.

Does this undermine Creation or Intelligent Design?  No, of course not.  First of all, if you want to blaspheme by calling Creation a hypothesis, it's the simplest hypothesis of all: God did it.  You don't even need to assume anything (apart from the agency of a supernatural being of limitless power and eternal duration whose very existence is at variance with all available evidence, which evidence is consistent only with a naturalistic universe).  QED.

Second, even if branched carbon organic molecules were abundant on Earth from its beginning, no one was around to see those molecules become self-replicating bases for all terrestrial life.  That means abiogenesis can't be proven, which means, of course, abiogenesis must not be true.  And if abiogenesis isn't true, then Creation must be, because it says so in the Bible.  QED again!

If God Created all, why, then, are complex organic molecules present in interstellar space?  Simple.  As I said in my last post, God has been expanding the veil of Heaven to make sure human space exploration doesn't pierce through it.  It's been a big project and something we had to do pretty quickly, so, well, there wasn't a lot of time to clean everything up.

Basically, the organic compounds you're seeing in space are the cast-off materials from Creation.  It's the sawdust on the floor of God's workshop.  That's all.  There's no significance to it at all apart from being further proof that God Created all life on Earth.

So quit getting all excited about this, okay?  Focus on something more important.  Like praying, or figuring out better ways to rationalize the Bible into being literal truth.  The salvation of your immortal soul is, after all, both incompatible with and more important than knowledge.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments below!

If God Punished Humanity for the Tower of Babel, why not for Space Exploration?

Oh, He's punishing you for it.  And what He's doing is chilling.

But we'll get to that.  First let's discuss what you're doing wrong.  The Book of Genesis is clear on how humanity is supposed to view the cosmos: 

"Flammarion" by Anonymous - Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

I, of course, cloaked this truth of Creation in the evidence that you now claim points to a spherical earth, heliocentric solar system, and Big Bang cosmology.  But you were supposed to reject all of that evidence.  You were supposed to accept what the Bible says about the cosmos because what the Bible says about the cosmos is in the Bible.

Obviously you went a different way.

And so here we are, with humanity growing more and more distant from the beliefs God prescribed for you as your scientists re-create the conditions of the Big Bang, achieve greater understanding of your place in the universe, and use space-based telescopes to peer further than ever before into the cosmos.

You're not limiting yourself to terrestrial efforts, either.  You have collaborated despite nationalism to build an orbital station, sent a probe past the heliosphere into interstellar space (maybe), and landed a laser-armed, nuclear-powered science tank on another planet.  Your spaceflight capabilities have advanced to the point that private entities are now able to accomplish feats of engineering once achievable only by governments.

Which brings us back to the Tower of Babel.  Genesis 11:1-9 teaches,

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto Heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

In short, a bunch of dudes got together and, because they had both the ability to collaborate effortlessly and a sufficient supply of slime, were able to begin building a tower that would have pierced Heaven but for the intervention of God.  Because as God said, when humans collaborate fully, nothing within their imaginations remains beyond their grasp.

Seriously.  You guys are figuring out how to propel spaceships with glorified microwave ovens.  You're working on a warp drive, for [blasphemy redacted]'s sake.  Let that sink in.  You are working on a warp drive.

Now, sure, the warp drive stuff is still all theoretical.  But do you think something being theoretical is going to stop you?  Look at your Rosetta spacecraft.  It was launched in 2004.  A week ago, the European Space Agency chose a landing site on comet 67P for the Rosetta's Philae lander.  Let that sink in.  Humans shot a rocket into space ten years ago, successfully maneuvered its payload into stable orbit around a comet this year, and are about to land on that comet another science tank.  And how did you do this?  By combining math, astronomy, physics, chemistry, engineering, and fire.  Holy [blasphemy redacted].

Anyway!  Back to Babel.  Humanity was about to pierce the veil of Heaven.  But if it had done that, the portion of the dark ocean held above the Earth by Heaven would have poured through, drowning everything on Earth.  And that kind of devastation is something only God is allowed to wreak, thank you very much.  Also, secondarily, humanity was proving itself capable of equaling the glory of God, which He really doesn't like.

For those two reasons, God (who, of course, loves you and wants only for you to succeed), robbed you of your ability to collaborate with one another for your shared benefit.  The veil of Heaven and God's majesty were thus preserved.

Except you found workarounds.  Fast forward 4,300 years -- since, of course, the Earth is only 6,000 years old -- and not only have you learned each others'  languages, you're now so capable as scientists and engineers that you can exceed the works of the Babel architects within not just a single language, but within a single nation.

So what was God to do?  Organized religious sects already keep you divided, obviously, but that's no longer sufficient.  Neither is the languages thing.  Even if He pulled that again, you'd just adapt again.  You'd keep expanding your reach to the stars, pierce the veil of Heaven, and drown the Earth.

So He decided to punish you by implementing a public works project second in scope only to Creation.  As humanity has peered and explored deeper into space, God has concomitantly expanded the veil of Heaven to exceed your reach.  That is His horrifying punishment for your continued, arrogant exploration of the cosmos.

Now, you may be saying, "that doesn't seem so bad."  Well, then.  You haven't thought through the implications.

Before they may receive their posthumous reward in Heaven, virtuous souls must first get there.  And as you know, God has made it so nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light -- including humans' immortal souls.

The veil of Heaven is now over 13 billion light-years away from the Earth.  Which means that when your faithful loved ones pass away, it takes at least 13 billion years for their souls to reach Heaven.  So your dear departed Grandma?  Yep, you guessed it.  She's presently hurtling through the blackness of space, incorporeal, immortal, and utterly alone, just as she will be for billions and billions of years to come.

Terrible, isn't it?  But necessary -- because God loves you.  He doesn't want you to drown.

...again, I mean.

Thank you for reading, mortals!  As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.

If I Were an Atheist...

Greetings, mortals!  Christ, in Chapter 5, verse 44 of the Gospel of Matthew, teaches,

But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?  Do not even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?  Do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Which, of course, I always strive to do.  But it's hard!  Throughout my ministry on Twitter, I have encountered atheists who disbelieve the very existence of God.  Loving them despite their persistent apostasy has been difficult.  So I sought guidance from a moral authority nearly equal to Christ: Atticus Finch.

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view -- until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

So, to better follow Christ's teachings, I thought I'd try what I believe infidels call a "thought experiment."

If I were an atheist, what would I believe?

Well, first, I'd be human.  Second, I'd have concluded after inquiry and introspection that there's no reliable proof of God -- of any gods.  I'd believe that the available evidence points to nothing supernatural at all.  In addition, I'd maintain that what evidence we do have is consistent only with a naturalistic universe.  And while I wouldn't currently have an explanation for how all known life arose, I would see from what science tells us that the known diversity of life is well-explained by the occurrence of genetic mutations and application of selective pressures over the billions of years the Earth has existed.

Wow, ok.  Wow, I'd have to reject Creationism.  I'd no longer believe that all life was Created by an omnipotent God, in whom lies infinite plenty.  Instead, I, like all but a few biologists, would believe that everything we know about life -- above all the universal condition of constant, brutal competition for scarce resources during finite lives -- supports the theory that life emerged on Earth billions of years ago and evolved from there to its current states.  Moreover, my view would be supported not by a holy text, but by centuries of consistent findings in the fossil record, naturalistic observations, and laboratory experiments.

I'd also be skeptical about my own, personal experiences of God.  After all, neuroscience has demonstrated that my feeling of a personal connection to something greater than myself during prayer and ritual worship is, on a chemical level, indistinguishable from connections with the divine felt by others who believe in a God or gods that I hold to be false.  I, being skeptical, would therefore be inclined to conclude that my personal experience of God was nothing more than the operation of chemical processes in the reward center of my brain.

Based on all of that, I'd reject the supernatural events described in holy texts.  After all, none of them has been observed or repeated.  All of them are explainable by science in a way consistent with a naturalistic universe.  On top of that, if I viewed holy texts skeptically, the contradictions, demonstrable inaccuracies, and immoralities they contain would strongly suggest human authorship, rather than inspiration by an omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

So there's no God. Nothing outside holy texts supports His existence.  In fact, those same holy texts undermine His existence.  Where do I go from there?

Ok, well, if there's no God, the universe wasn't Created for me.  I'm not exalted above all other living creatures.  In fact, I exist by mere chance.  The universe not only doesn't care about my fleeting existence, it, outside of those of its sentient subcomponents who know me, isn't aware of me at all.  

Furthermore, no God loves me above others because I happen to worship Him in the right way with the right words.  My origin and existence are no more remarkable or memorable than that of any other person. Even if my life becomes the stuff of legend on Earth, I will be, at best, forgotten with the collapse of civilization.  Should records of my exploits be discovered and translated by whatever civilization arises after ours, or after that one, or after the next one yet, I'll be forgotten when it collapses.  And no matter what, I'll be forgotten here when the Sun expands and the Earth becomes, like most of the universe, inhospitable to all life.  

Not even the idea that my exploits would be broadcast to the stars is a comfort.  After all, the expansion of the universe will eventually stretch out that signal to the point of unintelligibility.  Even if it were to persist long enough to be received and understood by some extraterrestrial beings, they, too, would eventually come to nothing.

In short, virtually nothing I do matters on a scale meaningful to anything outside my immediate environs and anyone other than those whose lives intersect with mine.  And no matter what I do, no matter how great I am, I will die, decompose, and be forgotten -- just like everyone else.

So life is meaningless.

Well, yeah, obviously.  I'm an atheist for this thought experiment.  But I've still got this pesky will to live.  I can't shake it.  Even though the universe isn't handing me a reason to go on, I seem to need to find one.  In fact, I seem to need to assign meaning and purpose to what I do in order to find what I do rewarding.  I suspect that's evolutionarily advantageous.

It also seems that the biological processes that evolved to help me survive as a member of the current global apex predator species, which initially achieved dominance as an endurant pack animal, make me feel happy when I do things that those biological processes make me feel are meaningful.  And a lot of the things those processes make me feel are meaningful just happen to build connections with the humans around me.  I suspect that that's also evolutionarily advantageous.

So, in other words, even though no God exists to supply my life with meaning, I have inborn in me, independent of anything external or supernatural, the need to live a life of purpose.

So...

Shh, I'm thinking.  So while, to the universe, my life is infinitesimal, I need to live it.  And I need for it to be full of meaning.  And who cares whether those needs arise from biochemical processes?  They are mine, and they are constant and inescapable.

And, holy crap, everyone else needs the same things too.  Because we all evolved the same way.  The biochemical processes that drive me drive everyone else.  And...and none of us is loved by a God above another.  There is no God to do so.  None of us is favored in any way by anything other than chance.  

We are all, therefore, creatures of a common origin and destination.  Nothing else will ever help us, comfort us, or guide us.  There is no other life but that which competes with us for what we need to live.  We are all we have.  That's why we evolved to work -- and have succeeded only by working -- together.

Um, so...

Shh, still thinking.  This means no one is my better.  Not only are we all shaped by mutation and natural selection to need each other, but everyone is driven by the same basic needs as me: water, food, shelter, companionship, competence, and purpose.  When other people behave in ways that increase my access to those things, they enrich my life.  They enrich that part they've touched of the only life I'll ever have.  When they're selfish, they diminish and make difficult part of the only life I'll ever have.

And when I'm selfish -- when I behave in ways that benefit me to others' detriment -- that's what I do to them.  I take a part of a fleeting existence that is equally as precious as mine and I make it worse.  But when I'm generous, thoughtful, and caring, I make it better.

Then, in turn, I'm rewarded!  The biological processes that drive me to be a collaborative member of a collaborative species make me feel good about how I acted.  I get not just the same dopamine-driven satisfaction I once found by saying the right words in the right way at the right time to the right God, but the knowledge that I've given of myself in a way that improved a life equal in value to my own.

So...life isn't meaningless?

It would appear not.  I, an atheist, find my own life's meaning.  And I find it most frequently by acting to enrich the lives of my co-equal human beings.

Wow.  It sounds like thinking that way would take a lot of care and consideration.

Oh, yeah, it sounds like a ton of work.  Thank God I'm not an atheist!

Thank you for reading, mortals, and as always, I look forward to your comments and questions.  Take care, and God (who totally does exist) bless.

Rapid evolution in butterflies? No, God pitying unfortunate physicists.

Greetings, mortals!  Apologies for my long absence.  I have been focusing on my Twitter ministry (@angelofscience), which so far goes well.  I have, admittedly, converted zero infidels and nonbelievers to Christ, but I feel I've come close on at least one occasion.  Maybe.  Towards the end of my proselytizing efforts, the person became intensely and aggressively interested in what I was wearing, and in what I would do to her or his nether regions.  I was compelled to disengage and scourge myself as penance.

Anyway!  Earlier this month, scientists at Yale University announced that through selective breeding, they were able to induce the butterfly Bicyclus anynana to "evolve" from having dull, brown wings to having wings streaked with violet.  The researchers published their results in Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The colors in butterfly wings -- whether brilliant or dull -- are, of course, merely expressions of the glory of God.  Your sciences nonetheless say that such colors are the result of constructive interference of light reflected off of microscopic structures in butterfly wings.  B. anyana has wings that are predominantly brown.  Two other Bicyclus species, B. sambulos an B. medontias, have "evolved" more brightly decorated wings.  The Yale researchers hypothesized that B. anyana, under selective pressure favoring the development of more colorful wings, could thus "evolve" similar nano-morphologies and begin to display more colorful wings.  Their experiment was not only successful, the B. anyana butterflies developed wings streaked with violet in just six generations.

Now, is this shockingly quick change a demonstration that even slight changes in genotype can, in a very small number of generations, rapidly produce exactly the kind of phenotypic variations that would, given the various selective pressures in different ecological niches, account for the massive diversity of life, thus supporting modern theories of biological evolution?

No!  No, of course not.  The theory of evolution is contradicted by the entirely factual and internally consistent Creation story in Genesis, and so is necessarily false.  Here's what the Yale researchers' work really means.

God felt bad for them.  Truly bad for them.  These were physicists studying butterflies.  Do you know what other physicists are like if you're studying an observable, physical object that's subject to Newtonian mechanics but isn't a hypothetical frictionless sphere?  They're awful.  Just, I mean, awful.  Incredibly derisive.  And they never give up mocking you because your social cues of offense and shame aren't hypothetical frictionless spheres, and so bullying physicists don't bother to observe them.  Given what these poor researchers were going through, God pitied them.  He made their butterflies all pretty.

What proof of this do I have, you ask?  Well, first, as always, stop questioning God lest you go to Hell.  Second, since it wasn't evolution, it had to be the Christian God.  There's no other God, per the Bible, so if a phenomenon was caused by supernatural means rather than evolution, it has to be Him instead of some other un-evidenced, supernatural cause.  QED.

Thank you, mortals, for reading!  As always, I look forward to your comments and questions.

Debunking the Claim that the Book of Genesis Contradicts Itself

Greetings, mortals!  During my time interacting with you, many have confronted me with supposed "contradictions" in the Bible.  The favorite "contradictions" of apostates, atheists, and infidels seem to be the order and manner of creation in the Book of Genesis.  "Did God create man before beasts, or beasts before man?  Did He fashion waterfowl of the water, or of the ground?"  I wanted to take time out from my usual work of concealing God's Creation in mundane phenomena (and blogging about it) to address and resolve these questions.

Because if you don't stop asking them, trust me, you will go to Hell.

What is the order of creation in Genesis?

According to Genesis 1, God Created all that is, seen and unseen, in this order:

1. Heaven (Gen 1:1);
2. A formless Earth, which was nothing but a dark ocean on which God walked (Gen 1:2);
3. Light;
4. Night and day, after which the first day and night passed (Gen 1:4-5); 
5. A firmament to divide the waters above and below, which firmament He called Heaven (Gen 1:7-8);
6. Dry land on Earth, created by gathering all the waters below the firmam...uh, also Heaven...in one place. (Gen 1:9-10);
7. Grass, herbs, and fruit are brought forth from the Earth (Gen 1:11-12);
8. Night and day...um...again.  Then, the seasons, days and years (Gen 1:14);
9. Light upon the Earth (Gen 1:15);
10. The Sun to rule the day and the Moon to rule the night, plus the stars (Gen 1:16);
11. Um, okay.  Then Light upon the Earth.  Again.  This time by way of setting the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament of Heaven (the Heaven under the half of the dark ocean from item 5, above, not the Heaven in item 1, which is geographically unrelated to said dark ocean), thereby separating night from day.  Again.  (Gen 1:17-18);
12. Every creature that has life is made from the waters, including whales, fish, waterfowl, and every single creature that moves. (Gen 1:20-21);
13. Ohh, boy. Um, at this point, God creates the creatures of the land, as distinct from every single creature that moves, from the earth. (Gen 1:24-25);
14. Finally, God makes men and women in His image and grants them dominion over all other creatures of the land, sea, and air. (Gen 1:26-30).

Okay, that went somewhat less smoothly than I expected it to.  But have faith!   All these "contradictions" will be proven to not be contradictions at all, because all things are possible with God.  On to Genesis 2!  

We pick up right where we left off.  Genesis 2 acknowledges that "[t]hus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them," adopting in total the recitation of Genesis 1.  It continues with the following additional matters of Creation:

1. God rests on the Seventh Day (Gen 2:2).
2. He sees that...ah, Christ.  He sees that while the grasses, herbs, and fruit are in the ground, the ground has not yet been tilled and it had not yet rained, so none of those plants, which He, in his omnipotence, willed forth from the Earth in Gen 1:11-12 actually came forth. (Gen 2:5);
3. God fashions one man, Adam, from the dust of the earth.  Adam is utterly alone. (Gen 2:7);
4. God wills forth trees in Eden (this time successfully). (Gen 2:9);
5. God places Adam in Eden to tend it. (Gen 2:15);
6. Because Adam is utterly alone, God forms from the earth all the beasts of the earth, again, and fowl of the air...again.  But from earth, not water. (Gen 2:18-20);
7. Finally, God creates the one and only woman from Adam's rib (Gen 2:20-23).

What are the apparent contradictions?

1. First there was Heaven and Earth but Earth is a dark ocean.  Then God creates a firmament that horizontally bisects the dark ocean, which firmament He declares to also be Heaven.  So Heaven is Created, then Created again, this time with a portion of the dark ocean of the Earth on top of it.
2. The Earth is lit on at least two separate occasions and night and day are created and separated, like, a bajillion times.
3. Grass, herbs, and fruit are called forth from the Earth, and God sees that they are good.  Then, they're in the Earth again till the land is tended and/or God calls them forth in Eden alone.
4. Every creature that moves, swims, or flies is created from the water before men & women.  Then beasts of the land are created of the earth, also before men & women.  Then men & women are created and given dominion over all the creatures of the Earth.  Then Adam is created, but is utterly alone.  Then everything that crawls, walks, or flies is created from the earth -- after Adam.
5. As just mentioned, men & women are created after all other living creatures.  Then Adam is created before all land-based animals and birds, and Eve is created after.  No mention is made of sea life.

Wow.  That's quite a list.

Shut up, mortal, I'm thinking.

Are these contradictions?

No.  Clearly not.  God is omniscient & omnipotent.  His Creation was, and is, perfect.  So why the "contradictions"?  Let's take them in order.

1. Creation of Heaven, then an ocean-only Earth, then Heaven in the middle of the Earth-ocean.

Some would say that this is a capitalization error -- that the firmament separating the part of the ocean-only Earth that remained ocean from the part that became land and sea is "the heavens," meaning the sky, not Heaven.  But not me.  God, in revealing His perfect Word, did not abide such errors.  That's why the Bible contains none.

No, what happened here is that God created Heaven.  Then He took part of Earth and simply made more Heaven, with a saltwater pool in the middle.  It's now a favorite attraction of those saved through Christ.

2. Light created; night and day divided.  Then night & day again, along with seasons, years, and days.  Then light upon the Earth.  Then light upon the Earth again, which is subsequently separated into night and day.  Again.

Okay, now, there are those who would argue that this is the kind of additive repetition of elements is indicative of Genesis being a story passed on orally and eventually transcribed.  But that's incorrect.  Here's what really happened, all of which is entirely consistent and not at all contradictory.

First, God Created Light, which He separated into night and day.  Then, He separated the dark ocean of Earth with Heaven.  The light had been above the dark ocean and lit its surface, but now there was light, then light-absorbing water, than Heaven, complete with a ground, and then more dark ocean.  What remained of Earth's dark ocean -- that which would become the land and sea -- was again dark.  Not because there wasn't light, mind you, but because that light was occluded by half the dark ocean and Heaven.  The second Heaven, not the first one.

Moving on.

Then, after calling forth photosynthetic plants -- we'll discuss that in the next subsection -- God creates the categories of night and day, along with seasons, days, and years.  He just doesn't put anything into them yet.  They're Platonic forms, sitting there, unused.  Then He creates light upon the Earth, so the Earth is lit, but then takes that light to make the Sun, Moon, and stars, and His omnipresent hands blot the light out in relation to the Earth.  It's as simple as that.

Finally, He places the Sun, Moon, and stars in Heaven (the second-but-equally-as-Heaven Heaven, not the first Heaven, which is no more Heaven than the second one), and the Earth is not only lit, but the categories of Earthly night and day are put to use.

See?  No contradictions at all.

3. Grasses, herbs, and trees are created and called forth from the Earth, and God sees them upon the Earth, but then they're not present except in the Earth, and not only have to be tended and rained upon to come forth, but have to be called forth by God a second time in Eden specifically.

As you'll recall, God called these photosynthetic plants upon the Earth, which He subsequently lit.  But then He had to block that light to separate it into the Sun, Moon, and stars.  There was just enough time for those plants to spread their seeds before dying for total want of light.  So they were there, then died, and the second generation of plants was in the Earth waiting for rain and care.  As for the plants in Eden, God just re-did His work.  Obviously.

But, wait, why would an omniscient being not plan ahead so he didn't have to do the same thing all over--

Mystery of faith.  On to the last two, which I'll explain together.

4 & 5. Everything that moves, including fowl, is Created from the waters.  Then land creatures, a subset of everything that moves, are created from the earth.  Then men & women are Created and given dominion over every creature of the earth, sea, and air.  Then, somehow, all the living things are gone and God makes Adam alone.  Then God makes all the beasts of the land and air from the earth and gives Adam dominion over them (making no mention of creatures of the sea).  Then God makes Eve.

I'll be honest with you, this is the most difficult "contradiction" to confront.  Not because it's a clear inconsistency in a Creation myth derived from similar creation myths of religions that preceded Judaism.  No sir, because that's not the case.  It's difficult to confront because it is somewhat inconsistent with what we'll call "modern concepts of morality prohibiting omnicide."

Like I said above, God called forth all those photosynthetic plants.  They die for want of light.  Then he Creates all the beasts of the sea, air, and land from the waters, and finally, his greatest Creation: men & women.  Those men and women were unfortunately naked, exposed, surrounded mostly by salt water and unfamiliar with desalinization techniques, and unable to rely on any plants at all for food (because, as I mentioned, all the plants are dead already).

While men and women were able to hunt and kill some smaller herbivores without tools, weapons, or defenses against injury, those herbivores themselves had nothing to eat.  They quickly died off.  That left the omnivores -- and especially carnivores -- desperate for food.  As you may know, men and women are somewhat less than capable in unarmed combat against other animals.  So, while mankind had dominion over all other creatures, hunger doesn't care about concepts like dominion.  Humanity was thus slaughtered.  

Shortly thereafter, following their descents into scavenging and cannibalism, all the other creatures of the land and air died off as well.  Creatures of the sea, which did not depend as heavily on photosynthetic plants, survived -- which is why they're not mentioned as being created again.  Look at that! Consistency in Genesis.

And so it came to pass that God started over again with Adam.  He made sure Adam had plenty of viable plants to live on in Eden.  He also made sure that the animals, seeing themselves named by Adam, were clear on the whole dominion thing and let Adam (and Eve) be until Eve screwed it all up.

There you go.  No contradictions at all -- because of some minor issues involving light and photosynthesis, God's perfect Creation descended into an orgy of starvation and slaughter, and required a bit of a reboot.

Okay, holy shit, I'm going to be sick.  And again, how could an omniscient, omnipotent God not plan ahead so he didn't have to--

Mystery of faith.  Get with the program.

There you have it, mortals.  Genesis contains no contradictions at all, because Almighty God is a loving God who gets everything right the first time.

Farewell, and as always, I look forward to your comments!

Did herpes infect humans before you were humans? No, God just used unsterilized dust to make Adam.

Greetings, mortals!  Today, June 11, 2014, researchers at the UCSD Medical School reported their "discovery" that, according the observations of which your science is capable, the HSV-1 variant of the herpes virus crossed from chimpanzees to homo erectus 1.6 million years ago, prior to the point in time at which your biologists say modern humans, homo sapiens sapiens, arose.

Now, this is a fascinating "discovery," and a brilliant illustration of the curiosity and ingenuity with which humanity cursed itself when Eve defied God's command and ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.  But did the HSV-1 virus really cross from chimpanzees to homo erectus millions of years ago?

Of course not.  As you know, the Earth didn't even exist 1.6 million years ago.  Nothing did.  God didn't create time and space -- let alone the Earth! -- till 5,700 years ago.  So what really happened?

It's simple.  As the inerrant Bible tells us, God created Adam from the dust of the Earth.  See Genesis 2:7.  While HSV-1, unlike pseudorabies, typically cannot survive in soil, it can persist for up to 24 hours at a time in pure water.  And back then, the ground was pretty much covered in a fine mist of ultra-pure water all the time.  See Genesis 2:6.  So the dirt from which you were formed happened to contain viable HSV-1 virus.  Herpes was thus "baked in" to humanity.

Now, this wouldn't have been a problem if Adam & Eve hadn't defied God and eaten the forbidden fruit.  A number of the fruits in Eden contain powerful interferons that would have disrupted the virus's reproduction in your cells and led to its eventual elimination.  But they did, and so here you are, sporting cold sores.

Of course, we come to the question: Why does our rigorously pursued, well-researched evidence suggest that the virus transfer occurred 1.6 million years ago?  Because, again, I planted all of the evidence tending to suggest that Genesis is not a true account of Creation to test your faith.  You frankly should have grasped that by now.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments!

Was the Moon created by an Earth impact with a planet-sized body? Nope! It was Created by God.

Greetings, mortals!  I come today to debunk a rising belief that the Moon was formed by an impact between the Earth and a smaller, but still planet-sized, body.  It was not.  It was Created by God.

First, though, what your sciences have begun to mislead you to believe: Per today's Science Daily, researchers from the European Association of Geochemistry have released the results of their work with oxygen isotopes in lunar samples.  They say their analysis supports the theory that the Moon was formed when the Earth collided with a Mars-sized body approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

The researchers compared the oxygen isotope makeup of Earth samples with lunar samples, some of which were provided by NASA from the Apollo 11, 12, and 16 missions.  As Science Daily reports, while these isotopes vary throughout the solar system, they are very closely similar between the Earth and the Moon.  If the Moon had been created by a giant impact with another planetoid (which your scientists have named Theia), however, planetary geology would predict that the isotopic makeups of the Earth and Moon would differ.

Well, according to these researchers, the isotopic makeups of the Earth and the Moon do differ.  Dr. Hewartz, the lead researcher, said:

The differences are small and difficult to detect, but they are there. This means two things; firstly we can now be reasonably sure that the Giant collision took place. Secondly, it gives us an idea of the geochemistry of Theia. Theia seems to have been similar to what we call E-type chondrites.  If this is true, we can now predict the geochemical and isotopic composition of the Moon, because the present Moon is a mixture of Theia and the early Earth. The next goal is to find out how much material of Theia is in the Moon.

Okay, so, now we get to the key issues: Can science, armed with these new findings, predict the isotopic composition of the Moon?  Can it thereby confirm the giant impact hypothesis of the Moon's formation?  The answers are "yes" and "absolutely not, cease now your vile blasphemy or face damnation!".

First, yes, science could predict the isotopic composition of the Moon.  It's somewhat different than Earth's because, of course, I imbued the Moon with isotopes consistent with an admixture of the Earth and E-type chondrites to make it appear as if the Moon was formed in a giant impact approximately 4.5 billion years ago.  Your science is expert at detecting and exploring such mundane phenomena.  And sure, you'll be able to use your present observations to advance your future observations.  You'll develop an understanding of what rigorous observation of the physical universe tells you about how the universe works, and from that, develop a plausible, well-supported theory about how the Moon was formed.

But that's as far as you'll get.  You won't learn how the Moon was formed.  Because the physical universe doesn't tell you anything about how the Moon was really Created.  The Bible does.  And does the Bible say any nonsense about "and Theia impacted the Earth approximately 4.5 billion years ago, forming the Moon?"  Of course not.  God made the Moon, and that's that, no matter what your evidence tells you.

So, in summary, abandon your misguided reliance on empirical evidence and return to faith in the Almighty.

And, please, leave your thoughts -- and your ardent wishes to return to loving communion with God! -- in the comments!