The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[nemesiss]

never, ever, EVER!!! decide to do a drinking game when two hard core creationists are guests at the magic sandwhich show. you would die from alcohol poisoning.

question: how do you know you, that you aren't wrong?
douchebag answe: how do YOU know your not wrong?



also

let me argue on behalf of atheists...

 

[Moky]

This was the last thing said to me from a three day long facebook argument. This is where I lost my cool completely.

Still, how carbon dating works is not the point. The point is that you cannot compare what happens now to what happened thousands of years ago.. Who knows the decay rate was quicker then...? If that's how it works... I never really cared too much about carbon dating anyway... All i knew about it was, that they looked at results of today, to measure yesterday... Just that I find flawed already, because what happened before doesn't have to happen now. Besides, if I saw a tree in 2012 and put it under water for a year, the carbon dating crap is gonna say it's 5000 years old anyway.. How accurate is that?

To make my point a little more clear... You say " It's using the radio activity of carbon-14 and comparing it to the ratio of common carbon and then counting backwards. "
That means exactly what I said: This is a method of calculation, in which you put faith. This is a method of calculation in which you use today's carbon level ratios (which are observable, yes) (and I'm going by your explanation here, because I seem to have a completely wrong idea of how it works) and you count backwards, ***ASSUMING*** that "millions" (or thousands) of years the carbon ratios were the same.... How is that not faith? How is that not religion? Who knows what the carbon ratios were so many years ago..? You?

What's the point in asking why the sky is blue? What's the point in asking a question you already know the answer to...? I didn't make God... It's not that I believe in God because there are things I don't understand... I believe in God for completely different reasons... In my eyes, there still is not enough evidence to convince me of evolution. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

Still brings me back to the motion about directing energy... because no one in this entire conversation has explained to me yet how energy can direct itself and bring order without a source of control over the energy to direct it. I still don't think anyone could, without at least including an intelligent designer.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A comment left on one of my videos.

39knights[/url]"]Again not a single fact about evolution; just de-volution or the re-arranging of established information by mutations. If you are going to de-bunk creationists do it by proving evolution; not presenting tired old mutation crap or 're-defining' evolution as something it is not.,

In the video, I used the biological definition of evolution.

 

[Frenger]

A comment left on one of my videos.

39knights[/url]"]Again not a single fact about evolution; just de-volution or the re-arranging of established information by mutations. If you are going to de-bunk creationists do it by proving evolution; not presenting tired old mutation crap or 're-defining' evolution as something it is not.,

In the video, I used the biological definition of evolution.

Ha, that does seem to be a problem, you know, the old correct definition.

On my short stint at evolutionfairytale.com I defined it correctly and the comment was removed and replaced with the mod comment "we do not accept that definition of evolution" ROFLCOPTER!

 

[Inferno]

Ha, that does seem to be a problem, you know, the old correct definition.

On my short stint at evolutionfairytale.com I defined it correctly and the comment was removed and replaced with the mod comment "we do not accept that definition of evolution" ROFLCOPTER!

OMG link, I want to see that!

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Ha, that does seem to be a problem, you know, the old correct definition.

On my short stint at evolutionfairytale.com I defined it correctly and the comment was removed and replaced with the mod comment "we do not accept that definition of evolution" ROFLCOPTER!

OMG link, I want to see that!

I thought you knew, there are six types of evolution. Watch any video by Dr. Hovind.

 

[Frenger]

Ha, that does seem to be a problem, you know, the old correct definition.

On my short stint at evolutionfairytale.com I defined it correctly and the comment was removed and replaced with the mod comment "we do not accept that definition of evolution" ROFLCOPTER!

OMG link, I want to see that!

Ha, I wish I could. I can't get on anymore. After personally being rude to the moderator he blocked my home AND work IP address.

Now that's hatred!

 

[Inferno]

I thought you knew, there are six types of evolution. Watch any video by Dr. Hovind.

Oh THAT old hat. I thought they had come up with something new... I guess stupidity never dies.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Ha, I wish I could. I can't get on anymore. After personally being rude to the moderator he blocked my home AND work IP address.

Now that's hatred!

At least you were able to create an account there. When I tried to sign up to that forum, it would not let me create an account.

 

[Frenger]

Ha, I wish I could. I can't get on anymore. After personally being rude to the moderator he blocked my home AND work IP address.

Now that's hatred!

At least you were able to create an account there. When I tried to sign up to that forum, it would not let me create an account.

Ha, your reputation precedes you.

 

[australopithecus]

I may be going to the infamous Noah's Ark creationist zoo today, for shits and giggles. Updates if and when.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Is it done?
Edit: Nevermind, wrong place in my head. I thought you meant the Ken Ham one.

 

[Frenger]

I may be going to the infamous Noah's Ark creationist zoo today, for shits and giggles. Updates if and when.

Soooooooooo, how was it?

 

[DutchLiam84]

Had a 3 hour discussion with my lab partner today about his religion....I don't recommend this to anyone....tensions are high now.

His entire argument for his belief in a deity came to this:

it's a feeling, just like the feeling a hetero or homosexual has when encountering someone they like, we don't know where it comes from but we know it's there

He played the "you're disrespecting me"-card several times and said that pointing out his fallacies where insulting to him.

My response:

I asked you to justify your religious believes and why your god is the right god. You said that the god of a Bible (the one you happened to grow up with) gives you a good feeling and that this is your criteria to say you KNOW he exists. In other words, if someone else tells you the exact same thing about his or her god, according to your logic that deity should then exist as well. I know you don't so that's why I say you have a double standard. Why do you make an exception for your god?

His reaction:

You feel good being a hetero, so you're a heterosexual. Another feels good being a homosexual. You use your feeling as a standard en life like a heterosexual. A heterosexual has the same feeling so his feelings should be a reason for you to be a homosexual. Why are you not a homosexual?

How do I deal with this?

 

[Inferno]

How do I deal with this?

How about "There is no rational reason to be a homosexual, it's like falling in love, there's no reason behind it. There is however a reason behind me not accepting your (or anyone else's) god."

 

[australopithecus]

I may be going to the infamous Noah's Ark creationist zoo today, for shits and giggles. Updates if and when.

Soooooooooo, how was it?

I didn't go in the end, my girlfriend made the (probably correct) decision not to encourage me trolling religious nuts when we're suppose to be on holiday.

 

[CEbbesen]

Hello

That is all.

 

[Frenger]

I didn't go in the end, my girlfriend made the (probably correct) decision not to encourage me trolling religious nuts when we're suppose to be on holiday.

Ach, never to mind. I did look at their website and decided to write a terrible blog post. My first one. It's http://primordial-booze.blogspot.co.uk/ there if ya wanna look.

 

[Inferno]

Ach, never to mind. I did look at their website and decided to write a terrible blog post. My first one. It's http://primordial-booze.blogspot.co.uk/ there if ya wanna look.

It won't let me comment on your blog without a google account so here's a short response:

While your overall conclusion (that the Ark story is bollocks) is correct, you make several technical mistakes.

First off, your assumption that "species" = "kinds". Genesis 6:14-21 states the following:

14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark ,you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Both CreationWiki and Conservapedia state that "species" =/= "kind", that there are far less "kinds" than there are species and that "breath of life" (above) means only land-dwelling vertebrates. They also claim that the number of "kinds" matches the number of individual animals that would fit on the Ark.

Just to clarify though, all of these claims are made without the slightest understanding of what a "kind" actually is.

That's when I stopped replying, your conclusion is right but you obviously wrote this in a hurry and the information is often misleading or insufficient. You might want to look into that.

 

[WarK]

Just to clarify though, all of these claims are made without the slightest understanding of what a "kind" actually is.

Potholer54 and Kent Hovind on kinds and evolution

​