The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[he_who_is_nobody]

From the comment section of one of my videos:

Steve Taylor[/url]"]Oh, but they HAVE addressed this and proved it all a hoax. Maker and poster of this video is indeed in the dark, and living an illusion. Monkeys don't turn into humans, DNA doesn't alloy it. No monkey today has ever given birth to anything but another monkey!!! Humans still only produce more "humans". All fossils tell us is something died. They don't tell you if it had kids, what they looked like etc. My Father and brother both being scientists laugh at videos like this. They have told me DNA sometimes cause mutations, but a mutation has never and still never turns anything into another ENTIRELY NEW species. DNA does not and cannot work like that, it only can produce after it's kind. It goes against the written code within it. The only way anything could ever change into a human is if it had HUMAN DNA code to instruct the cells to form a human body. And of course that code could have NEVER came into existence without humans before they existed, AND inside the DNA of a non human!!!!!! lol!!!!!! DNA code can ONLY tell a female monkeys body to produce ANOTHER FUCKING MONKEY!!!! WHY??? Because the pregnant monkey got the DNA from ANOTHER FUCKING MONKEY which in turn can only produce ANOTHER FUCKING MONKEY!!! GET IT NOW??? Now, you can take DNA from a human today and put it inside one and see what you get, but before the human DNA code ever existed, it would never have just popped inside of a female monkey. Monkey DNA would have NEVER out of thin air started instructing cells within a female monkey to all of a sudden start forming a human. Evolution is for irrational fucking idiots.

 

[Foxcanine1]

I had another student in one of my classes last semester that kept asking the age old question ( and b age old I mean tiring) , If we came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys. Definitely no points for originality. Though I suspect that he didn't know any better. To his credit he remained silent for most of the period and didn't go out of his way to disrupt the class.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I had another student in one of my classes last semester...

You are a teacher?!

I hope that you are reading The Science League of America Blog produced by the National Center for Science Education. I think you will find tons of useful things you can use in your classroom.

 

[Foxcanine1]

I had another student in one of my classes last semester...

You are a teacher?!

I hope that you are reading The Science League of America Blog produced by the National Center for Science Education. I think you will find tons of useful things you can use in your classroom.

I phrased that poorly. I'm a student myself, another student, besides me, said that.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Oh. My mistake.

 

[Foxcanine1]

Oh. My mistake.

No problem. Like I said. I could have phrased that better. I'm a student at UNM VC. Quite a ways away from any teacher position and I don't care much for doing such a thing anyways. Looking at Primatology as my focus but that could always change.

 

[nemesiss]

https://www.linkedin.com/groups/If-there-is-intelligence-in-138801.S.5853872439880069121?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=138801&item=5853872439880069121&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&fromEmail=&ut=1EiKpwiOkX8Sc1

If there is intelligence in our human frame, would there not be an Intelligence Designer behind it all? Why or why not? Blessings!

So tempting to reply...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This was not said to me, but I found it in the comment section of onceforgivennowfree's video and I could not stop laughing when I saw it.

The dentist Equestions is referring to is DonExodus2.

Equestions[/url]"]I said pick one. ONE. I'll do a vid on that one. Which one do you think has the most evidence for evolution.

TFool and AronRa make almost 80-100K a year JUST doing YT vids. What does a dentist make?

:lol:

 

[Estheria Quintessimo]

At that time I considered it stupid. Now over 20-25 years later with the knowledge I have now, I can judge it more fairly, but I will explain it after I put up what he said to me:

I am not allowed to talk to you anymore about these things

It was when I was still at school. His part of my country is considered part of the Bible Belt. Unlike in the USA where most of the Bible Belt - I am assuming here- is confined to mostly the south,... in the Netherlands it runs as a big scar straight throught my entire small country, from South East towards the North West.

I did not live in the area, but I did went to school there by daily train travel as a hormonal teennager.

A good schoolmate of mine was religious. I think he would be defined in english as a Newly Born Protestant. I myself come from a non practising Roman Catholic Culture. I only went to church for funerals and my own baptism and all those early age make-believe stuff that turns you into a socalled full Catholic.

So technnically according to the RCC I would be a catholic, but seeing as I never believed in it anyway,... there is also no point in denouncing it. God does not exist.

Anyway.

He was religious,.... I was not. I was more into the esoteric Alien Theories from Erich von Däniken and others, and into science books as those from Hawkings (A Brief History in Time in 1988 or I read it some years after that, dont recall exact year). In my teenage years I was looking for logic and reason in it all. I started with cool Von Däniken,... I ended with thruthful Hawkins.

And my friend was a Newly Born Protestant.

One early day ended schoolday we decided to step out of the train, go to the square, drink some beers,... and talk about our differences.

We talked for over four hours about his religious points, me about my science points (I even added Däniken pseudo science to it, not realizing it at the time).

We came to no conclusion on who was right. BUT... we were both tempted towards the following conclusion:
'Something always comes before something else.'

I had been building up to this conclusion the whole last hour of this several hour long discussion. I deliberately let slip some of my arguments so the overall tendicy would favor his prefered viewpoint of the conclusion. Why? Because I would already know HIS answer to that question if I manoevered him to the point I wanted him at.

Today I would not do this ofcourse. I'd probably go full in, as I am weaponized with much more knowledge and abilities to counter arguments presented against me. In this not meaning I would be the ONE just and right in a discussion just for having knowledge and experiennce in discussion.

In his mind by then, I could not conclude by using science, if we both agree on 'something predates something else'... if I could not proof infinity scientifically he would have won.

I then asked him: 'Assuming what we have agreed upon that something has to come before (predate) something else, than if god is the creator of the Universe. What comes before Him? What created God?'

He ofcourse did not know,... and he promised he would ask his religious leader about it in the weekend. But the next monday I noticed he ignored me. I thus approached and asked him:

'Have you asked your religious leader?'

'Yes, I have. ... But,'... thus he concluded:

I am not allowed to talk to you anymore about these things

And this (I think) really opened my eyes about the falcity of religions. Perhaps thruthfully at that time, not so much as I would sence it now. (knowing all that I know now)... But I did feel honoustly HIS leader had cheated by not allowing discussion.

At that time I thought, and for many years after,... that his responds was the stupidest thing a creationist ever said to me. I mistakenly thought I had won the discussion,... not realizing.... that for HIS religious leader it did not even exist, because he simple ignored it.

I have grown a bit more wiser and understanding and now see the who what why more clearly than I would have been able to do when I was a teenager.

Ofcourse,... I am still human... I will still make mistakes.

Scientia potentia est

 

[Mugnuts]

There is so much to choose from, and every bit of it is from 'abelcainsbrother'.

I have to look for the sabre-cat comment. :lol:

Gonna take a while....so much to sift through.

 

[Mugnuts]

If you hate God no amount of evidence will convince you but if they found Jonah's tomb this is evidence he lived and if they found ancient coins it does back up the biblical story of course you can deny it happened but it is in the bible and on coins and is evidence that it was believed otherwise why make coins depicting it?And evidence in science for evolution is not confirmed and must be believed by faith.As no scientists has ever observed or demonstrated life evolves,yet they've piled a bunch of evidence onto a theory they cannot demonstrate and yet you question biblical evidence?Both are believed by faith despite all of the evidence piled on top of the theory life evolves.Ask them to demonstrate it to you and you'll see they can't.Why would you believe man over God when both are believed by faith?In other areas of science they actually have evidence to back it up but not with evolution.

What do I win?

 

[nemesiss]

somewhere on linkedin

- Does micro and macro take place by the exact same process?
- Can micro take place w/o genetic mutations?
- Can macro take place w/o genetic mutations?
- Is Genetic mutations considered a hole in the theory and why?

i already did.. Micro happens by means of adaptation and genetic drift.. The few times it happens by mutations, its mostly harmful in the form of diseases or neutral at best.. the few that are considered helpful are only helpful in very specific circumstances like sickle cell.. Macro does not happen by the same process and is rather unscientific because it has a hole in the process from genetic mutations.. the very means from which macro relies denies it.. That's why its considered a hole in the theory..

 

[Mugnuts]

ME: Evolution is kept because it is demonstrable. As a model, it is used for every area of disease research and treatment, and it works. In science you keep the good and throw out the bad. How do you propose we go about on the research for the cure of HIV/AIDs?

HIM: "Evolution is kept because it is demonstrable." That's the common claim, yet every prediction has failed.

"As a model, it is used for every area of disease research and treatment, and it works." As a model, it completely failed when applied as treatments and it's use in treatments have created problems. Biblical Creation is the model is used for disease research and treatment.

"In science you keep the good and throw out the bad. How do you propose we go about on the research for the cure of HIV/AIDs?" Nice bait-and-switch with the terms "evolution" and "science." It should be noted that HIV is the result of sexual promiscuity. In terms of functionality, it's simply a malfunctioning machine that is produced by the body. So, find the gene(s) that control production, and see if it's possible to knock it out without disrupting other functions.

ME: :facepalm:

 

[Mugnuts]

ME:"You are quoting from a book that predates the understanding of medical science"

HIM: Absolutely correct. Yet the Bible contains recipes for soap. Can you find any other book written 3,600 years ago that has soap recipes in it?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

From the Let us reason amongst the brethren thread:

2) If the Neanderthals all died out due to "the Flood", how do modern humans have Neanderthal DNA in our genome?

Science explains this - your gap theory can't: Science 2, Gap Theory 0.

Because Neanderthal were humans but God reprogrammed the DNA to produce Neanderthal instead.Some human DNA would remain.

False - because you're now contradicting what you said earlier.

You said that "God" turned Cain into a Neanderthal and that his and Awan's descendants were Neanderthals.

You said that the descendants of Cain - Neanderthals - perished in the Noachian Flood.

That means there were no Neanderthals after the Flood - since only Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives - ALL HUMANS, since they were not descendants of Cain (since all of those died in the flood) - survived.

Therefore, no humans today should have Neanderthal DNA in our genome.

Science explains this - your gap theory doesn't. In fact, it renders this impossible.

I don't contradict myself.If humans have Neanderthal DNA in our genome it is because Neanderthals came from man and it shocked scientists how different Neanderthals are to man geneticall.Man only has about 20 percent of Neanderthal DNA which is not much and how come biologists ignore paleontologists and the morphological differences between Neanderthal and man?God just reprogrammed the DNA to produce Neanderthal instead of man when he changed Cain so that nobody would avenge Abel's death.

Again Neanderthals were brutes and more powerful than man,this lines up with what the bible says.Man would've been intimidated if he saw a Neanderthal and would probably be afraid of him in my research a secular scientist said something very similar to this because of his size and strength which would make it less likely somebody wanting to avenge Abel's death and would actually less likely to do it if he came across Cain.I have researched Neanderthal.The Gap theory could bridge the barrier between science and Christianity if understood properly this is my hope and prayer because there is a barrier because of young earth creationism mainly.

:facepalm:

My response to this is still awaiting a explanation from him:

None of this answers the question.

:?:

IF ALL NEANDERTHALS DIED OUT IN THE FLOOD - HOW DO MODERN HUMANS HAVE NEANDERTHAL DNA IN OUR GENOME

:?:

This is where your gap theory falls flat on its face.

I await with bated breath...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[nemesiss]

another fun exchange on linkedin... names censored for anonimity.

"What evidence do we really have to support Macro/Darwinian Evolution? "

Dear person,
Here is a list:
[1] Biochemistry
[2] Comparative anatomy
[3] Biogeography
[4] comparative embryology
[5] molecular biology
[6] paleotology
[7] Radioisotope dating"

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html

What kind of answer is that? You posted a non-answer.. the question is HOW? which you clearly don't know... You can't even answer the basic questions I forwarded about what % of micro/macro takes place by sequencing type of mutations.. and the answer given convolutes mutations with genetic drift.. Most like yourself are simply lost in the semantics in this subject because the knowledge does not extend beyond generalities. so they give answers like that above.... That's a non-answer and says nothing...

 

[DonJr]

Not necessarily creationism but in a conversation with my brother-in-law ( a jesuit priest )

"It's the secularists over there trying to impose sharia law on people."

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A comment left on one of my videos.

Gerald Ball[/url]"]Knowledge was given unto men as one of the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobediance to God when they were tempted by Satan to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge of good and evil is only seen as knowledge to man, and many are fooled into believing in that all knowledge leads to truth. It doesn't. Satan knew that when he tempted Adam and Eve into disobedience. Faith then is a demonstration of a person wanting to return to obediance to God, and escape the trap of believing a mixture of good (true) knowledge, and evil (false) knowledge will lead to the truth. The universe was created in an orderly manner with God as the authority of that order. Evolution believes in disorder by random chance.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

From the comment section of one of my videos:

Erik James[/url]"]So let's pretend that we are both in this helicopter taking a more macro view of the canyon. The first thing we would observe is the shape of the canyon which is relatively straight. Rivers will always meander and even break off to leave oxbow lakes. We should see much more evidence of this at the canyon if it took the river millions of years to create but we don't. The canyon is relatively straight. How does the evolution theory account for this evidence?

:lol:

 

[Gnug215]

From the comment section of one of my videos:

Erik James[/url]"]So let's pretend that we are both in this helicopter taking a more macro view of the canyon. The first thing we would observe is the shape of the canyon which is relatively straight. Rivers will always meander and even break off to leave oxbow lakes. We should see much more evidence of this at the canyon if it took the river millions of years to create but we don't. The canyon is relatively straight. How does the evolution theory account for this evidence?

:lol:

Oh dear god... did you even try to reply to this?