The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[he_who_is_nobody]

From the comment section of one of my videos:

...

:lol:

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

Of course I did, as a moth to a flame.

 

[WarK]

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:

But I thought it was relatively curved. Was I wrong?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

But I thought it was relatively curved. Was I wrong?

That is an image of the Grand Canyon from space. It looks very curvy to me.

 

[ldmitruk]

But I thought it was relatively curved. Was I wrong?

That is an image of the Grand Canyon from space. It looks very curvy to me.

Looks like a typical meandering river with at least one ox-bow and another one about to form, in a few millennium give or take. Of course given how twisted the views on science in general by creationists I'm not surprise they see this as straight, probably due to harmonic interference with reality :lol:

 

[Gnug215]

Of course I did, as a moth to a flame.

So what did you reply with? And has he come back? Tell me moaaaar!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Of course I did, as a moth to a flame.

So what did you reply with? And has he come back? Tell me moaaaar!

That is a piece to a much larger post. You can follow it here, but I will repost my response to that section.

"The first thing we would observe is the shape of the canyon which is relatively straight."

That is absolutely wrong (hyperlinked for space )! Have a look at the image I provided (I noticed you provide no sources for your claims), that is not straight (relatively or otherwise).

"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. "

Again, you are claiming a falsehood. Please read up on the Grand Canyon (hyperlinked for space ), since you have never seen it.

"How does the evolution theory account for this evidence? "

First off, evolution theory does not account for this; this is geology, not biology. Second, as I said on my blog (hyperlinked for space ) "Seeing as how a worldwide flood does not and cannot account for the Grand Canyon, I will give a truncated explanation for it. The layers one observes in the Grand Canyon were laid down at different times. Near the bottom of the canyon, one can easily see an angular unconformity, where the land was laid down horizontally, than uplift happened to one side raising that side higher than the rest. Erosion than happened, which flattened down the raised layers to an even plain, after that, more layers of sediment were laid down on top of the angular unconformity. Some of these layers are made up of limestone, which cannot form rapidly in an aquatic environment; others are made up of sandstone that had to have come from a vast desert. Both of those observations alone expose that the earth is not young and there was not a worldwide flood in recent history.

After all the layers were formed, the Colorado River started to make its way across the area were the Grand Canyon is now found. It was once a slow meandering river, which one is able to see when looking down on the Grand Canyon (it meanders around the Colorado Plateau). Slowly the Colorado Plateau uplifted making the Colorado River cut down into it more and more. This is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

Again, this is a truncated response, one could write a whole book about the history of the Grand Canyon."

As of posting this, no reply.

EDIT 1

Highlight from his reply:

For the sake of space I will quickly enlighten you to one of the basic assumptions that makes up the constructs of evolutionary theory. One basic assumption of evolution is that As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and of all life, and their subsequent development. This is called the principle of uniformity. Therefore, cosmology (cosmic evolution), astronomy (stellar evolution), Chemistry (chemical evolution), geology, (geologic evolution), biology (organic, macro, and micro evolution) are all relative. So I hope we don't end up quibbling over semantics such as what we want to call these studies within the debate. If you like I will be happy to relate the separate pillars of evolution to their respective studies, however, ignoring that all but one of these studies in science has nothing to do with evolution is being ignorant to the basic assumptions to the theory itself.

And:

In regards to your comment that I am absolutely wrong about the relative straight look of the canyon, I believe you are getting ahead of the conversation. Remember, we are taking a small scale macro look at the canyon (as if we were in a helicopter). In this macro view you can see the meandering of the river and of what is called the inner gorge which exposes the tilted precambrian rock, but if you are still in the helicopter with me, you would also see the outer gorge which is RELATIVELY straight. If it took millions of years for this river to form the outer gorge the canyon would not look like what it looks today.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

From the comment section of one of my videos.

Alan S.[/url]"]Wouldn't it be comforting to know that the monkey you came from was one of the intelligent ones? However, if he was would he have the desire to become a man? Maybe we're a result of the stupid monkeys evolving. That would be troublesome wouldn't it? I won't read your references, I may have already. Could you help me? Explain the order in which all species evolved. Start with whatever you like but it is obvious that simpler life forms evolved into more complex life forms. Lets start with a single cell. I don't require a lot of details just one cell divided then we got bacteria then we got a body then we got a specimen that could think then etc. etc. You can skip some of the more difficult steps like why a fish decided he didn't like water any longer and grew some legs without trying. One thing I would like to know is what came first, the male or female human and since the earth is 25,000 miles in circumference how long did it take for whoever was first to find the other. Maybe the Bible saying that people lived over 900 years isn't too far fetched since he or she would have to live maybe 10,000 years wondering around to find that special someone to make more humans with. Maybe millions of years who knows. Any idea about that? Thanks.

:lol:

 

[Gnug215]

So... some unlucky bastard has to update this thread with a nice little selection from Abel, just because.

Shotgun!

Ok, so it won't be me.

You do it, then! Yes you, I'm looking at you!

 

[tuxbox]

So... some unlucky bastard has to update this thread with a nice little selection from Abel, just because.

Shotgun!

Ok, so it won't be me.

You do it, then! Yes you, I'm looking at you!

:lol: hehe

 

[Collecemall]

Wouldn't that require something he wrote to be at least marginally intelligible?

 

[Gnug215]

Wouldn't that require something he wrote to be at least marginally intelligible?

That's actually a great question: Does stupidity have to be intelligible to be actually stupid?

Any philosophy/semantics majors wanna take that one on?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Just pick one at random, because they're all the same post really, quoting some post and then following it up with almost the same text, word for word. I thought it might be a bot at first, but bots are a fuck of a lot more intelligent.

Does stupidity have to be intelligible to be actually stupid?

At the risk of committing an argumentum ad lexicum...

stupid
adjective, stupider, stupidest.
1.
lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2.
characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless:
a stupid question.
3.
tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless:
a stupid party.
4.
annoying or irritating; troublesome:
Turn off that stupid radio.
5.
in a state of stupor; stupefied:

It would appear not.

 

[Mugnuts]

Just because you say macro evolution happens does not mean it does.Go by the evidence and stop assuming macro-evolution happens because the evidence only shows variation amongst the kinds and none of the kinds evolve thus how can you assume macro-evolution happens.You know I won't win a Nobel proze but it is a shame so many are tricked by the evidence when it clearly demonstrates life never evolves.Flies remain flies,bacteria remain bacteria,viruses remain viruses,etc no evolution happens and this is what the evidence demonstrates and proves.Dinosaurs cannot evolve into birds based on the evidence because dinosaurs would always remain dinosaurs even if there is variation,no evolution happens,you cannot assume life evolves it must be demonstrated.Give me that Nobel prize now.

 

[Mugnuts]

Before God said "Let there be light on the first day of creation of this world the earth already had buried in it the fossils in the layers of strata of the animals and coal and oil that perished in the former world.Also about knowing which fossils and cities are from the previous world? We can tell this by looking at the fossils and by doing this we realize the life in the former world was different than the life in this world and so we can say the fossils of animals that existed but went extinct were in the former world and not this world and then from this we can add in these mysterious ancient cities too,because we are looking for evidence for a former world and yet when we find it,we realize the former world had different life in it than this world has,this is from observation.But we also realize that certain life was in both worlds,both the former world and this world.So when you look at say a Wooly Mammoth you know it was in the former world and in this world God removed the hair when he created elephants.Also the primates were in the former world too,we can see that they are different from man.Man was not created until this world and man was specially created in God's image also unlike the primates.There is absolutely no evolution going on at all.

The green is the best part, but all together an impressive run on kersplat of nonsense.

 

[Mugnuts]

The bottom line is all we have are people claiming evolution is true and I'm wrong eventhough I have provided evidence and they haven't.If you look at the evidence from an evolution perspective it seems to fit however don't forget it should have been demonstrated life evolves before they built all of this evidence around it.There is no reason to look at the evidence from an evolution perspective but yet you all do.This is because you have been taught life evolves and this evidence proves it but it doesn't and asking questions that I may or may not can answer does not change this.I know there is a lot of evidence to wade through when it comes to evolution but the bottom line is there is no scientific proof life evolves,no matter how much you believe it to be true and no matter how you see the evidence fits into evolution.Instead of asking me questions that I may not can answer why don't you actually prove life evolves like you believe because until you do there is no reason to look at the evidence from this perspective.Also don't forget I have provided evidence to back up what I believe.

This was his answer to my question.

"Please answer this question specifically and with relevant detail:
Is it your position that it is flawed or dishonest to use a presupposition (like you say 'using an evolutionary perspective') to explain a phenomenon?"

 

[Deleted member 619]

You're displaying some serious fortitude there, Mugnuts. TBH, I didn't even bother reading any of his posts first time, I just scan for patterns. It's my new method that will be rolling out to the scientific community once I've put it on a quantitative footing. I scan moronic posts for patterns to see if there's any sign of intelligent life in the universe.

It's been fruitless so far, but it's a big universe. :lol:

 

[Mugnuts]

I think both Christians and atheists should come together and demand that evolution be demonstrated,it can happen and we could finally get somewhere with real true science instead of conspiracy theories about how life evolved.Come On!My atheist friends we can do it,we just have to respect each others beliefs,but we could do it.Don't let science fiction divide us so much.

 

[Mugnuts]

You're displaying some serious fortitude there, Mugnuts. TBH, I didn't even bother reading any of his posts first time, I just scan for patterns. It's my new method that will be rolling out to the scientific community once I've put it on a quantitative footing. I scan moronic posts for patterns to see if there's any sign of intelligent life in the universe.

It's been fruitless so far, but it's a big universe. :lol:

I was actually trying to find one specific post, and keep coming across some gems. Once I find that one, I'll let someone else have a stab....funny phrase that is....makes me think of Rasputin.

 

[Mugnuts]

For me evidence speaks over words.Evidence will out shine words however
you cannot change anybody's mind and some people wll still deny it,even with evidence.

Deep thoughts, by Jack Handy

 

[Deleted member 619]

makes me think of Rasputin.

Not read any of his posts. Was he a creationist? :lol: