The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

Gnug215

New Member
Ok, I've got a live one.

I made a short, simple video a long time ago ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFdyG_5tQA ), asking why God created the Tree of Knowledge.

I've had a number of Christians come by the comments, trying to defend God's decision to do so. None of the answers have been satisfactory, of course, but none were quite as... unhinged as the one I got this afternoon.

The guy calls himself TREX LEX. I checked his channel after a few comments (since he seemed weird) and found he'd liked a bunch of Nephilim and Niburu vids. So I knew it would be bad.

He starts out slow:
the bible never says God created the tree of evil and good.
Ok? Well was news to me.

No it wasn't. I dug up the quotes from Genesis 2 to prove it to him, though:

"Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden, and there he put the man he had formed"

"The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of lifeTand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

That should be good enough for him, right?

No.

Behold:
IT NEVER SAY GOD PLANTED THE TREE YOU ASSUME HE DID BECAUSE YOU BEEN TAUGHT THIS IN OTHER WORDS BRAIN WASHED.
And another msg at the same time:
SO THIS ARE YOUR THOUGHTS WHEN WILL YOU ACT LIKE A HUMAN AND SAY IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS OR WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND. STOP BEING BRAIN WASHED USE YOUR BRAIN....
Yeah...

So I used my brainwashed brain that I don't have and highlighted the verses again and explained that they say straight up that God planted the goddamn trees.

And well...
IT DOES NOT SAY GOD PLANTED THE TREE OF GOOD AND EVIL YOU ARE BRAINWASHED NOW GO PRAY AND THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE.
And:
YOU ARE STILL BRAIN WASHED INDEED GO REPENT NOW.

Well, he eventually lost the caps, but NOT his repeated denial that God actually planted the trees.

We're still going, but not sure for how long.

I've met some idiots in my life... but this??
 

Mugnuts

New Member
Wow that is pure gold. I'm reading it with Peter Griffins' handi-capable voice as Mr. Allcaps. Gnug gets to be Stewie. :lol:
 

Mugnuts

New Member
abelcainsbrother said:
I don't know why you think it has to be non-biblical evidence.I mean that would like me taking away all of that peer reviewed science and saying prove science is true.You either believe the bible is the inspired word of God or you don't and most atheists don't they think it is a made up book of myths and treat it as such.But the bible seems to indicate that hell is in the earth and tell me what is in the earth- heat so to say there is no evidence for hell is just to ignore what's in the earth.

Evidence for Jesus suffering? The shroud of Turin.Oh and before you just reject the shroud as evidence you need to have a good understanding of the real evidence about it and not just believe the critics.Like with me,I reject evolution for scientific reasons,I do not just reject it because I believe the critics,I've actually took the time to examine the evidence used for evolution and this is why I reject evolution.

You can Google shroud University and see the image on the shroud.Most news stories and TV shows I see about the shroud,do not tell the whole story and do not present all of the evidence that shows what it takes to produce the image on a shroud,they go by what the critics say most always.


By far my new favourite. So many levels of :lol:
 
I don't like it when certain creationists explain how God created the earth in chaos and then decorated it from reading Genesis 1:1,2 and 3 totally contradicting Isaiah 45:18.God created the heavens and the earth perfect in the beginning.
 

surreptitious57

New Member
abelcainsbrother said:
God created the heavens and the earth perfect in the beginning
It took 200 million years for the Earth to be formed from the expanse of cloud gas which also formed the Solar System
So there was nothing perfect about it. Nor was it in the beginning. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old but the Universe is
13.82 billion years old. If you want to know actual facts I suggest you refer to books of science not books of mythology
 
surreptitious57 said:
abelcainsbrother said:
God created the heavens and the earth perfect in the beginning
It took 200 million years for the Earth to be formed from the expanse of cloud gas which also formed the Solar System
So there was nothing perfect about it. Nor was it in the beginning. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old but the Universe is
13.82 billion years old. If you want to know actual facts I suggest you refer to books of science not books of mythology
Maybe not.I don't know it all but I try to keep up with science.

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmagazine/early-earth-less-hostile-than-previously-thought/
 

Visaki

New Member
abelcainsbrother said:
Maybe not.I don't know it all but I try to keep up with science.

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltmagazine/early-earth-less-hostile-than-previously-thought/
So "Early Earth Less Hostile than Previously Thought" = "God created the heavens and the earth perfect in the beginning"? Somehow I can not see how "less hostile" is equal to "perfect" because, well, it's not. Did you even read the article?
 

surreptitious57

New Member
The article mentions zircon. And last year scientists discovered a piece of it in Australia that was dated to 4.4 billion years
old making it almost as old as Earth itself. That something that old has been discovered intact is nothing short of amazing
It may not be in the same state it originally was. But it could still give many clues about what the planet was like back then
 

JRChadwick

New Member
About 4 years ago, NephilimFree and a friend of his invited me in a Skype call and started asking me a lot of questions regarding evolution and other topics. They asked me how I thought that fossils were formed. I explained that when an animal dies and gets buried quickly in certain kinds of sediment, it can be fossilized.

The response I got was, "OK, how do you explain bird fossils? How could a bird get buried if it is flying in the air?"

Apparently birds die in mid air and just float around.
 

SpecialFrog

New Member
This seemed like the place to post this question.

Is there a correlation between creationism and an inability to properly use the quote function on this board?
 

hackenslash

New Member
I don't think robust figures have ever been gathered, but there's definitely a strong correlation between being a creationist and unable to use tags on any board. I know of no forum in which the cretinists haven't been pretty comprehensively unable to manage it.
 

he_who_is_nobody

Active Member
SpecialFrog said:
This seemed like the place to post this question.

Is there a correlation between creationism and an inability to properly use the quote function on this board?
I believe this stems from how stubborn your average creationist is. They are already unwilling to learn from anyone, so there is no way to teach them the correct way of using a forum.
 

Dustnite

New Member
hackenslash said:
I don't think robust figures have ever been gathered, but there's definitely a strong correlation between being a creationist and unable to use tags on any board. I know of no forum in which the cretinists haven't been pretty comprehensively unable to manage it.
Being a creationist is directly proportional to how well one has reading comprehension.
 

Dave B.

New Member
This wasn't said to me but damn if this isn't one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. If he isn't a troll then he's the dumbest fuck I've ever come across.
gilbo12345 said:
I've been wandering the internet and I keep finding sound-bites made by evolutionists in order to try and prop up their failing "theory".

Among the many that are both amusing and frustrating are the claims that "evolution predicted X"


Firstly, such a claim implies that evolution is a conscious entity, capable of making sentient thoughts such as being able to "predict" something.
Secondly, considering that evolution is founded on mutations which are random, this means there can be no prediction. Since the process relies on a random element, can randomness be predicted? Not at all if you are going off the standard definition of random.

Thirdly, when one makes a prediction it is being made about something that is going to occur in the future. Hence when evolutionists find fossils (or DNA) that are similar and then claim that such is a "prediction". Then the evolutionist is being either incredibly ignorant of science, or intellectually dishonest, since such cannot be deemed a "prediction of evolution" because there was no prediction of such until after the fossils (or DNA) were found
His thread is here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6411-half-baked-predictions/
 
Top