The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[CosmicJoghurt]

It's not stupid because it's an easy mistake to make, and a great step into learning if asked properly. Sure, he might be asking it in a dumb way, but as a question it's a perfectly fine one. And the confusion, i think, results naturally from the language we use: we say that species A descended from species B or that species B is ancestral to species A... The very words "descendant" and "ancestor" naturally imply children; this is especially true if you're not used to thinking in terms of species and populations.

I don't buy that. The only time I've ever heard anyone confuse an ancestor group with a single animal has been incredibly ridiculous attempts at dismissal; like Comfort expressing incredulity that a dog could develope after millions of years... because a female dog would also need to in order for them to then mate...

I sincerely hope that Comfort is some kind of atheist who just does this for the money. I mean... come on... NO ONE is that ignorant.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Gnug215, I'm not sure, when you said...

...in order to be the obstinate denier of all absolute truth...

...if you actually meant "relative truth".

I say that because he appears to reject anything that isn't definitive proof.

Also, in terms of whether he's confused or utterly blinkered in his thinking - in his latest reply to me - he said that he accepts genetics (despite rejecting evolution) !!

:facepalm:

I posted a quote from a linked article - which he doubtless won't read.

That's another thing I've noticed, which has actually occurred in my latest post in the QM thread - his "selective reading disorder": he appears to read only certain parts of the posts and then keeps asking "Where (did you say that)?".

He's almost learning-disabled - I don't know whether this is genuine or "Tortucan" or just mendacious obtuseness.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

He's asking "HOW?" to everything, and he's the only one who doesn't follow the simple logic presented to him... Like if you tell a kid about the double slit experiment: "They created a panel with two small slits" "HOW? EXPLAIN TO ME EXACTLY HOW THEY DID THAT, OR YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!! :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x "

 

[scalyblue]

He's asking 'how' senselessly because it's gotten him nearly 40 pages of time devoted to his trollish rhetoric, and made us collectively look like we enjoy banging our heads on walls.

 

[borrofburi]

I find it unlikely, though, that it would be an honest mistake. If you were a paleontologist/biologist, whatever, and you actually knew anything about the fossil record, this point might very well be one you would debate with another scientist, with regards to whether a certain fossil was an actual ancestor or an evolutionary dead end. (Like, say, the video AronRa made about our monkey ancestors... in that one was a lengthy talk about branches of the tree, dead ends, etc.)

Now I think you're being too generous. I don't think the question is "how do we know the species represented by this fossil didn't die out!" (something that touches on potentially interesting cladistic questions, as you note); I think it's much much simpler equivocation (potentially unintentional) between "species B is descended from organisms like the one represented by fossil A" with "organism B is descended from fossil A". In the former case "how do you know fossil A even had children?!?" doesn't make much sense (it's irrelevant), but in the latter case we can only know that organism B is specifically from that individual (from population A), if we know that the individual had children and that those children were evolutionarily successful, and those children's children were evolutionarily successful... right on down to organism/species B. We'd need to know the whole family tree!

It's an easy mistake to make if you're still thinking purely about organisms: "how do you know organism A is a descendant of organism B?" is a valid question because you really do have to know a ton about B, A, and everything in between to make a claim that individual B is a direct descendant of individual A. But if you're properly thinking about populations a lot of these crazy details we'd have to know in the former case vanish and become irrelevant.

It's not stupid because it's an easy mistake to make, and a great step into learning if asked properly. Sure, he might be asking it in a dumb way, but as a question it's a perfectly fine one. And the confusion, i think, results naturally from the language we use: we say that species A descended from species B or that species B is ancestral to species A... The very words "descendant" and "ancestor" naturally imply children; this is especially true if you're not used to thinking in terms of species and populations.

I don't buy that. The only time I've ever heard anyone confuse an ancestor group with a single animal has been incredibly ridiculous attempts at dismissal; like Comfort expressing incredulity that a dog could develope after millions of years... because a female dog would also need to in order for them to then mate...

Eh, I made the mistake once. It didn't last for very long, but someone asked how anything could have descended from a fossilized child, and I thought "hmm, that's true, nothing can descend from something that doesn't have children". Indeed I've even seen people who should know better making this mistake saying "animal B descended from fossil A".

I think it's fairly common for us to think in terms of individuals, and not populations, *even* when thinking about species. This is just another outcropping of failing to really understand that evolution is all about populations.

 

[lordlandraid]

He's asking 'how' senselessly because it's gotten him nearly 40 pages of time devoted to his trollish rhetoric, and made us collectively look like we enjoy banging our heads on walls.

Don't forget 'face-palming till you bleed'

 

[JRChadwick]

I have two points to make. If you guys are sick of playing around with him, we have more than enough cause to ban him from the site. Also, I feel this thread is diverging off of its true purpose. You all shouldn't be constantly copying and pasting every stupid thing this guy says. We already have a few active threads devoted to his foolishness. While they are funny, this thread is loosing its value as a place for any small anecdote of Creationist stupidity.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Speaking for myself, I haven't - yet - become tired of him

I grant you, his obtuseness is challenging - nevertheless, I feel that he's slowly being ground-down:

a) his posts are becoming shorter - he's letting parts of my posts slide past, which I take to mean that he's unable to answer them or does not wish to continue arguing those points;
b) he's conceded his misuse of various words - "truth", for example;
c) he's plaintive request that I stop posting video (and, perhaps, any!) links, I take as another indication of his becoming worn-out at the amount of evidence that's been thrown his way.

All-in-all, I'm willing to continue!

JRChadwick, I apologize for ... er, diluting ... the "quality" of the Creationist "stupidity" herein contained, by posting his ... asininity.

I thought that, as he's a self-proclaimed ID proponent - which has been proven to be Creationism by another name - it was appropriate to post them here.

I'll stop doing so - if only to save myself from RSI due to copying-and-pasting.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[scalyblue]

Greetings,

Speaking for myself, I haven't - yet - become tired of him

I grant you, his obtuseness is challenging - nevertheless, I feel that he's slowly being ground-down:

a) his posts are becoming shorter - he's letting parts of my posts slide past, which I take to mean that he's unable to answer them or does not wish to continue arguing those points;
b) he's conceded his misuse of various words - "truth", for example;
c) he's plaintive request that I stop posting video (and, perhaps, any!) links, I take as another indication of his becoming worn-out at the amount of evidence that's been thrown his way.

All-in-all, I'm willing to continue!

JRChadwick, I apologize for ... er, diluting ... the "quality" of the Creationist "stupidity" herein contained, by posting his ... asininity.

I thought that, as he's a self-proclaimed ID proponent - which has been proven to be Creationism by another name - it was appropriate to post them here.

I'll stop doing so - if only to save myself from RSI due to copying-and-pasting.

Kindest regards,

James

No dilution necessary
I offer this, as a substitute for all of the random copy pasta

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//search.php?author_id=6637&sr=posts

 

[JRChadwick]

My only complaint is that this thread is becoming too focused on this one person. Maybe after you do get sick of him (or he just puts you all on his ignore list :roll: ) someone can make a thread called "The stupidest things Царь Славян Said".

 

[kenandkids]

My only complaint is that this thread is becoming too focused on this one person. Maybe after you do get sick of him (or he just puts you all on his ignore list :roll: ) someone can make a thread called "The stupidest things Царь Славян Said".

We have those, the aether thread for one... :lol:

 

[Darkchilde]

My only complaint is that this thread is becoming too focused on this one person. Maybe after you do get sick of him (or he just puts you all on his ignore list :roll: ) someone can make a thread called "The stupidest things Царь Славян Said".

Well, Czar has ignored everyone else.... !!!

 

[Laurens]

Since there is too much stuff to single out any particular instances of stupidity, I present to you

http://www.questionevolution.com/

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Since there is too much stuff to single out any particular instances of stupidity, I present to you

http://www.questionevolution.com/

This guy needs to get a better web designer. It is too wide for my screen and I have a widescreen laptop and there is a big empty space between the quick links to the left of the screen and the main body of text.

 

[Laurens]

I particularly enjoy the philosophy section on that site:

Where did matter come from?

How did life suddenly appear from nothing?

How does the evolutionist know that there is no God?

What is wrong with a creationist saying, "By faith, I believe that God created the universe" when an evolutionist says "By faith, I believe that the universe created itself"?

Wouldn't creatures produced from chance have random thoughts?

How can 'chance' create anything anyway?

Chance is only a term we use to simplify complex mathematics.

Why does man seem to have a need for religion?

Why haven't monkeys produced at least some of the paintings that we find from almost every primitive human culture?

Why is there order everywhere as opposed to chaos?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Is this supposed to be his website?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[kenandkids]

I liked the biology and geology sections.

How could wings have evolved? Or an eye?
Until complete, any of these improvements (and many others) would have been a tremendous handicap, not an advantage. A land animal which began to lose a pair of legs and evolve wings would have been eaten by an animal with four good legs.

Why can we classify animals?
Assuming that all animals evolved from a single cell, there should be no distinction between kinds. This would result in one branch rather than the tree of animals which zoologists have been able to classify.

Why couldn't all of those animals in a fossil column be put there at once - they all live together now?

Why does almost every mountain range have fossils of sea animals?

Why are there still monkeys?

Why can't we make anything but a fruit fly from a fruit fly?

Why have so many animals stayed the same all over the world?

How did the first cell, formed from all this tremendous chemical magic, live in its hostile environment long enough to reproduce?

How does natural selection produce increasingly complex creatures in light of genetic depletion?
For natural selection to occur, some detrimental trait must be lost. The gene which carried that trait is therefore no longer, and the resultant offspring has fewer genes than its parent.

Why aren't the continents eroded?
At the current rate, the continents should have eroded much more than they have..

How did fossils form?
Any sea creature dying and falling to the bottom of a body of water would either decay or be eaten before being slowly covered with silt. Many land animals have been found fossilized. They could not have all been buried under water.

Where did so much sedimentary rock come from?
A vast majority of the rock that we find was laid down by water.

Why are stalactites used to prove old age in caves when they have already formed under the Lincoln Memorial?
In just 45 years, these stalactites were almost 5 feet in length. The rate of stalactite formation therefore depends on more than time.

How was coal formed?
There is nowhere in the world that coal (or oil) is being formed today.

How does one explain bent strata?
The strata had to be bent while it was soft.

Why does one commonly find ancient rocks on top of new rocks?

How do you explain canyons?
It seems natural that the canyon should run the entire length of the river, but there are many places where a river, flowing downhill the entire way, has cut a canyon thousands of feet thick in some places but left some portions of the riverbed level with surrounding land.

I'd like to take this apart line by line, but it is simply too easy. I have a feeling that this person sat down and just wrote whatever silliness popped into his head.

 

[Laurens]

Greetings,

Is this supposed to be his website?

Kindest regards,

James

To whom are you referring?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Is this supposed to be his website?

Kindest regards,

James

To whom are you referring?

Greetings,

From what I saw in the original post, it appeared imply that it was "Czar's" website - perhaps I've incorrectly inferred that.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

From what I saw in the original post, it appeared imply that it was "Czar's" website - perhaps I've incorrectly inferred that.

Kindest regards,

James

As far as I'm aware it's not. I heard the site mentioned on one of AronRa's videos a while ago, it would be a coincidence if it did belong to Czar though :lol:.