The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[australopithecus]

Personally I'd like a definition of 'scientism' means in the really really world of reality. As it stands it just seems like a poor attempt to try and tar people accept the evidence based findings if the various sciences as religious, which is laughably dishonest.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A comment left on one of my videos.

OPworldwideIA[/url]"]Hey, Einstein!

How, do you explain the oxygen catastrophe and the switch to haploid? What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion? Why did life not evolve during that period, huh? Why did it slowed down after cambrian?

With your Darwin icon you are no better than the inquisition. I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to abandon dogma for truth. No, I am not a creationist. I am an interventionist.

P.S. I understand conditions were poor during Catarchean and Archean

 

[Laurens]

Not a specific example, but I have encountered creationists who use articles that do not in any way deny evolution in support of their arguments.

One time someone showed me an article about a couple of scientists hypothesizing that we are more closely related to orang utans than chimpanzees...

I was like, 'urmm fair enough, but how does that support creationism?'

 

[lordlandraid]

A comment left on one of my videos.

OPworldwideIA[/url]"]Hey, Einstein!

How, do you explain the oxygen catastrophe and the switch to haploid? What about the 3.8 billion years BEFORE the cambrian explosion? Why did life not evolve during that period, huh? Why did it slowed down after cambrian?

With your Darwin icon you are no better than the inquisition. I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to abandon dogma for truth. No, I am not a creationist. I am an interventionist.

P.S. I understand conditions were poor during Catarchean and Archean

Responded to that twit, too. He hasn't responded yet.

 

[lordlandraid]

Not a specific example, but I have encountered creationists who use articles that do not in any way deny evolution in support of their arguments.

One time someone showed me an article about a couple of scientists hypothesizing that we are more closely related to orang utans than chimpanzees...

I was like, 'urmm fair enough, but how does that support creationism?'

Well... it's just so absurd... I mean... COME ON!... Orangutans now? What's next? Gorilla's? It's as if science thinks we're related somehow... I mean, how can we possibly be related to something that shares 96% of the same genetics and has a similar skeletal structure?........... Creationists are idiots -_-

 

[Finger]

Not a specific example, but I have encountered creationists who use articles that do not in any way deny evolution in support of their arguments.

One time someone showed me an article about a couple of scientists hypothesizing that we are more closely related to orang utans than chimpanzees...

I was like, 'urmm fair enough, but how does that support creationism?'

Creationists come from an intellectual culture of absolutes. Where things are either 100% true or 100% false. Ideas or explanations cannot be incomplete and still be partly true, nor can they include true information and still be mostly false. This very concept inevitably undermines the authority of their dogma, so they purge it from their thought process very early on. So when confronted with a scientific theory they disagree with, like evolution, they think they can defeat it by pointing out any flaw or prior misunderstanding or gap in the theory. Evolution says that our closest cousins are Chimpanzees. For a scientist to suggest otherwise, even if it is merely a different ape, invalidates the entire theory. In their mind, it's perfectly logical.

The thing is, though, pointing out flaws, misunderstandings, and flaws in a theory is what science does. That's why creationists so often turn to the discoveries of evolutionary scientists for evidence against evolution, like that case I posted earlier. I've even argued with some that try to use punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Apostasy4Ever]

Well you definitely missed the point on this one. Since you can not trust your 5 senses, everything that you are aware of in the world, you can not trust, this is circular reasoning. However, as a believer in Jesus, I know that God gave me 5 working senses, therefore everything I see, touch, taste, hear and smell I know are to be true, because they were given to me from God. Now from a materialistic point of view, you have no external source to verify your senses. Therefore you have to trust your circular reasoning

:?

This was his proof that he had witnessed a miracle and why he didn't have to listen to everyone who was able to prove him wrong.

 

[australopithecus]

Solipsism is the last stop of the train of fail.

 

[Laurens]

From my status on facebook:

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof" - Ashley Montagu

Creationist: chicken/egg...answer it...no...well....how about.....

Me: the egg came before the chicken, reptiles that laid eggs evolved a long time before birds did...

Creationist: 0,Yeah,...sorry,... 1 day there was a Blob,and it was blind.but because it was a bigger more special Blob it began 2 see.... darwin WAS A total and utter FUCKWIT,any1 that takes that imbasilic shite seriously is braindead.

Me: Darwin's theory explains many aspects of biology from the geographical distribution of species, to vestigial organs and atavisms, to aspects of embryology, comparative morphology, the fossil record, genetics, and more. It has stood up to 150 years of scientific scrutiny and has not once been seriously challenged or disproven, in fact quite the opposite. Evolution has more evidential support than gravity. The only reason it's controversial is because religious people cannot let go of a literal interpretation of an ancient bronze age text.

Lets look at what the Bible has to say on matters of science:

It was written by people who thought that placing sticks that had been peeled to make streaks in them in front of flocks as they mated would effect the patterns on the offspring:

"And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted."
Genesis 30:37-39

By people who thought that bats were birds:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13,19

And that insects had 4 legs:

"All winged insects that go on all fours are detestable to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground. Of them you may eat: the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, and the grasshopper of any kind. But all other winged insects that have four feet are detestable to you."
Leviticus 11:20-23

That the earth was fixed (geocentricism):

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
1 Chronicles 16:30

That the earth has 4 corners:

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Isaiah 11:12

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."
Revelation 7:1

Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as a circle rather than a sphere. The authors of the Bible are completely ignorant of science. Now this is not unforgivable seeing as they wrote it at a time when we didn't know what we know now, however it is utterly ridiculous to claim that the Bible has any scientific worth...

As Dylan said 'Don't criticise what you can't understand', why not read a book about evolutionary biology before you start criticising it? (We're both fans of Bob Dylan)

Creationist: ‎0,ok...
‎...ive got a friend in JESUS,...so has Dylan apparantly,...he can deny it if he wants.

Me: That's all very well, but it doesn't give you authority on scientific matters, or any reason to insult people by calling them braindead for accepting an established scientific fact.

Creationist: ‎'fog of war'...Deal with the Blob...u cant...check mate...period.whether u like it or not.
i could of cause wipe the floor with u on every count

Me: What are you talking about? What blob? What has that got to do with evolution?

Creationist: and 4 your info mr well informed,darwin was apparantly converted on his deathbed,on account of hà¬s lack of recognition as 2 how the eye cud have evolved.
p.s. if it is necessary 4 me 2 translate Blob into blind fish...so b it...talk shite,do it 2 someone else.

Me: Actually Darwin's deathbed conversion is a myth, both his son and daughter who were present at his deathbed denied that he had a religious conversion:

From Darwin's son: "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply."

From Darwin's daughter: "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion#Charles_Darwin

As for the eye it is quite simply explained by evolution. A creature with 1% of an eye, say a collection of light sensitive cells enabling it to tell the difference between light and dark is an advantage over no eye at all, 2% of an eye is more of an advantage than 1% and so on all the way up to 100%. If you are actually interested in learning about it here are a few links to look at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742301713635559854#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0

Eyes pose no problem to evolution. And in fact they are quite badly designed, we have blind spots in our eyes where the optic nerve breaks through the retina, and also the light sensitive cells in our eyes are the wrong way around. Why would God make them like that? Octopuses have eyes without these problems, evolution explains this nicely. Creationism doesn't.

If you actually understood evolution you wouldn't be making these objections. I provided you with a couple of links, and I can suggest a few books if you want to learn, but I suspect that you don't.

----

:facepalm: What a fuckwit...

EDIT: I'm not sure if the colours made it easier, or harder to read...

 

[Snufkin]

Great response Laurens :!:

 

[lordlandraid]

That was... *sniff*... beautiful Laurens...

 

[Laurens]

I can't believe people think a deathbed conversion from Darwin, even if it were true, is evidence against evolution.

The comments on that status have now descended into threats of hell and how Jesus died for me...

Creationist: ...i wud do more research on hell if i were u,ask jesus,his bin there,...4 u,...

Me: If I was going to research imaginary places I'd research Middle Earth it seems much more pleasant.

:mrgreen:

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I can't believe people think a deathbed conversion from Darwin, even if it were true, is evidence against evolution.

The comments on that status have now descended into threats of hell and how Jesus died for me...

Creationist: ...i wud do more research on hell if i were u,ask jesus,his bin there,...4 u,...

Me: If I was going to research imaginary places I'd research Middle Earth it seems much more pleasant.

:mrgreen:

I love the way that you use good grammar and the creationist just replace words with letters and numbers.

 

[Laurens]

I can't believe people think a deathbed conversion from Darwin, even if it were true, is evidence against evolution.

The comments on that status have now descended into threats of hell and how Jesus died for me...

Creationist: ...i wud do more research on hell if i were u,ask jesus,his bin there,...4 u,...

Me: If I was going to research imaginary places I'd research Middle Earth it seems much more pleasant.

:mrgreen:

I love the way that you use good grammar and the creationist just replace words with letters and numbers.

Indeed, some of his comments were completely unintelligible. This one was especially ironic though:

"‎...regarding books,given where its got u i'll give it a miss."

[After I offered to suggest some books to read on evolution]

This is coming from someone who cannot even form coherent sentences... I decided to stop being so respectful after that, all he's done is insult me. 'Given where it's got me' he can fuck off, at least I can write coherently.

 

[lordlandraid]

Indeed, some of his comments were completely unintelligible. This one was especially ironic though:

"‎...regarding books,given where its got u i'll give it a miss."

[After I offered to suggest some books to read on evolution]

This is coming from someone who cannot even form coherent sentences... I decided to stop being so respectful after that, all he's done is insult me. 'Given where it's got me' he can fuck off, at least I can write coherently.

I'm with ya there, brother.

 

[Dean]

Solipsism is the last stop of the train of fail.

No, that's Nihilism you're thinking of.

 

[australopithecus]

Solipsism is the last stop of the train of fail.

No, that's Nihilism you're thinking of.

I think solipsism is more stupid than nihilism, personally. Solipsism is utterly redundant, while nihilism is just a bit silly.

 

[borrofburi]

Creationist: ...i wud do more research on hell if i were u,ask jesus,his bin there,...4 u,...

I would learn to fucking spell and use punctuation...

 

[Laurens]

Creationist: ...i wud do more research on hell if i were u,ask jesus,his bin there,...4 u,...

I would learn to fucking spell and use punctuation...

Oh it gets worse as we go along:

"lesson 1 in biblical misconception,'u will surely die' wot was actually said,'i will kill u' wot wasnt."

Can anyone translate for me?

 

[borrofburi]

"lesson 1 in biblical misconception,'u will surely die' wot was actually said,'i will kill u' wot wasnt."

Can anyone translate for me?

If you're not being facetious: "God told Adam and Eve 'if you eat the fruit, you'll die'; God did not say 'if you eat the fruit I'll kill you'".