The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[lordlandraid]

works with:
TFSM, Invisible pink unicorns, leprecauns, fairies, macig jugs of milk, my cats (yes, they are considered gods here) etc etc etc..

Sorry Red XIII, but I tried that already. I replaced it with sentient mud people and making a counter argument where you need to 'prove' that Bigfoot didn't frame Charles Manson for the murders.

 

[lordlandraid]

I'll never be a Klingon

Qapla'!

 

[nasher168]

On top of that, it wouldn't shatter my entire worldview to learn that Alexander the great was a fictional person.

Well, it would probably shatter our perspective on world history from 350BC to about 800AD and mean we would have to question every historian from Aristotle to Josephus, considering the issue of the Successor States to Alexander's Empire, the fact that there are Indo-Greek ruins in modern-day Afghanistan, that the Persian Empire collapsed in under a generation, that Augustus Caesar reportedly accidentally knocked Alexander's nose off in his tomb etc... I think I would be quite shaken by that particular revelation.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Tick Talk, I'm waiting

That's Exactly how he spelled it

 

[lordlandraid]

Tick Talk, I'm waiting

That's Exactly how he spelled it

D-.... ho-..................... FAIL!!!!

 

[nasher168]

Well "tock" and "talk" are both pronounced "tark" or "tahk" in certain American accents (although of course when I write "tark" you would read "tahrrrrk"... this is confusing), maybe that's where they got the idea? They still fail either way, of course.

 

[lordlandraid]

(although of course when I write "tark" you would read "tahrrrrk"... this is confusing)

Nah, I read KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!

 

[Memeticemetic]

although of course when I write "tark" you would read "tahrrrrk"... this is confusing

Dude. We're not pirates. You racist scurvy dog.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Comments left on two of my videos:

pinball281[/url]"]so why is there a, $250,000 reward for proof of evolution

and

CHECK OUT KENT HOVIND AND WHAT HE MAKES, OF THE MISSING LINKS

 

[kenandkids]

Comments left on two of my videos:

pinball281[/url]"]so why is there a, $250,000 reward for proof of evolution

and

CHECK OUT KENT HOVIND AND WHAT HE MAKES, OF THE MISSING LINKS

:facepalm:


Just wrong...

 

[Pulsar]

incase you havent notice the way god works is throw people.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

incase you havent notice the way god works is throw people.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry, what, where, wh..wut? Got a link for that?

lmfao :lol: :lol:

 

[Pulsar]

I'm sorry, what, where, wh..wut? Got a link for that?

lmfao :lol: :lol:

It was some guy on the "ten questions for intelligent christians" youtube video. His arguments were as good as his English

 

[RichardMNixon]

What made me believe in God in the first place [is], I remember once I had a "hallucination" where I saw the cells in my body just like looking through a microscope. I saw that I had a civilization inside of me more complicated that the world outside of me. The thing is, us Humans think we are superior, yet a single cell in my body shows more love than all of, manking put together. They never fight, they live, work and die together, and im proud.

So then I can assume you've never heard of cancer or lupus? , Trust me, your cells don't always work together.

Cancer is beneficial, if we did not have cancer we would not live as long. When telomeres run out cells have 2 choices, suicide or bypass the procees and get immortality (Cancer). If all the cells chose suicide there would be a massive hole and chain reaction because other nearby cells, would have to reproduce faster and end up losing a lot of lifespan. Do some research, cancer is a natural process designed to prolong the survival of the system, sometimes it looks like its bad.

I attempted to teach him a little about DNA mutation prior to that, but this was the gold nugget of the conversation and the point at which I gave up trying to educate him.

 

[lordlandraid]

Cancer is beneficial

What the flying fuck? I'm sorry, but from what I understand cancer is a damaged cell that continues to reproduce. It causes tumors, these cells don't fulfill the function they were suppose to and replace cells that do as they continue to spread, and they reproduce out of control. This shit KILLS YOU and will only ever KILL YOU. I've never heard a doctor say 'cancer is good for you,' instead saying '*insert how long you have left to live here as well as potential treatments.*'

Yeah, we have treatments like radiation therapy to kill something that is good for you and is actually 'immortal' cause, you know, the industry that makes shit like the small pox vaccine is just filled to the brim with morons... This person needs a swift kick in the arse for saying something so blatantly stupid...

On a side note, I love the 'without cancer, we don't live as long' comment since he then proceeds to state it makes the cells IMMORTAL... Even thought the cancerous cells die and replace each other just like the cell WOULD NORMALLY DO... I'm sorry, I didn't know we were all capable of becoming highlanders if we just let a deadly disease ravage our bodies... makes sense -_-

As it is this knucklehead doesn't seem to understand how cancer develops in the first place... :facepalm:

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I've actually heard that one before in a different form. It's not so much that it claims "Cancer is beneficial", but basically plays up the angle of "immortality" of cancer cells...

Specifically, the argument someone delivered to me was the argument that the "fact" that cancer is immortal is a strong indication that Adam and Eve were originally entirely cancerous to begin with, and that ensured their immortality. But when they ate of the fruit, they introduced non-cancerous cells into their system and became mortal. They were still able to live for several hundred years, though, because the relative percentage of cancer cells was very high. Apparently, it's only now that we've fallen so far that our cancer percentage is very low. "Most people are actually so wicked and so separated from the divine that they have no cancer at all." Hell, if wickedness actually did cure cancer, that would be f'ing awesome. So yeah... apparently, his explanation for how radiation exposure or smoking can cause cancer, he redefined "radiation" to "divine light of God", and that exposes the hidden purity within us that traces back to the time before the fall. He had nothing for smoking. Whatever the case, his final assertion was that the only reason cancer appears dangerous is because non-cancerous evil cells are now dominant in our bodies, so the "morally pure" cancer cells are out of place can only dominate by destroying the impure non-cancer cells.

I have to say, though... the way the guy phrased it all at the time (and the fact that his kids could repeat the same arguments almost word-for-word) made it sound very much like he was quoting some Answers in Genesis article. The formulation was just that linear and oversimplified.

 

[lordlandraid]

Well too feckin' bad we can examine these cells and determine they actually DO die and DO reproduce and MULTIPLE WAYS IN WHICH THEY ARE CAUSED... They aren't immortal and the only ones who could possibly think that are uneducated twits... Then you also must go through the process of explaining WHY THE HELL CANCER CELLS ARE FOUND IN OTHER ANIMALS!!!... It's your basic 'I think it does this, so fuck reality' argument. Unfortunately, reality gives the middle finger right back to them and always wins out.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I've actually heard that one before in a different form. It's not so much that it claims "Cancer is beneficial", but basically plays up the angle of "immortality" of cancer cells...

Zelator wasn't Christian, more of a New-Age Deepak Chopra kind of thing, going on and on about how our cells are themselves intelligent and as such are the intelligent designers. Interesting to see the convergence among various pathways to stupid though.

Hell, if wickedness actually did cure cancer, that would be f'ing awesome.

Fuck yeah it would. Cancer? Bring on the whiskey, porn, and veal!

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

From Creationwiki:

dinosaurs lived recently and coexisted with mankind on Earth. It is furthermore presumed they were still alive at the time of the global flood and taken on board Noah's ark.
Evidence to support this view includes:
The Bible specifically states that a breeding pair of every kind of animal came to the ark.

It is furthermore arguable that many of these "terrible lizards" were simply much older than modern varieties. Reptiles continuously grows as long as live, whereas mammals and other terrestrial vertebrates grow no further following their adolescent period.

a naturalist would have to explain the survival of animals using natural processes, such as many local floods, and gradual deposition over millions of years. However, the Bible specifically says God caused the earth to be flooded until the waters exceeded the highest mountain

Mortal life, including plants and animals, since the Fall of Adam and Eve, is subject to death. Withholding a global flood would not have saved any animal or plant from death. The justice of God provided a way for many species to be saved on the Ark. God waited as long as his justice would allow, before causing a Flood that would shorten the life spans of individual creatures but would not destroy species: Life would return and the earth would be repopulated.

Secular scientists find the first statement unscientific in the sense that it is based on observations that cannot be reproduced, and thus exclude it a priori. Creationists usually respond that this argument relies on an inadequate definition of science

It is patently impossible to adequately discuss creation science without referencing creationist journals. It is practically impossible for a scientists to publish a creationist paper in a secular journal, and it is claimed that journals have even pulled support for papers post-approval when it was discovered that one or both of the authors had creationist leanings. Therefore, be advised that, while many of the papers under discussion are peer-reviewed, they are peer-reviewed by scientists who are themselves generally creationists, possibly removing one bias for another.

A white hole near the earth at the beginning of the universe has been proposed to explain the existence of distant starlight in a young universe. This would cause, due to relativistic considerations, a change in apparent time.

The Copernican Principle is an arbitrary, evolutionary assumption that relies upon man's word. On the other hand, the Bible, or word of God, implies that the universe has a boundary and that the Earth is near the center, thus providing substitute starting assumptions contradictory to that of the Copernican Principle.

It must be emphasized here that the Copernican Principle is a philosophical preference as opposed to conclusion compelled by observations. Further, one's philosophy serves as the foundation for the framework within which one interprets observations; as such the Copernican Principle serves this purpose within mainstream cosmology - an operational assumption or axiom

The fundamental presumption of the Copernican Principle - that there is nothing special about neither the earth nor humanity - is blatantly unbiblical.

Applying this principal to cosmology, assumptions should not be invoked simply to avoid the 'unwelcome' implications. As we saw above, Hubble did exactly that. His observations were perfectly consistent with a galactocentric universe - an implication he found philosophically repugnant. The straight-forward implication of his observation conflicted with his initial assumption of uniformity. In order to salvage that initial assumption, Hubble invoked a second assumption: that of 'spatial curvature'. Thus, Hubble adopted two assumptions that were completely unnecessary to explain his observations. Applying Occam's Razor, we can conclude that the galactocentric hypothesis is preferable to Hubble's alternative.

Atheism is a philosophical denial of the existence of God. A more active stance affirms the nonexistence of God, and proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief. Materialism (the disbelief in the spiritual realm), naturalism, the theory of evolution, and humanism stem inexorably from this world view.

According to studies taken in 2004, being religious decreases your chances of suicide, while rejecting religion, or being atheist, increases your risk of suicide. This is no doubt because atheism, and therefore the denial of all things sacred, can lead to assumptions of ethical nihilism and the ultimate, tragic rejection of life.

Since Nihilism and Moral relativism are ideologies that are usually endorsed by atheists, it is not unusual that atheism could in fact lead to an increase in immorality because the concept of moral values will be so diluted, that atheists might justify and rationalize any sin.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

ThePuppyTurtle[/url]"]

Sorry It took me a while to get around to writing this.

Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Sorry, I Cut-Pasted form a dictionary, I didn't want to risk denying you a Pseudo-scientific fog with which to cover the stupidity of the Idea that we came from Microbes.

Looking back, This is no where NEAR the stupidest thing I said as a creationist. Remember my Idea on the Wall of Jericho?