The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[Gnug215]

So how does this scale work I'm guessing 0 = not stupid and 10 = stupid as hell?

So this would be a perfect 10 stupid which means the probability that it is down to sarcasm is less than 0.000000000000001?

I'm assuming so, but it's Wark's scale, so we'll have to ask him.

 

[WarK]

So how does this scale work I'm guessing 0 = not stupid and 10 = stupid as hell?

So this would be a perfect 10 stupid which means the probability that it is down to sarcasm is less than 0.000000000000001?

I'm assuming so, but it's Wark's scale, so we'll have to ask him.

I guess, 10 = stupid as hell.

Unfortunately knowing humans we'll have to change it from O'Reilly's scale to a unit so we could measure creationist stupidity in oreillys.

 

[australopithecus]

Just because it is scientifically proven does not mean it is true. Yet, I forgot, you are one of those by the book people who cannot believe in shit that cannot be proven or is proven only on a scientific level. [The Sun] is NOT a star. It is a SUN. Stars are those bright little shiny lights you see at night.

 

[Gnug215]

Just because it is scientifically proven does not mean it is true. Yet, I forgot, you are one of those by the book people who cannot believe in shit that cannot be proven or is proven only on a scientific level. [The Sun] is NOT a star. It is a SUN. Stars are those bright little shiny lights you see at night.

rofl

Who the HELL said that??? I wanna know!

 

[australopithecus]

Someone I wish I'd never encountered.

I just love believing in shit that can't or will never be proven.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Someone I wish I'd never encountered.

I just love believing in shit that can't or will never be proven.

Well... at least they're honest.

 

[Dean]

Anachronous Rex

[ ... ]

I just love believing in shit that can't or [won't] [ever] be proven.

Well... at least [they're] honest.

Meh, that's pretty standard among proponents of religious Newspeak, e.g. William L. Craig in the foremost link.

In the new 'belief' paradigm as it's referred to, the only things real and relevant are the things I don't have to "believe" in ... they're still true. And if I am sane and reasonably intelligent, I can be taught these things and taught how to test them and teach the next person who doesn't "believe" in them. I can teach someone to "believe" in electrical power by instructing him to insert his fingers into an open circuit with wet hands ... and if he survives, he can teach the next person not to do so. This understanding of knowledge is to me "pragmatic" -- in that it makes sense in the everyday human world. God is thus not only superfluous , and untrue , but pragmatically irrelevant, since i have NO compelling evidence to tell me otherwise ...

Now for sure, I cannot personally prove the existence of subatomic particles, but those who discovered them will be working towards the next generation of computer technology, e.g. the first 'OLED' , organic light emitting diodes , computer displays for purposes in the sphere of scientific advancement, and human ingenuity... I guess anyone with a particular interest can follow these fields of research if they pay close enough attention to it. I could validate the findings of the raw data myself.

I might have assessed this too literally, because something australopithecus doesn't seem to have taken into account is that the person who made that comment may well have been a troll, in which case it's to no real consequence.

~~ L. N. ~~

 

[australopithecus]

Apparently I need to read this to "expand my knowledge" as to why the sun is not a star...

http://creation.com/the-sun-is-not-an-average-star

 

[Neanderthal]

"A special, or even non-typical, sun can be taken as evidence of God's provision for life on earth.." Amazing article! Thanks australopithecus. It's all clear to me now. The sun is not that common, ergo God loves me. Who knew?

 

[Neanderthal]

Oooh, new book!
Taking Back Astronomy.
"The subject of astronomy has been hijacked by evolutionists to sway people in the debate about origins.
In this beautifully illustrated book, the author debunks the most accepted teachings about evolution and other long-age assumptions, giving tremendous answers for those struggling to reconcile the Bible and science. "
by Dr Jason Lisle

 

[Laurens]

Oooh, new book!
Taking Back Astronomy.
"The subject of astronomy has been hijacked by evolutionists to sway people in the debate about origins.
In this beautifully illustrated book, the author debunks the most accepted teachings about evolution and other long-age assumptions, giving tremendous answers for those struggling to reconcile the Bible and science. "
by Dr Jason Lisle

It really annoys me when creationists equivocate evolution with other terms...

Astronomy has nothing to do with evolution.

I was having a dialogue with a creationist the other day, and in every post I had to remind them that evolution does not mean the same thing as abiogenesis, and it does not mean the same thing as the universe coming from nothing...

 

[rareblackatheist]

From http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/survey-u-s-protestant-pastors-reject-evolution-split-on-earths-age/?hpt=op_bn9

This is a very ignorant topic. The Bible has been around way before evolution was ever thought up. We have always believed that God created the earth in seven days and created the first man and woman. And we always will. Evolutionists are just so caught up in trying to prove that the earth is billions of years old (they used to say it was millions, but it keeps changing, lol) because if the earth isnt billions of years old, then none of their ideas make sense.

:lol:

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

I don't see how it's fair of you to point out the problems of the vedantha. Atheists arent supposed to read these things. We don't read all your science books, either because they aren't part of our religion, so why do you bother reading the holy literature that belongs to our faith? And that too, to find things that are immoral about it is immoral on your part! We have these books because they're not meant to be criticized. They are meant to be taken as truth.

Anyway, as an atheist, aren't there ground rules like not reading or speaking of the works of the enemy religions? Nobody blasphermes science! So nobody should ever blaspherme our texts, either!

I left the spelling as is. Hmmm... nobody blasphemes science? He needs to spend an hour in Texas... where people demand Newtonian gravitation no longer be taught in school because astronomers caused 9/11!

 

[Dean]

Laurens

["¦] It really annoys me when creationists equivocate evolution with other terms ["¦]

In all fairness, it is not always their fault. I can understand this confusion, to some degree. Especially with the example of astronomy. I have often heard folk in the physics and cosmological community describing cosmogenesis and planetary accretion as being "evolution", and the number of times words such as "evolutionary", among others, are tossed out during documentaries on the subject for example, is staggering. Of course, this wouldn't cause the slightest confusion, supposing they had actually done some research into this topic rather than parroting 'creation science' advocates in e.g. America.

If not a confusion, it could be a deliberate omission. It's this kind of thinking , including cosmogenesis and abiogenesis as "evolution" and so forth , that leads to the development of dubious misconceptions such as that pratt Hovind's "5 Types of Evolution"â„¢
At the end of the day, it's unlikely that dialogue with them will ever be able to change their minds. These people are way too far out to be helped by anyone other than themselves, frankly ...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

An old one (just found it) from the comment section of one of my videos.

alcolyte76[/url]"]LOL evilution IS NOT a fact hence the continued title... "theory" dim wits go on preaching lies saying it, is a fact.... so brainwashed to even try to say it's true... you have confused the issue at hand here, macro evilution/darwins theory of common descent is total rubbish not "micro" evilution wich is another way to say variation in kinds... what a total waste of time and space on youtube... total garbage lol

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A comment left on one of my videos.

Why do people keep posting comments like "look at the transitional fossils"!

Some were entombed with chain mail armor, hell one had bullet entry/exit holes threw the skull.

One Evolutionist Scientist attacked the human/dinosaur footprints in Texas with an iron bar because it proved evolution is wrong.

Do they still teach science or is it all science fiction today?

WATCH: Evolution Creation The Truth Lawrence, Tisdall.

WATCH: Expelled.

:lol:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

YesYouNeedJesus[/url]"]You are incorrect about 14C. You're just using a rescue device. It's already been demonstrated that there would have to be thousands of times more uranium, thorium, etc. throughout the earth's crust for the 14C to come from 13C. I don't see the point in any of this though when simple basic truths about soft tissue and dinosaurs can't be admitted.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Laurens

["¦] It really annoys me when creationists equivocate evolution with other terms ["¦]

In all fairness, it is not always their fault. I can understand this confusion, to some degree. Especially with the example of astronomy. I have often heard folk in the physics and cosmological community describing cosmogenesis and planetary accretion as being "evolution", and the number of times words such as "evolutionary", among others, are tossed out during documentaries on the subject for example, is staggering. Of course, this wouldn't cause the slightest confusion, supposing they had actually done some research into this topic rather than parroting 'creation science' advocates in e.g. America.

If not a confusion, it could be a deliberate omission. It's this kind of thinking , including cosmogenesis and abiogenesis as "evolution" and so forth , that leads to the development of dubious misconceptions such as that pratt Hovind's "5 Types of Evolution"â„¢
At the end of the day, it's unlikely that dialogue with them will ever be able to change their minds. These people are way too far out to be helped by anyone other than themselves, frankly ...

How is it not their fault, exactly? Anyone with the slightest intent to think for themselves and research at all on a subject like evolution will undoubtedly come to the realization of what the heck the word means.

Besides, anyone who uses the 5 Types of Evolution argument has "troll" written all over them in my view. I mean, fuck, they're talking about biology. OF COURSE IT MEANS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, IDIOTS.

 

[Frenger]

In all fairness, it is not always their fault. I can understand this confusion, to some degree. Especially with the example of astronomy. I have often heard folk in the physics and cosmological community describing cosmogenesis and planetary accretion as being "evolution", and the number of times words such as "evolutionary", among others, are tossed out during documentaries on the subject for example, is staggering. Of course, this wouldn't cause the slightest confusion, supposing they had actually done some research into this topic rather than parroting 'creation science' advocates in e.g. America.

If not a confusion, it could be a deliberate omission. It's this kind of thinking , including cosmogenesis and abiogenesis as "evolution" and so forth , that leads to the development of dubious misconceptions such as that pratt Hovind's "5 Types of Evolution"â„¢
At the end of the day, it's unlikely that dialogue with them will ever be able to change their minds. These people are way too far out to be helped by anyone other than themselves, frankly ...

How is it not their fault, exactly? Anyone with the slightest intent to think for themselves and research at all on a subject like evolution will undoubtedly come to the realization of what the heck the word means.

Besides, anyone who uses the 5 Types of Evolution argument has "troll" written all over them in my view. I mean, fuck, they're talking about biology. OF COURSE IT MEANS BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION, IDIOTS.

I really agree, it's fuzzy thinking, and worse than that, it's lazy and easy thinking. Science is hard, understanding it is tricky and it takes some work.

Saying "god dunnit" is easy and instantly gratifying, and then they can feel "smart" because they worked it out all by themselves.

There seems to be a taboo among certain people in admitting they don't know something, that's what I don't like. It's the arrogance, all the scientists in the world don't know something, ie how abiogenesis occurred and then you get a gaggle of religious f**kwits saying "OH I DO, I DO, PICK ME!". What makes it worse is when someone who knows something points out their flaw they cry oppressed, or offence, or claim for the person being arrogant or close minded.

Will these twonks ever grow up?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Stripe[/url]"]

This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation.

Sure, it does. Have you not heard that even limestone forms under water?

Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed?

One is a wholly biological process, one is a mostly non-biological process.

Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.

A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?

Please try again.

Please give ideas you haven't come across before a chance before arbitrarily dismissing them.