The stupidest thing a creatonist has ever said to you

[australopithecus]

"You know, it's possible that there was a canopy of ice over the earth that broke down and melted upon entering the atmosphere causing the Noahic floods."

One day I hope Hovind gets hit by a falling block of ice. He deserves it for the damage he's done to humanity.

 

[Randomhobbyist]

"God is not human he is God who created your life to him belongs life, how then can God be guilty of taking what belongs to him? Only humans can be guilty of taking something that does not belong to him, including his own life and others"

epic facepalm for humanity

 

[Randomhobbyist]

2 posts in a row but this one was too good not to share. We were having a DEBATE about his opinions. He was inferring that god had the right to destroy us at will as he made us (he put us in the world he can take us out).

"See you are not paying attention, only trying to find counter arguments. Which is expected!"

:facepalm:

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

This is from a conversation where a YEC I knew who happened to pull out a classical idiotic Ray Comfort argument.

YEC : "It's so obvious that everything had to be created because you can just look at how everything we have is made."
Me : "That's a fallacious extrapolation. You're taking the fact that people make things for specific purposes and drawing conclusions about things in nature based on that. It's ridiculous to say that just because we make microwave ovens for cooking, that rocks were created for the purpose of bashing things."
YEC : "But just look at how paintings always have painters. Buildings always have builders. How is it crazy to think that life has a life-giving maker?"
Me : "Non-living things are a terrible analogy for living things. They aren't capable of reproduction on their own the way living things are"
YEC : "How does that matter?"
Me : "Living things reproduce, have babies, proliferate their DNA and carry a hereditary record. Non-living things don't. You don't have buildings having sex with buildings to make little baby buildings!"
YEC : "You're saying that if we did, we'd see building evolution?"
Me : "Wow... that's so not the line I was going down... but it's conceivably possible and downright frightening as a prospect."
YEC : "But even if that were true, that would add to the power of god, because it would show his glory to bring the miracle of birth even to buildings."
Me : "So you're saying that even if you saw evidence of what you think is evolution, it would prove creationism even more?"
YEC : "But that wouldn't be evolution, 'cause it would be buildings, and they have builders."
Me : "...so in other words, actual thought is beyond you."
YEC : "Huh?"
Me : "Yeah, I thought so."

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

This is from a conversation where a YEC I knew who happened to pull out a classical idiotic Ray Comfort argument.

YEC : "It's so obvious that everything had to be created because you can just look at how everything we have is made."
Me : "That's a fallacious extrapolation. You're taking the fact that people make things for specific purposes and drawing conclusions about things in nature based on that. It's ridiculous to say that just because we make microwave ovens for cooking, that rocks were created for the purpose of bashing things."
YEC : "But just look at how paintings always have painters. Buildings always have builders. How is it crazy to think that life has a life-giving maker?"
Me : "Non-living things are a terrible analogy for living things. They aren't capable of reproduction on their own the way living things are"
YEC : "How does that matter?"
Me : "Living things reproduce, have babies, proliferate their DNA and carry a hereditary record. Non-living things don't. You don't have buildings having sex with buildings to make little baby buildings!"
YEC : "You're saying that if we did, we'd see building evolution?"
Me : "Wow... that's so not the line I was going down... but it's conceivably possible and downright frightening as a prospect."
YEC : "But even if that were true, that would add to the power of god, because it would show his glory to bring the miracle of birth even to buildings."
Me : "So you're saying that even if you saw evidence of what you think is evolution, it would prove creationism even more?"
YEC : "But that wouldn't be evolution, 'cause it would be buildings, and they have builders."
Me : "...so in other words, actual thought is beyond you."
YEC : "Huh?"
Me : "Yeah, I thought so."

That is a good one. The last three lines made me lol hard.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

'Why do you think Same Sex couples wants Same Sex Kids? To molest them and make them "gay".'

 

[Dak]

"How do we know that Science has evidence!"

I then take out my chemistry textbook, which happens to have a short section on the scientific method. I then read it off to my friend. His response:

"That's just Atheist propaganda! God is the only source of truth!"

I then ask him how he knows this.

"The Bible!"

I then facepalm. He has no idea why.

 

[lrkun]

He who denies believes the most.

It made me pause for a moment.

 

[Rockbottom87]

Evolution is only a hypothesis

 

[Daealis]

Evolution is only a hypothesis

Ooh, that's a great way to try and go around the evidence. I bet whoever argued like this has been schooled on the differences of scientific theory and the common use of the word. Some new - and more importantly, accurate - information has been able to get through to a creatard!

Can I get a hallelujah?!

 

[Laurens]

"How do we know that Science has evidence!"

I then take out my chemistry textbook, which happens to have a short section on the scientific method. I then read it off to my friend. His response:

"That's just Atheist propaganda! God is the only source of truth!"

I then ask him how he knows this.

"The Bible!"

I then facepalm. He has no idea why.

That's the main flaw in religious thinking that science = atheism.

Science is not, was not, nor will it ever be about denying God. That's got nothing to do with it, it has no agenda other than discerning the truth, that's all. It just so happens that our observations of nature conflict with certain ancient cosmologies. It's not a conspiracy against God. It's not all made up so we can all feel free to behave like animals. It's just the truth plain and simple.

Yes, it can be used as an argument for atheism, but that's not what science is about. Science has nothing to do with God. It's just idiots who cannot accept that a lot of what they believe is wrong, and the only way they can cling on to their religion is to come up with conspiracy theories about science. Science has nothing to hide, and it has everything to contribute towards humanity, to stand against it is to stand against everything we have achieved as a species.

Science is the only source of truth, religion is the only source for incessant attempts to deny and silence the truth. You're friend is a fool, and most likely beyond help. Stay away from him, unless you wish to have a permanent red hand print across your face.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Remensum[/url]"]The term "hominidae" is just taxonomical verbiage. Humans are NOT apes because they are :

i) Obligate bipeds
ii) Cannot brachiate.
iii) Cannot knuckle-walk
iv) Can use speech and language
v) Have semi-circular canals not suited for arboreal life.
vi) Are fully dextrous.

There are many more differences beyond these basic distinctions. The fact is that apes are arboreal creatures whereas we are terrestrial. Even those apes, such as Patas monkeys, that live on the ground retain their ape morphologies and behavior.

and

The point about Piltdown Man is not so much that it was a forgery but rather the assumption that there must have been a 'missing link' taxon. We have seen this time and time again - as with Australopithecus sediba this year.

 

[borrofburi]

The point about Piltdown Man is not so much that it was a forgery but rather the assumption that there must have been a 'missing link' taxon. We have seen this time and time again - as with Australopithecus sediba this year.

Oddly enough, that's not completely dumb... He's likely saying it for the wrong reasons, but in the most charitable understanding he's pointing out the clash between cladistics and the concept of a "missing link". Of course then he somehow ties it into pitldown man, which of course is an indication that his position is the insane one.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

"God created platypuses to confuse evilutionists"

 

[kenandkids]

"God created platypuses to confuse evilutionists"

What's really funny about that is that I like to use the platypus to confuse creationists when they start talking that "of their kinds" nonsense. Not one has been able to adequately label the platypus' "kind" yet.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

"God created platypuses to confuse evilutionists"

What's really funny about that is that I like to use the platypus to confuse creationists when they start talking that "of their kinds" nonsense. Not one has been able to adequately label the platypus' "kind" yet.

Yeah well, this is from the same Creationist how declare "God created the world in 7 days, there are 7 days in a week, therefore God created the world and evilution is wrong."

I would love to call Poe on this, I really would (especially since I'm related to this nitwit) - but he is dead serious.

 

[Krazyskooter]

Here's a snippet of conversation I had with a girl the other night talking about eternity anywhere.

Me: But I don't think eternity anywhere would be that great. Eternity is eternity.

Her: I think your crazy for saying that.

Me: Why?

Her: Because it's eternity with a man that loves you unconditionally.. A man that gave his life for the sins you commit daily.

Me: Can you imagine eternity though?

Her: With him yes..

Me: I imagine eternity anywhere would become a prison.

Her: Well you have 2 choices.. You can spend it with him or in hell.. I choose to do right and follow what God says..

Me: But could someone who loves you unconditionally honestly send you somewhere to be tortured for eternity?

Her: If you don't follow his commandments.. In the bible it says if you deny me, then I will deny you at the gates of heaven...

Me: You just contradicted yourself.

Her: how?

Me: Facepalm

 

[Pulsar]

He who denies believes the most.

It made me pause for a moment.

Zen Creationism?

 

[magicalpants]

Remensum[/url]"]The term "hominidae" is just taxonomical verbiage. Humans are NOT apes because they are :

i) Obligate bipeds
ii) Cannot brachiate.
iii) Cannot knuckle-walk
iv) Can use speech and language
v) Have semi-circular canals not suited for arboreal life.
vi) Are fully dextrous.

There are many more differences beyond these basic distinctions. The fact is that apes are arboreal creatures whereas we are terrestrial. Even those apes, such as Patas monkeys, that live on the ground retain their ape morphologies and behavior.

Except it doesn't matter how far you evolve, if a species is in a taxa it is in there forever. We are still all Eukaryote's for example.

 

[kenandkids]

I think that most of dotoree's posts can have a safe and comfy home in this topic...