Funny creationist arguments

[Bounty]

* archology was founded onproving the bible wrong, yet everything that archologist have found have continued to do the oppisite and has always proven the bible correct.

I... I... I'm personally insulted by that one....

As you should be. Archaeology wasn't founded to "disprove the Bible", it was founded for the grand and noble purpose of pillaging antique necropoli ! For the honorable cause of stuffing Venetian palaces with graverobbed sculptures !

The nerve of some people...

[Azazal]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! the fundies are at it again!!!! Once more from the JREF orginal thread, quoting a fundie trying to debunk evolution:


"Let us consider the earth as a closed system in regards to the passage of H2O in and out of the system. Clearly this is a safe assumption as it is manifestly evident that no water leaves the earth (ignoring
space exploration).

Ninety-seven percent of the water on Earth is salt water. Fresh water resides on land or in glaciers. As this water is used, it trickles down by gravity to the oceans of the world and becomes mixed with the salt water. You will note that no water is trickling back up to land as this would contradict the energy law of fluid dynamics i.e. water cannot flow uphill without an external energy source.

I submit that if evolutionists were correct and the earth were over 4 billion years old that the supply of fresh water would have long run out. Four billion years of the fresh water flowing downhill to the oceans would result in dry lakes and rivers. Clearly this is a contradiction in the theory of evolution."



How in hell is some one who thinks like this able to remeber to breath?

[Darth Wong]

Once again, I am reminded of my wish that people without some form of postsecondary scientific education would not be allowed to discuss science on the Internet.

[Molyneux]

Postsecondary, nothing - the guy forgot that water EVAPORATES! That's elementary-school education level - third grade, tops!

[OmegaGuy]

These aren't funny, these are mind - numbing.

[Qwerty 42]

These aren't funny, these are mind - numbing.

I wonder if that's why there are so many evangelicals today...

[Darth Wong]

Postsecondary, nothing - the guy forgot that water EVAPORATES! That's elementary-school education level - third grade, tops!

I know, but quite frankly, I've seen things much more intelligent than that which are still too goddamned stupid to be allowed on the Internet in an ideal world.

[Dooey Jo]

I recently saw an argument that at first sight might have seemed very intelligent. It was the usual "variable speed of light means fast radioactive decay rates", and as a counter-argument it was pointed out that a high value of c would increase the energy ouput of the Sun and cook the Earth. As a counter to that, the creationist said that E = mc^2 couldn't apply if c varies, because the theory of relativity assumes that it is constant.
Of course, the other theories do the same assumptions about c (that it is invariant to all observers and thus, in pun-language, constant; but as far as I know, the actual value of it is not very relevant other than for experimentation purposes) so by the same logic they wouldn't apply either. Not a problem to the creationist, of course; "maybe the theories also varied in such a way as to make the universe and Earth appear old by keeping a high value of c, but a low output for the Sun". Yeah, and maybe your little hypothesis lost all credibility a very long time ago and you might just as well say a magic sky pixie made the Earth a short time ago and magically made it seem old

* archology was founded onproving the bible wrong, yet everything that archologist have found have continued to do the oppisite and has always proven the bible correct.

Archology? Well no wonder it failed to prove the bible wrong; they were building churches!
Of course, one wonders if the Romans also built arches to prove the bible wrong, or if the great science of archology can also strive to disprove other works of literature (likely, since the bible didn't exist at the time). Maybe there's even a branch of archology devoted to disproving Shakespeare.

[wilfulton]

But anyway, I'm just replying on one of your evolution theories, the one about the black peppered moth. I believe that the man that came up with that theory, confessed about gluing those moths to the trees to take that photo, and he ended up going to jail. Correct me if im wrong, but that is what i've been informed.

Hmm....I'm wondering, how did the guy get those moths together in the same place to take the photo in the first place? And where pray tell did they come from, if they are both peppered moths?

I can see taking a couple of dried peppered moths (these things don't live forever you know, so at some point there'll be a dead one, hell some stores sell them. And used a little bit of glue to help emphasize the point, one is easier to see than another in this side-by-side comparison.

If he went to jail was probably for something unrelated, like drunk driving. But it sounds like somebody made up that part of the story.

[wilfulton]

Adaptation occurs but not evolution! Read the Bible and you will see the truth. Jacob made his cattle copulate before striped rods, and wouldn’t you know but the babies came out striped! From this Biblical evidence, we can safely say that polar bears emerge from brown bears because they are conceived amid all that white snow. Similarly, peacocks probably were big-tailed birds that spent a few generations among colorful flowers while some sharks adapted their coloration from the dark water beneath and sunlight above. Test it for yourselves! However, you should ensure that a righteous man like Jacob performs the experiment, as evolutionists will falsify the data so they can continue living in sinful debauchery without being held to God’s rules. I dare you to post this because it thoroughly disproves your pet theory!

Not entirely bullshit. If two screaming lunatics copulate in front of another screaming lunatic, the result will be yet another screaming lunatic.

[Darth Wong]

I recently saw an argument that at first sight might have seemed very intelligent. It was the usual "variable speed of light means fast radioactive decay rates", and as a counter-argument it was pointed out that a high value of c would increase the energy ouput of the Sun and cook the Earth. As a counter to that, the creationist said that E = mc^2 couldn't apply if c varies, because the theory of relativity assumes that it is constant.

Relativity assumes that c is independent of inertial frame of reference, which is not exactly the same thing as saying it's constant. And this premise has been validated through experimental testing of the predictions of relativity.

[Wyrm]

Not entirely bullshit. If two screaming lunatics copulate in front of another screaming lunatic, the result will be yet another screaming lunatic.

I'm siggin' that!

[Darth Wong]

But anyway, I'm just replying on one of your evolution theories, the one about the black peppered moth. I believe that the man that came up with that theory, confessed about gluing those moths to the trees to take that photo, and he ended up going to jail. Correct me if im wrong, but that is what i've been informed.

Hmm....I'm wondering, how did the guy get those moths together in the same place to take the photo in the first place? And where pray tell did they come from, if they are both peppered moths?

I can see taking a couple of dried peppered moths (these things don't live forever you know, so at some point there'll be a dead one, hell some stores sell them. And used a little bit of glue to help emphasize the point, one is easier to see than another in this side-by-side comparison.

If he went to jail was probably for something unrelated, like drunk driving. But it sounds like somebody made up that part of the story.

The photograph was a setup because he didn't feel like waiting around for the right kind of moth to land on the right kind of tree in order to get his picture, so he just grabbed one, glued it on, and then took the picture. But the change in moth colouration is true, and has never been disputed.

[defanatic]

Once again, I am reminded of my wish that people without some form of postsecondary scientific education would not be allowed to discuss science on the Internet.

Damnit! But I like the internet.

[K. A. Pital]

Wow... good laugh in a good while.

Can't depress me that much though. We don't have as many loonies at home. That's still alarming, however - think of all the horrors to come if America one day turns a theocracy, and these people will decide, what is right and wrong in science and everywhere else...

[Dooey Jo]

Relativity assumes that c is independent of inertial frame of reference, which is not exactly the same thing as saying it's constant. And this premise has been validated through experimental testing of the predictions of relativity.

Heh, I'm sure it's the same to a creationist, who wouldn't understand the concept of intertial frames of reference to begin with...

Wasn't the properties of c also suggested by the Maxwell equations, but then believed to be a special case only valid in the rest frame of the aether? Well, anyhow, the point was that through his argument he invalidated the very theories he used to support his idea of a young Earth, which I found quite hilarious.

[speaker-to-trolls]

Oh my Christ, those are so frustrating. 'If the big bang is fact where did the dirt come from?' What the fuck? 'Animals will be the same colour as whatever their parents are facing when they copulate' Well then explain, I don't know, leopards, not much they could look at while getting down to business which could have that kind of elaborate spot pattern. 'The Earth's fresh water system would have run out because water can't run uphill'? Combining that with the 'evolution is false because for it to work there'd have to be some massive outside energy source putting energy into the Earth' I wonder if some these people actually live in underground bunkers.

Uuuuuuuurrrggggghhhhhhh!!

[LaCroix]

Whenever you think the dignity of the human race can't be demolished any further, another fundie rises and disproves your theory...

[defanatic]

Nah. These people actually exist. No joke. I know people who really believe the crap that comes out of their youth pastor's mouth (and I also know a youth pastor).

[outcast]

what makes me angry is how they keep claiming shit like "most scientists now claim evolution is false".

what the fuck!? NO THEY DON'T.

there's maybe a handful of people who are *claimed* to be scientists (but who blatantly ignore the scientific principles and thus can't really be called scientists), who do so.

i was given a list of some of these 'scientists' once by a fundie, it wasn't a lot of names (less than a hundred, most of them without credentials, others i didn't even bother to check out), but it was taken as PROOF that science was coming around on the idea of evolution!

so i linked to the "scientists named steve who support evolution" website (presumably humoristically derived from the 'god created adam and eve, not adam and steve, or something like that.). Which had well over 400 names, all with credentials, at the time. But ofcourse, such a list, is rejected instantly as being unimportant.

fucking fucktards.

people like that seriously make me want to forget all about my motto of live and let live and adopt a new one: ATHEIST JIHAD!

[Manus Celer Dei]

My favourite is still the one who emailed Mike telling him that stars couldn't exist.

[Molyneux]

My favourite is still the one who emailed Mike telling him that stars couldn't exist.

...wait, what?
Is that letter up on the website? I haven't run across that one before...*goes to look*

[Manus Celer Dei]

My favourite is still the one who emailed Mike telling him that stars couldn't exist.

...wait, what?
Is that letter up on the website? I haven't run across that one before...*goes to look*

I am link, hear me roar.

[Azazal]

what makes me angry is how they keep claiming shit like "most scientists now claim evolution is false".

what the fuck!? NO THEY DON'T.

For what it's worth: http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.p ... scientists


Don't let the title fool you, it is a listing of scientisits backing evolution and also debunks the creationist argument. Sadly you could hit most creationist over the head with this info and it would never crack through the bone to sink in.

[Darth Wong]

Normally, we're joking when we make fun of, say, right-wingers who treat opposing data as if it's evil. But it's no joke when you're dealing with a fundie; they literally think that opposing information is evil, ie- it comes from Satan and his worldwide conspiracy of lies. So it's not surprising that they simply ignore it; from their perspective, they are protecting themselves from the lies of Satan. That's why it's so annoying to argue with them; they are consciously resisting new information.