Latest dumbshit creationist (May 9, 2008)

Finagle · Post by **Finagle** » 2008-05-13 03:07pm

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Around here, we call them "technical virgins" or "TVs".

Hmm, careful who you use that term around - many people would assume that "TVs" meant transvestites. It could cause a wee bit of confusion...

TithonusSyndrome · Post by **TithonusSyndrome** » 2008-05-13 03:29pm

Finagle wrote:
TithonusSyndrome wrote:Around here, we call them "technical virgins" or "TVs".
Hmm, careful who you use that term around - many people would assume that "TVs" meant transvestites. It could cause a wee bit of confusion...

I don't think the conflict has ever arisen in earnest, I live in a shithole mining community in northern Alberta where alternative cultures are routinely suppressed as a matter of course. If anything I would relish the opportunity to send a horny misogynistic rig pig gunning after a transvestite that he thought was a gullible church girl.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-13 03:48pm

Finagle wrote:I'm utterly speechless. To be honest, I'm having some trouble believing that somebody educated enough to have heard of thermodynamics (which isn't saying much, I grant you, since anyone who has ever taken a science class above the grade 8 or 9 level should know about thermodynamics in the abstract at least) could possibly be stupid enough to come to such a conclusion. Part of me insists that this person, and anyone else making the same or similar claims, must be having a laugh, and can't really believe what they're saying.

I've always believed in an abstract sense that the potential stupidity of humanity knows no bounds, but that really doesn't prepare me to be faced with such blatant examples of it. Holy shit. I think maybe I need to go back to ignoring the whole evolution/creationism "debate" in order to retain what little faith I still have in the intelligence of the human race.

I've got bad news for you: not only is that "thermodynamics" stupidity for real, it's actually quite common among creationists. I've actually lost count of the number of times someone has come after me with that stupidity. And it's not just Internet kiddies. They even continue to publish it in their books and apologetics magazines to this day.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-05-13 05:43pm

Finagle wrote:I'm utterly speechless. To be honest, I'm having some trouble believing that somebody educated enough to have heard of thermodynamics (which isn't saying much, I grant you, since anyone who has ever taken a science class above the grade 8 or 9 level should know about thermodynamics in the abstract at least) could possibly be stupid enough to come to such a conclusion. Part of me insists that this person, and anyone else making the same or similar claims, must be having a laugh, and can't really believe what they're saying.

My own father holds a PhD in electrical engineering from Purdue University yet he wholly subscribes to young-earth creationism, Noah's flood, thermodynamics contradicts evolution, radiometric dating is all a big fraud, etc, etc, etc. He honestly thinks "God can do anything" is a legitimate response to arguments and constantly appeals to Isaiah 40:22 as proof that the entire thing is literal and was scientifically eons ahead of its time when written.

Isaiah 40:22 wrote:It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that astretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

<dad>
See, Isaiah knew the earth was a sphere. The original Hebrew word even means "sphere" so there. So it must have been revealed to him from God. Explain that!!!
</dad>

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-13 06:13pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Isaiah 40:22 wrote:It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that astretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
<dad>
See, Isaiah knew the earth was a sphere. The original Hebrew word even means "sphere" so there. So it must have been revealed to him from God. Explain that!!!
</dad>

Aside from the fact that the passage is meaningless poetry, the phrase "circle of the earth" can be applied to a disc as much as to a sphere and therefore is also meaningless as a descriptor.

Dracofrost · Post by **Dracofrost** » 2008-05-13 06:19pm

Also, hadn't some of the greeks already deduced that earth was spherical before the time of that writting? I mean, it's not that hard to figure out if you watch a ship go over the horizon.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-13 06:32pm

Dracofrost wrote:Also, hadn't some of the greeks already deduced that earth was spherical before the time of that writting?

Eratosthenes even worked out the Earth's circumference with a pretty decent degree of accuracy, if'n I remember rightly.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2008-05-13 10:04pm

Pythagoras (6th century BC) asserted the sphericality of the Earth on aesthetic grounds. Although not scientific argument, since we're admitting any sort of bullshit as "evidence that X knew about it", Pythagoras wins.

PS, isn't there a line in the bible about Jesus being taken to the mountain and shown all the nations of the earth, impossible on a sphere? My bible-fu is very weak.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-05-13 11:41pm

Wyrm wrote:PS, isn't there a line in the bible about Jesus being taken to the mountain and shown all the nations of the earth, impossible on a sphere? My bible-fu is very weak.

Yes.

Matt 4:8 wrote:Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them

The fundie response is of course that it was a vision and therefore doesn't have to be accurate, the kingdoms could have been show sequentially rather than all at the same time, yadda, yadda, yadda. Of course that begs the question of why bother taking Jesus up the mountain in the first place; a vision could be shown anywhere.

Of course fundies never have any problems against lack of self consistency. In Daniel, a vision is described featuring a kingdom which filled the whole earth, which is usually interpreted as the Roman Empire. When its pointed out that the Romans didn't even conquer a majority of the planet, the response is "the whole world they knew about at the time". Yet these people turn around and insist Noah's flood was the entire planet.[/quote]

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2008-05-14 03:01am

Darth Wong wrote:I've got bad news for you: not only is that "thermodynamics" stupidity for real, it's actually quite common among creationists. I've actually lost count of the number of times someone has come after me with that stupidity. And it's not just Internet kiddies. They even continue to publish it in their books and apologetics magazines to this day.

Of course they do. They still argue that the eye could not have evolved since anything less complicated than our eyes couldn't possibly see anything. They've been using that one since Darwin. The thermodynamics argument sounds way more impressive than the eye thing, so they're not going to stop using it for at least another century or two.

They love arguments that make them sound like scientists. That's why people who don't know the first thing about microbiology will gleefully use the bacterial flagellum as their new trump card -- it's the same argument as the eye thing, but they think it makes them sound smart.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-05-14 03:14am

Finagle wrote:I'm utterly speechless. To be honest, I'm having some trouble believing that somebody educated enough to have heard of thermodynamics (which isn't saying much, I grant you, since anyone who has ever taken a science class above the grade 8 or 9 level should know about thermodynamics in the abstract at least) could possibly be stupid enough to come to such a conclusion. Part of me insists that this person, and anyone else making the same or similar claims, must be having a laugh, and can't really believe what they're saying.

I've always believed in an abstract sense that the potential stupidity of humanity knows no bounds, but that really doesn't prepare me to be faced with such blatant examples of it. Holy shit. I think maybe I need to go back to ignoring the whole evolution/creationism "debate" in order to retain what little faith I still have in the intelligence of the human race.

Dude, that's nothing. On another forum I just saw someone claiming that you can alter your DNA by changing your conviction

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2008-05-14 03:51am

Be genetically different, baby!

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-05-14 04:55am

That would explain how we got more man-like over the years! By embracing God our DNA has changed into a new, purer form!

Oskuro · Post by **Oskuro** » 2008-05-14 05:17am

Does that mean I can switch genders if I show enough conviction? Darn, I'm really curious to find what all that moaning is about

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-05-14 09:32am

Dude, that's nothing. On another forum I just saw someone claiming that you can alter your DNA by changing your conviction Laughing

And then you can use your altered DNA to appeal your conviction.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-14 10:39am

I don't think this idiot is coming back. If Ben Stein was spouting this bullshit, I'm guessing he did it in classic Jack Chick style, which is to say that he claimed "no evolutionist has ever been able to answer this" or some other flagrant bullshit. So it might make sense that some dipshit watches Ben Stein's celluloid circus of stupidity, gets brave and thinks he can run around knocking off stupid evolutionists by giving them this invincible argument, and then has no idea how to respond when it doesn't work.

discordian_saint · Post by **discordian_saint** » 2008-05-14 10:48am

...whereas evolution has not produced anything but fossils...

[Advice for our young friend]
Step One: Open your Internet Browser
Step Two: Type "Nylonase" into the search engine text field and do some reading....it's free unlike those things you refer to as 'books'
Step Three: Panic
Step Four: Run off to Answers in Genesis to look for warm blanket and your favorite thumb
Step Five: Read their six "controversial points" about Nylonase while wrapped in your blanket
Step Six: Send another email to SD.net about these "points" and await vindication
Step Seven: Read response email that provides cited reference information to refute your six points. Go Back and repeat Steps 3-6 until Step 7 stops happening then proceed to Step 8
Step Eight: Begin to wonder if you won or if you are being ignored
Step Nine: Decide you are being ignored because you're right
Step Ten: Proclaim your victory across the interwebs
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Unfortunately most woo-heads will think Nylonase is somehow related to Mayonnaise(I mean they rhyme and all) and immediately fail to proceed to Step 1 at all because they are fairly certain Mayonnaise is just a tasty spread. This meme will arise on the Internet as the Great Mayonnaise Controversy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-14 11:09am

The "what does evolution theory produce" argument is like asking what the second law of thermodynamics produces. It doesn't directly produce anything, but it's a fundamental part of a larger system of scientific inquiry which has produced enormous volumes of useful research. All of that larger field research incorporated it into their base of knowledge.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-05-14 09:43pm

And even if all it did produce was fossils, thats still infinitely more than creationism produces.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-05-14 09:48pm

Darth Servo wrote:And even if all it did produce was fossils, thats still infinitely more than creationism produces.

The idea that evolution theory "produced" fossils is based on his belief that the fossils are all fakes. In other words, he believes that if Darwin didn't come up with evolution theory a century and a half ago, then we never would have found all of these fossils.

Finagle · Post by **Finagle** » 2008-05-15 11:05am

Darth Wong wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:And even if all it did produce was fossils, thats still infinitely more than creationism produces.
The idea that evolution theory "produced" fossils is based on his belief that the fossils are all fakes. In other words, he believes that if Darwin didn't come up with evolution theory a century and a half ago, then we never would have found all of these fossils.

How do such people explain the fossils that were found before Darwin came up with his theory? Everyone else here has probably heard their explanations for it a million times, but like I said before, I've never really paid much attention to this so-called debate. Really I'm just curious about how self-deluding people can be.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-05-15 11:08am

I have heard it claimed - with a straight face and absolute sincerity - that Shaitan put those fossils there, in order to deceive and confuse us and distract us from the literal truth of the Bible.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-05-15 11:11am

Kanastrous wrote:I have heard it claimed - with a straight face and absolute sincerity - that Shaitan put those fossils there, in order to deceive and confuse us and distract us from the literal truth of the Bible.

Mm hmm... People who can spout that sort of tripe are pretty much utterly immune to reason.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2008-05-15 12:09pm

In other words, he believes that if Darwin didn't come up with evolution theory a century and a half ago, then we never would have found all of these fossils.

Funny thing is, that I recall Darwin concluding evolution without the fossils, based on things like the geographic location of different animals and stuff like that.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-05-15 12:31pm

Zixinus wrote: Funny thing is, that I recall Darwin concluding evolution without the fossils, based on things like the geographic location of different animals and stuff like that.

When have creationists ever let messy things like "facts" get in the way?