Top 25 Creationist Fallacies
Arctic_Menace @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:24 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
It never fails to amaze me how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place.
Paradoxically, the attacks sometimes evidence such religious fervor as to make me wonder if some them would like to actually find God in the flesh just so's they can spit in His face.
Paradoxically, the attacks sometimes evidence such religious fervor as to make me wonder if some them would like to actually find God in the flesh just so's they can spit in His face.
Wrong wrong wrong. Attacking creationism and religious faith operate on different levels since creationism tries to explain real world occurences with religious dogma and junk science.
The entire creationist argument is one gigantic attack on virtually every known scientific discipline and so we respond by using point by point systematic annihilation of their arguments.
All we do is present the truth and you should be aware that far more christians believe in evolution then don't.
As for your incorrect assesment that Atheism should just stand idilly by suffering the slings and arrows while they are vilified it begs the question:
"Why do you invest so much time and effort defending something you believe to be true"?
Same logic seems to apply.
Brenda @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:27 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Brenda Brenda:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Brenda Brenda:
$1:
It never fails to amaze me how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place.
It never fails to amaze me what a bullshit statement this is.
And when was the last time I said this?
Does it matter when you said that last?
The statement you made is bullshit, and I have heard it way to many times. It is disrespectful, it is a generalization and untrue
It was my opinion. True or untrue is irrelevant as I based my opinion on personal experience - most of which is from this very site.
And here you are investing effort into this and doing what? Proving me right. Thanks.
Hahaha, I am not proving anything. You can have an opinion, but you stated it as being a fact
DerbyX @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:28 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DerbyX DerbyX:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Why not just ignore it?
A question that applys equally to us. Why did you respond?
Because it just seems intellectually vapid to invest so much effort into this. From either side.
(You will notice I've never taken a pro-Creationist stance on any of this, right?)
Creationists deny the facts that are right in front of them and you folks are trying to reason with them?
If they were capable of reason, as the last so many Popes were, they'd acknowledge that evolution and the various theories on how the earth came about are not considered to be in conflict with faith.
They make an argument based on an ignorant understanding of Scripture.
That makes them wrong on several fronts and they won't listen to anyone who tells them otherwise.
Arguing with them is a pointless act of futility. Why anyone invests any effort in such silliness escapes me. So long as their deliberate ignorance is confined to their homes, churches, and private schools I ignore them.
It would save you folks a lot of time and frustration were you to do the same.
Why argue with 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Scape asked me the same thing though it was why argue with RR over his hysterical anti-Liberalism. The arguement had the same principle behind it as yours.
The answer (for me at least anyway) is often to present your argument for the people reading rather then the person you are debating. Of course there is always the comic relief angle and the sense of fullfillment when you reduce their argument to tatters using brilliant logic. Admittedly since the creationists always use the same old arguments time and again it seems redundant.
Still, its damn funny sometimes.
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:36 am
Brenda Brenda:
Hahaha, I am not proving anything. You can have an opinion, but you stated it as being a fact
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
It never fails to amaze me how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place.
I know English is a second language for you so let me help you out here:
"It never fails to amaze me" is the dominant clause in this sentence which contains the verb.
"how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place." is the subordinate clause which contains the subject.
And the representation of 'fact' that you mistakely espouse is present in neither clause of the sentence.
And who is amazed here? Me.
That denotes personal experience.
And here's a fun question: Since you assert that a "fact" is represented in my sentence, what fact would that be, exactly?
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:37 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
Still, its damn funny sometimes.
Okay, now THAT's a valid excuse for taunting them.
DerbyX @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:45 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
DerbyX DerbyX:
Still, its damn funny sometimes.
Okay, now THAT's a valid excuse for taunting them.
Tricks @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:47 am
Durandal Durandal:
And darwinists have faith in the fake science they moddled to make it match their imagination.
We discussed about it allready.
Tell me, do you believe in global warming?
We discussed about it allready.
Brenda @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:49 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Brenda Brenda:
Hahaha, I am not proving anything. You can have an opinion, but you stated it as being a fact
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
It never fails to amaze me how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place.
I know English is a second language for you so let me help you out here:
"It never fails to amaze me" is the dominant clause in this sentence which contains the verb.
"how much effort atheists invest into attacking things they say don't exist in the first place." is the subordinate clause which contains the subject.
And the representation of 'fact' that you mistakely espouse is present in neither clause of the sentence.
And who is amazed here? Me.
That denotes personal experience.
And here's a fun question: Since you assert that a "fact" is represented in my sentence, what fact would that be, exactly?
Well, I read it like this:
It never fails to amaze me (as always, I am amazed by) how much effort atheist invest blah blah (the fact that atheist always have to attack things they don't believe in anyways).
So, yeah, the amazed part is your personal experience. But the reason you are amazed, it stated as fact
You made it sound like Atheists (as in ALL Atheists) are always attacking religion, just to prove they are right by being Atheists. That is what I find complete bullshit (personal opinion
). Anyone can believe in whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. I made the choice to not be religious. Whatever you (or anybody elses) choice is, doesn't matter to me, nor am I the one to tell anybody what he/she should believe in or not. I would like to see many religious people do the same.
BartSimpson @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:53 am
Brenda Brenda:
Well, I read it like this:
It never fails to amaze me (as always, I am amazed by) how much effort atheist invest blah blah (the fact that atheist always have to attack things they don't believe in anyways).
So, yeah, the amazed part is your personal experience. But the reason you are amazed, it stated as fact
You made it sound like Atheists (as in ALL Atheists) are always attacking religion, just to prove they are right by being Atheists. That is what I find complete bullshit (personal opinion). Anyone can believe in whatever they want. I made the choice to not be religious. Whatever you (or anybody elses) choice is, doesn't matter to me, nor am I the one to tell anybody what he/she should believe in or not. I would like to see many religious people do the same.
It never fails to amaze me (as always, I am amazed by) how much effort atheist invest blah blah (the fact that atheist always have to attack things they don't believe in anyways).
So, yeah, the amazed part is your personal experience. But the reason you are amazed, it stated as fact
You made it sound like Atheists (as in ALL Atheists) are always attacking religion, just to prove they are right by being Atheists. That is what I find complete bullshit (personal opinion
). Anyone can believe in whatever they want. I made the choice to not be religious. Whatever you (or anybody elses) choice is, doesn't matter to me, nor am I the one to tell anybody what he/she should believe in or not. I would like to see many religious people do the same.Now you're arguing against something that I didn't say at all. Who then are you arguing with?
Robair @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:04 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
The entire creationist argument is one gigantic attack on virtually every known scientific discipline and so we respond by using point by point systematic annihilation of their arguments.
True, but, kinda funny coming from someone who just equated Francis Bacon with Fred Flintstone. 
Blue_Nose @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:27 pm
Durandal Durandal:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Sorry, nobody cares if you're impressed.
Gosh, excuuuse me, hum... [darwin=on]yes Blue_Nose, your video is superb, you are a genious and it was a wonderful idea to post it here. Hurra ! Hurra ![darwin=off]
Durandal Durandal:
And darwinists have faith in the fake science they moddled to make it match their imagination.
Well now, little 17 year old Durandal, tell us all about the 'real' science that eludes the experts in the vast scope of biology that relies on evolutionary science as a basis of its knowledge. Let's hear how 'darwinists' manage to hide the 'real' science from everyone to prove their own agenda to be reality.Durandal Durandal:
We discussed about it allready.
Yes, we discussed about your opinion that wings can't evolve - fascinating stuff, that was. Durandal Durandal:
It's true evolutionists can't discuss the matter without relying on insults. Everywear I go it's the same. Must be too much despair or something.
sasquatch2 @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:50 am
Dr. Caleb
$1:
It's rather entertaining too when Creationists take bits of that evidence to promote their fallacy, and ignore the processes that found the evidence in the first place.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
Indeed! The problem begins when the creationists insist that their supreme/divine being stood on one foot and waved a magic wand to creat all species etc. exactely 5000 years ago +- 20-30 years.
If you were to attempt to explain the big bang, star ofrmation, planetary development, the emergence of life and evolution to a bronze age goat-herd.....how would you phrase it.
The hint is in the scripture:
"A day in the life of the lord is as of a thousand years."
Mustang1 @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:00 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Dr. Caleb
Indeed! The problem begins when the creationists insist that their supreme/divine being stood on one foot and waved a magic wand to creat all species etc. exactely 5000 years ago +- 20-30 years.
If you were to attempt to explain the big bang, star ofrmation, planetary development, the emergence of life and evolution to a bronze age goat-herd.....how would you phrase it.
The hint is in the scripture:
"A day in the life of the lord is as of a thousand years."
$1:
It's rather entertaining too when Creationists take bits of that evidence to promote their fallacy, and ignore the processes that found the evidence in the first place.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
Indeed! The problem begins when the creationists insist that their supreme/divine being stood on one foot and waved a magic wand to creat all species etc. exactely 5000 years ago +- 20-30 years.
If you were to attempt to explain the big bang, star ofrmation, planetary development, the emergence of life and evolution to a bronze age goat-herd.....how would you phrase it.
The hint is in the scripture:
"A day in the life of the lord is as of a thousand years."
Brilliant. Well, I'm glad that's solved. Why would an omnipotent entity even bother with time? Moreover, how does rectify the fact that "morning" and "night" are clearly stated in the Creation Story and yet, we're now to believe that encompassed an era? And, does the math add up? In fact, if they're truly a supreme deity, why mention any ratios - isn't it plain enough with the miraculous act?
And why is there NEVER any mention of the countless evolutionary dead ends? Why is man's rise to H. Homo Sapiens so biologically tortured, convoluted and chalk full of branches that go no where in the evolutionary bush? Evidently this smashes apart the first book of the Bible
Blue_Nose @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:15 am
More to add to the list:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Brilliant. Well, I'm glad that's solved. Why would an omnipotent entity even bother with time? Moreover, how does rectify the fact that "morning" and "night" are clearly stated in the Creation Story and yet, we're now to believe that encompassed an era? And, does the math add up? In fact, if they're truly a supreme deity, why mention any ratios - isn't it plain enough with the miraculous act?
And why is there NEVER any mention of the countless evolutionary dead ends? Why is man's rise to H. Homo Sapiens so biologically tortured, convoluted and chalk full of branches that go no where in the evolutionary bush? Evidently this smashes apart the first book of the Bible
Why would the creation story claim that light was created after the earth, when we know the opposite is true?
And why is there NEVER any mention of the countless evolutionary dead ends? Why is man's rise to H. Homo Sapiens so biologically tortured, convoluted and chalk full of branches that go no where in the evolutionary bush? Evidently this smashes apart the first book of the Bible
Why would the creation story claim that the stars be created after the earth, when we know the opposite is true?
Why would the creation story claim that water be created before dry land, when we know the opposite is true?
What the hell is a 'firmament'?
Why is there a second Creation story later in Genesis that's completely different? Do we get to pick which we like better?
DrCaleb @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:53 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Dr. Caleb
Indeed! The problem begins when the creationists insist that their supreme/divine being stood on one foot and waved a magic wand to creat all species etc. exactely 5000 years ago +- 20-30 years.
If you were to attempt to explain the big bang, star ofrmation, planetary development, the emergence of life and evolution to a bronze age goat-herd.....how would you phrase it.
The hint is in the scripture:
"A day in the life of the lord is as of a thousand years."
$1:
It's rather entertaining too when Creationists take bits of that evidence to promote their fallacy, and ignore the processes that found the evidence in the first place.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
As for faith - there is still room for it. One doesn't have to bow to creationists to have faith, one doesn't have to be a scientist to ignore it.
"The Big Bang does not preclude God's creation of the Universe; it simply sets a time at which He did it." Stephen Hawkings, 'A Brief History of Time'.
Creationists never stop to consider that the Universe may have been created by God, beginning to end, to be exactly what we perceive it to be. That takes into account both Scientific observation and Creationism. Science explains the 'how'. The question of 'why' is left to faith.
Indeed! The problem begins when the creationists insist that their supreme/divine being stood on one foot and waved a magic wand to creat all species etc. exactely 5000 years ago +- 20-30 years.
If you were to attempt to explain the big bang, star ofrmation, planetary development, the emergence of life and evolution to a bronze age goat-herd.....how would you phrase it.
The hint is in the scripture:
"A day in the life of the lord is as of a thousand years."
Brilliant. Well, I'm glad that's solved. Why would an omnipotent entity even bother with time? Moreover, how does rectify the fact that "morning" and "night" are clearly stated in the Creation Story and yet, we're now to believe that encompassed an era? And, does the math add up? In fact, if they're truly a supreme deity, why mention any ratios - isn't it plain enough with the miraculous act?
And why is there NEVER any mention of the countless evolutionary dead ends? Why is man's rise to H. Homo Sapiens so biologically tortured, convoluted and chalk full of branches that go no where in the evolutionary bush? Evidently this smashes apart the first book of the Bible
'The Bible' is an invention of man, translated from Arameic to Greek to Latin to Old English to modern English by people with agendas. At least in this, the Qu'ran has things set right that it must be an exact copy. What happens when you make a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy? Now, what if the photocopier has an agenda? And we know they had an agenda, as there are many 'books' that are not in all versions of the Bible - like the Book of Ruth.
Take for example, the sixth commandment in the King James Bible: "Thou shalt not kill:. Now, in the original dead sea scrolls: "You will not kill one another". Bit of a difference, eh? The list of what man may eat makes more sense, now that we can kill animals.
One cannot rely on the Bible as anything other than a 'for dummies' translation, anymore than one can say 'The Elder Scrolls of Zion' is any less of a hoax.
As for evolutionary dead ends - we find those all the time. The DNA evidence that Primates evolved from a common ancestor is not in question; that we haven't found that ancestor does not preclude it's existence.
Where are the flippers or fins on this ancestor of the Whale and Dolphin?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7150627.stm
What in the 'Bible' precludes an entity we'll call 'God' from deciding 14.3 billion years ago that the Universe would be constructed; particle for particle, universal constants included, in such a way to be exactly as we see it and experience it now? How do we know this was not the designed outcome from the start? How do we know that this conversation was also not part of that plan 14.3 billion years ago?
We can embrace the universe as we see it, and can prove through scientific observation and experiment it's inner workings - and still have room for faith.