Silly Creationists
Posted by James on May 11, 2011 · 25 Comments
At least they’re funny
Comments
25 Responses to “Silly Creationists”Speak Your Mind
Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
^w^ oh i so agree that creationists are wrong~
@antiform47 “If” scientists told me man evolved from mushrooms (strawman) I would read what they said and read the counter arguments. If it made sense I would accept it. christians believe in “god” with absolutely no evidence at all and god is simply a man made construct. I don’t “believe” in Man – human beings are a fact , we exist. How old were you when you first believed in god, and why?
@lewisner why is it ludicrous? because a man told you so? If scientists told you we came from say, mushrooms, would you believe them!? oh wait… The facts are there, Christians believe in God, and atheists believe in man.
@necr0sys Countless frauds? Name 10.
Scratch that. 5 confirmed frauds used to try and prove evolution.
@War4Gore Ben Stein
@699backstab And youtube is the needle used to inject it
0:25 what is that guy’s name again?
religion comes to die on the internet. Science is gods kryptonite
2:59. That’s a good idea.
@necr0sys No dating method can be 100% accurate. That’s why, if you read about this from a source other than a creationist website, the rock samples need to be carefully analysed for their origin and different dating methods need to be used for different minerals.
Whether the rocks were 0.5 or 2.8 million years old that’s on a whole different scale to saying the entire Earth is 6,800 years old which is ludicrous.
@lewisner thats on the basis that radioisotope dating is 100% accurate. During the 80’s a set of experiments were done using this dating method on a rock sample from a newly formed lava dome on Mount of St Helens. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years, which was obviously false.
@necr0sys said “The facts are that major animal and plant groups appeared suddenly in the fossil record ” By “suddenly” you mean 82 MILLION YEARS which was the time span covered by the Cambrian explosion.
@necr0sys Ok, this was fun for a while but now your just being willfully ingonrant. Just google transitional forms and you will get thousends of them.
@DragonGreenFire The fact is the fossil record does not show transitions between species. There should be millions and millions of transitional fossils yet there nothing near that. There have been countless frauds. Evolutionists are well aware of the cambrian explosion and the sudden appearance of all of the major animal and plant groups. I think you are on a different planet.
@necr0sys 1/2: Once again, what planet do you live on?
3-5: Did you forget how to count?
6: So we say one thing that is not technicly evidence but still makes a good case and that means the entier theory is wrong?
7: Yay! Another death bed convertion story with only 1 obscure witness.
5: Shouldn’t this go before 6? (See 7)
1: So there is 2 1s? (See 1/2)
@DragonGreenFire cont…They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7
@DragonGreenFire Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” 5 He continues: The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. tbc
@skatesgirl66 it takes million of years not a few days
@necr0sys What planet do you live on? Becuse here on Earth, the fossil record shows a clear shift from species to species over millions of years.
@seth3481 No offense man but there is a lot of things they leave out in books these days. They don’t even mention the cambrian explosion in text books at schools. The facts are that major animal and plant groups appeared suddenly in the fossil record and there is no fossilized evidence single celled organisms (which we have found fossilized) evolved into entirely new species. There have been countless frauds on transtitional fossils.
@DragonGreenFire That is the way evolution is supposed to work. You find fossilized evidence of single celled organisms (which we have). You then expect to find fossils of transitions leading up to major plant and animal groups. Yet there is sweet bugger all. All the major animal and plant groups appear suddenly in their full form. It’s no strawman…its a fact.
@necr0sys We have.
@necr0sys We do. But your probley going to pull the classic strawman of evolution, “We have only found fossils of indivigual species, never a 1/2 and 1/2.” As if thats the way evolution worked.
@skatesgirl66 “also, if you believe in evolution, why isnt it? still going on today?”
Do you know anything about biology? Oh my bad, I mean something you didn’t learn from a creationist website.
@seth3481 If evolution were true, we should have thousands of millions of transitional fossils linking each major animal and plant group together, abundant proof…yet we find the opposite. We have found over a hundred million fossils of all the major animal groups so why not just as many transitionals?