|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Worst Creationist Argument Ever? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
My nomination for worst creationist argument ever:
Many famous scientists reject some of the most basic tenets of evolution, like Stephen Jay Gould and Colin Patterson. And some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known were creationists, like Newton and Galileo. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
My nomination for the worst creo argument ever goes to the argument that evolution leaves god with nothing to do.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
"If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing? A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3937 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Many of you have probably seen it before on FSTDT
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You mean the Sun?
No wonder early Christianity had assimilated so much Sun God theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3937 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
You mean the Sun? Obviously. The reason it is my favorite is that the refutation is built into the argument. Can't get much worse than that. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Very problematic. How could you distinguish between organic matter that originated within the jar from the organic matter that had been placed into the jar at the packing plant? Unless something incredibly unlikely happened, the organic matter placed in the jar would have evidence of billions of years of evolution whereas the the new life wouldn't. It is thus unlikely that the two would life forms would be regarded as even remotely related after molecular analysis (I know I said microscopic, but I was being wrong at the time).
A related problem with new life forming in the present day, besides being able to distinguish it from life that's already existing, is that there's a name for that new life: food! In other words, the life forms that are already present will make lunch out of new organic matter that might form spontaneously. Absolutely - the peanut butter jar is an extremely harsh environment for the origination of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
"How did food evolve?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And we have a new poster with this one:
Was there a worldwide flood? There is plenty of evidence that the flood happened just like the Bible says. In fact, more than 200 ancient and present civilizations have reported different cultural accounts of a worldwide flood. Before I show you some of these accounts, let’s review what the Bible says about the Flood. Evidence among Different cultures.Various versions of the Flood account exist among many cultures some of the most detailed being Sumerian and Babylonian. The oldest flood account, dating before 2,000 B.C., has been found in Sumerian tablets near the Euphrates River. Another amazing flood account, found in the 11th book of the Gilgamesh Epic among Babylonian cuneiform writings, provides one of the strongest evidences, apart from the bible, for the Flood. Here are other amazing accounts. 1. China: Fah-he escaped a great flood with his wife as well as his three songs and three daughters.2. New Guinea: The Lizard man sent a great flood that killed everyone except two brothers, who escaped on a raft. 3. American Athapaskan Indians: Nagaitche survived a flood by riding on a mythological figure called Earth. 4. Peru: A great flood destroyed all humans except six, who escaped on a raft. 5. Alaska: A man, his family, and talking animals survived a flood on a raft. After the flood, the animals, who complained about the long trip on the raft, lost their ability to speak. Naturally, the only true flood account is recorded in the Bible. Love that last line, the logic is so compellng ... ... that's what accounts for all the DIFFERENCES in all those myths right? AND the argument that geology supports a WWF gets included as well. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : 3041 compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
#27 seems very popular here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I hereby retract my own entry and place my support behind Dwise1's:
"How did food evolve?" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2518 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The worst Creationist argument is the same as the best Creationist argument.
"It says so in this book" Basically it all comes down to that. I've never seen any Creationist offer anything other than that as the sum total of their response. Sometimes you have to dig a little, sometimes you don't. But, in the end, it's always the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2539 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
New Guinea: The Lizard man sent a great flood that killed everyone except two brothers, who escaped on a raft. Oops. Looks like that even if god didn't create Adam and Steve, those were the two who survived. Sorry Eve, looks like Adam loved Steve more. As for the worst creo argument? I'd have to say the whole of simple's arguments (wait, those were arguments!?) in his debate against RAZD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
The peanut butter one is good, but not particularly bad as it merely asserts that abiogenesis hasn't been directly observed. (Neither has creation ex nihilo, but they don't go there).
I think the "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" would have to be worse than the peanut butter one. I have to vote, however, for one I recently heard attributed to Harun Yahya: evolution is a satanic Western Christian conspiracy against Muslims. Charles Darwin - at one point - studied to be a clergyman, so therefore he was front and centre in nurturing said conspiracy. (source) That's gotta be the worst argument I've heard recently, although it isn't new. Just take something that your countrymen hate (for Americans, it would be atheists or communists), and claim that Darwin was one. Evolution disproved! Edited by Doddy, : titled Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... is the "evolution is religion" argument ...
... based on the "everyone is just as stupid, ignorant, deluded and malicious as I am" principle .... applied to the lowest common denominator? Is there really a worst argument? compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024