Christian destroys narrow-minded Atheist Idiot

Watch
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1


Inb4 fedora-wearers.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
You put Atheist and Creationist the wrong way round in the title.
0
reply
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
You put Atheist and Creationist the wrong way round in the title.
Notice how the creationist has a very strong bone structure and commanding voice while the anti-creationist has no jawline, is fat, and has a high pitched emotional voice?

I imagine you as the second guy.
0
reply
Skip_Snip
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
Notice how the creationist has a very strong bone structure and commanding voice while the anti-creationist has no jawline, is fat, and has a high pitched emotional voice?

I imagine you as the second guy.
Unlike the Atheist, the creationist made no attempt at raising an actual argument - I imagine you as that guy.
2
reply
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Skip_Snip)
Unlike the Atheist, the creationist made no attempt at raising an actual argument - I imagine you as that guy.
How can you raise an argument with someone who rashly discounts creationists as scientists?
1
reply
Gwilym101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
How can you raise an argument with someone who rashly discounts creationists as scientists?
Because they're not scientists.

Scientists look at available evidence and form conclusions based on the evidence.

Creationists start with conclusions and make desperate attempts to find things to support them, which typically fail under scientific scrutiny.
0
reply
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Gwilym101)
Because they're not scientists.

Scientists look at available evidence and form conclusions based on the evidence.

Creationists start with conclusions and make desperate attempts to find things to support them, which typically fail under scientific scrutiny.
You are wrong. Scientists take work from others (like Darwin) and go from there, just like creationists do.

Image
0
reply
Gwilym101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
You are wrong. Scientists take work from others (like Darwin) and go from there, just like creationists do.
They only "take" work from others when it has been consistently shown to be accurate. It's called Peer Review. Case and point, Darwin got some things wrong, and those pieces of his initially theory have been removed, edited or improved.

Scientists are constantly trying to disprove one another not work together.

Creationists have never managed to get anything published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. If they did and someone managed to show that the Theory of Evolution was wrong they would win the nobel prize in about twenty different fields of science simultaneously.

You're also supporting my case by consistently referring to creationists and Scientists as different people.
1
reply
spanker
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Wrong forums.
0
reply
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Gwilym101)

You're also supporting my case by consistently referring to creationists and Scientists as different people.
No I'm trying to look at it from your angle so you can connect the dots and realise creationists have as much right to be acknowledged as scientists as evolutionists do.

Peer reviews are heavily biased.
0
reply
SnoochToTheBooch
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\
1
reply
Gwilym101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
No I'm trying to look at it from your angle so you can connect the dots and realise creationists have as much right to be acknowledged as scientists as evolutionists do.

Peer reviews are heavily biased.
They don't have the right to be acknowledged as scientists. There is no evidence supporting their argument and mountains of evidence disproving their claims. Like astrologers, homeopaths, and antivaxxers, they are not scientists, they actively oppose science.

Peer reviews are not heavily biased, as I said, scientists by and large want to disprove everyone elses work. All peer review is, is someone going over the methodology and statistics to see if its consistent, then repeating the experiment themselves to see if they get similar results. If they don't, the researcher is rejected from being published. Once it is published the rest of the scientific community is going to try and prove that researcher wrong.

Fundamentally Evolution is a fact, we know it happens we have seen it occur. The "Theory" aspect is how it happens.
0
reply
Arkasia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
This thread is going to be a massacre. It's been a long time since someone mentioned religion without naming Islam.
0
reply
CJKay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
Where's the part where he gets destroyed?
All he did was ask questions. And lol at considering creationist literature as science wtf.
0
reply
Helen_in_Ireland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
How can you raise an argument with someone who rashly discounts creationists as scientists?
Oops. Sorry - I gave you a plus. I thought that you wrote 'someone who rashly COUNTS creationists as scientists. '

Which, of course, creationists aren't...
1
reply
CJKay
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
No I'm trying to look at it from your angle so you can connect the dots and realise creationists have as much right to be acknowledged as scientists as evolutionists do.

Peer reviews are heavily biased.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
No I'm trying to look at it from your angle so you can connect the dots and realise creationists have as much right to be acknowledged as scientists as evolutionists do.

Peer reviews are heavily biased.
No they do not. In a scientific debate, the right to be acknowledged depends entirely on what scientific evidence you can present. Creationism is not science and the body of scientific evidence we have overwhelmingly supports evolution, while none of it supports creationism.

Creationism is not science. It involves people picking their conclusion first and then looking for evidence to support it, rather than the other way around. Creationists attack all evidence they disagree with and refuse to accept it, even when all evidence points to it being valid. Meanwhile any "evidence" that appears to support them they accept without question, even when there is good reason to question it (e.g. not published in peer review). That is not a scientific practice. That does not belong in a scientific debate because it is not contributing to or engaging with a scientific debate.

Creationism has absolutely no scientific backing.
0
reply
HowDoIget4Astars
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by RFowler)
Creationists attack all evidence they disagree with and refuse to accept it, even when all evidence points to it being valid.
Did you watch the video? Seemed like the evil lunionist was doing just what you say creationists do.
0
reply
whatsaapppp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
Image
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by HowDoIget4Astars)
Did you watch the video? Seemed like the evil lunionist was doing just what you say creationists do.
It's only a very short video. The "evolutionist" position is supported by evidence, the creationist one is not.

There's plenty of evidence available outside that short video if you're willing to look for it. Plenty of evidence of evolution, but also plenty of evidence of creationists doing exactly what I have described.

Another thing I forgot to mention - sometimes creationists may selectively quote little bits of stuff out of context to make it appear that they have evidence behind them, when that piece of evidence when viewed in its entirety doesn't support their position at all.

Creationism is borne out of religion, not science.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (31)
13.84%
Virtual campus tours/open days (50)
22.32%
Live streaming events (21)
9.38%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (21)
9.38%
A uni comparison tool (51)
22.77%
An in-person event when available (50)
22.32%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed