Jump to content

Funny Creationist "Logic"


Recommended Posts

Funniest article I've read in awhile.

There are many reasons (scientific and theological) to reject evolution

Evolution's acceptance is not based on logic or science. It's based on man's inclination to trust the theories of man more than the teachings of God.

non-Christians are quick to call us superstitious or naive even though there is ample scientific evidence for creation. And sometimes non-Christians will lie about our beliefs. Did you know that Christians never believed in a flat earth?

No backup for her claims that evolution is not based on logic or science.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just bless her little heart. That was seriously stupid. Even back in my fundie days I would have realized that that sort of argument wouldn't hold up to any sort of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that sure taught me! I'll stick my fingers in my ears and reject every little bit of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory, just on her say-so! :wanker:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that Christians never believed in a flat earth?

I had never heard that.

She needs to give some proof to that statement.

I have read some believe the sun goes around the earth...

Observation and correct mathematics have proven geocentricity - that the earth is the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around the earth once each day.

.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html I don't think it is a satire site

What is geocentricity?

Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are:

a. the earth is the center of the universe,

b. the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and

c. the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.

.icr.org/article/geocentricity-creation/ (this page says also that some uninformed public schools still teach the idea of planets going around the sun, despite the fact that has been disproven.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution's acceptance is not based on logic or science. It's based on man's inclination to trust the theories of man more than the teachings of God.

The teachings of who ? Is he a famous scientist ?

non-Christians are quick to call us superstitious or naive even though there is ample scientific evidence for creation. And sometimes non-Christians will lie about our beliefs. Did you know that Christians never believed in a flat earth?

I once heard a priest tell me that pictures of the round earth was "a conspiracy of the U.S." (or Freemasons, or Jews, or Protestants, here it is always the Jews, Freemasons, American Protestants who hide the truth to the nice europeans white and catholic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she values logic and science so highly, then why is she. creationist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...then why were Copernicus and Galileo branded as heretics and in the case of Galileo, brought before the Church and made to retract his claims under threat of torture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that Christians never believed in a flat earth?

Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... lic_Church

"Christ Community Church in Zion, Illinois, formerly the Christian Catholic Church or Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, is an evangelical Protestant church founded in 1896 by John Alexander Dowie."

"Under Wilbur Glenn Voliva, Dowie's successor, the church was noted for its adherence to a flat earth cosmology."

It's sensible to assume that Christians never believed in a flat earth, given that the theory of a round earth was already widely accepted by the time Christianity appeared. However, reading through [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth]Wikipedia's Flat Earth entry[/link] shows that, throughout history, there have been Christian flat-earthers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm...then why were Copernicus and Galileo branded as heretics and in the case of Galileo, brought before the Church and made to retract his claims under threat of torture?

Geocentricity, as explained above.

Flat earth belief (as opposed to uninformed base assumption by the peons) is pretty recent. I expect what the simplistic blogger meant to say was that the mediaeval church didn't believe in a flat earth, which is perfectly true. "Never", on the other hand, is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She responded to Ice's comment

Thanks for your question. The myth of "flat earth Christians" has really taken hold despite the facts.

Copernicus and Galileo actually argued for a heliocentric solar system not a spherical earth. The spherical earth was accepted at that time by both the church and secular scholars.

And it wasn't simply the church that disagreed with Copernicus and Galileo. Aristotle's ancient geocentric view of the solar system was still generally accepted by secular scholars in Copernicus' time.

In addition, there was a lot of political complexity in things done by the Catholic Church during that period. Saying this was Bible vs. science oversimplifies the event.

Let me refer you to several articles that can give you a more thorough explanation of this myth:

Flat Earth:


Myth of the Flat Earth:


Myth of the Flat Earth Controversy:


The flat earth myth actually began in the fiction of Washington Irving:


Thanks again for the question.

The Wiki Articles aren't bad, but Wiki, a creationist site and her own page without any citations aren't exactly legitimate sites.

The first article she quotes sort of disagrees with her notion that Christians never believed in a flat Earth.

Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) may have argued for a flat Earth based on scriptures; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known to us only by a criticism of it by Photius.[75] Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408), wrote that the Earth is flat and the sun does not pass under it in the night, but "travels through the northern parts as if hidden by a wall".[76] The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans.

In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes[77] St. John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c. 293 – 373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a comment on the blog:

What scientific reasons are there to reject evolution? What evidence do you have that evolution is not logical or scientific?

Her response:

Great question, Marie. I've done a lot of study on this subject, but still consider myself a novice. I'll give you some links to sites that have tons of scientific evidence for rejecting evolution.

But I think the most important thought I can give you personally is this: no one was present at creation--whether we are evolutionists or creationists, we know this truth.

Therefore, we look at evidence through the lens of our beliefs. The evolutionist sees something in nature and explains how it evolved. The creationist explains how it was created. There is no evidence that proves either belief. They both require faith. We just choose what/Who we will have faith in.

Evolutionists admit there is an absence of intermediary life forms in the fossil record. They explain why these are absent based on their faith in evolution.The creationist believes they are absent because they didn't exist. The evolutionist examines the fossil of a bird with reptilian features and explains it is an intermediary life form. The creationist simply sees it as an extinct creature. The scientific evidence neither proves nor disproves either belief.

The public schools are not allowed to teach both views even when God is left out of the creationists view and it is simply called "Intelligent design." Therefore, most people accept the dogma of evolutionary science without knowing it's flaws or hearing other ways to interpret the evidence.

Now, for all sorts of details that I would only poorly transmit to you, I recommend the sights below. They are Christian-based, but they are composed of scientists who share scientific evidence about creation, evidence that is prohibited in public schools:

Insitutute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/

The Creation Research Society: http://www.creationresearch.or...

Creation Research: http://www.creationresearch.ne...

Here's a site that is not Christian as such, but is made up of scientists who feel the sciences have been corrupted by preconceived theories like evolution. It's called Uncommon Descent: http://www.uncommondescent.com...

I hope this was helpful to you. Thanks again for your question.

Her sites are Christian websites. I have read through a couple of them before and they do not have any evidence to disprove evolution. It's all just ancient text based and no science.

And the last site is also Christian, though she claims it's not. It mocks atheists rather harshly and tells atheists to just laugh at ourselves. I can laugh at myself, but I don't laugh at blatant intent to degrade or dismiss anyone's beliefs. Creationists are free to believe as they wish. They are not allowed to push their religious viewpoint as scientific evidence where none exists and it does not belong in the US public school classroom, especially as science.

I responded back. No ill feelings, just wanted to explain better. I want to be as kind as I can and reason with people.

The links you provided do not have any evidence for rejecting the theory of evolution. They are religious in nature and do not disprove evolution. Evolution is continually being tested and so far it continues to hold up to the scientific method. Creation is a theory for some as well, but at this point it does not stand up to the scientific method and is entirely based on an ancient text of one religion: Christianity. It's okay to believe in creation/intelligent design and each individual has the right to believe as they wish. However, one religion's viewpoint does not belong in the classroom of a public school in a nation that has freedom of religion. There are hundreds of religious beliefs in this country and it's important to respect them all. Parents are free to teach their children any religious viewpoint they wish, but religion is a personal matter, not a school or government matter.

No theory can be proven, only disproved. That's the foundation of science. You can only disprove a theory, never prove it. Gravity is another example of a scientific theory that has yet to be disproved. Science is always looking for new evidence and theories to explain the world around them. That's what science is all about.

If anyone has evidence that truly disproves evolution, might I suggest they write down, get it peer-reviewed and submit it. That person would get a noble prize.

I'm not sure how or if she will respond to this, but I imagine she'd just go back to trying to discredit the theory of evolution without any real evidence. There are very few scientists who believe creation has evidence or merit in science. Creation/intelligent design belongs in religious/world religions classes as myth/belief as it does not hold up to the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Bluebirdbluebell


      Disgusted with Catholic Church over Cardinal Pell's funeral this week. It really reflects poorly on the church and should be a red flag to Catholics.
      · 0 replies
    • PennySycamore


      I've been away since about 10 PM on Monday evening.  My husband noticed that my speech was a bit slurred, called my daughter to see if she concurred and they both agreed that I needed to go to the hospital.  There I was taken back within minutes to be evaluated for a stroke.   My BP was sky-high. I. undressed and was helped into a hospital gown.  The PureWick did not work that night so when I had to go I just went.  (I do want a PureWick if I ever get urinary stress incontenence though and would need to wear diapers.). 
      I had a CT scan fairly early the next morning and it confirmed that I'd sufffered a mild stroke,  I had an MRI that afternoon which confirmed the both the mild stroke and no other damage and yet I had another CT scan -this time with a contrast medium injected.  I was allowed the Heart Healthy diet and my BP had dropped to 180/100.  They don'y want to drop the BP too rapidly so it has dropped enough to turn to Lisinipril to drop it further.
      After the ER. I was sent to the ICU and stayed until I was discharged this afternoon.  The staff were all really nice and my husband and two daughters were with me most of the time, helping out.  My oldest daughter's van was in the shop so I let her borrow the MINI since I knew she could drive a stick.  When she was visiting yesterday afternoon, her husband was in the ER waiting on a CT can and today, she was there when the speech pathologist was visiting.  She was able to get some good advice from her as her husband is currently unable to swallow.
      Anyway I'm home.  My dogs and the cat to see me home, especially my dachsie, were happy to see me home.
      A couple of things I learned:
      I need to teach my husband about loading the dishwasher.
      Jill would never be able to handle bedpans.
      · 1 reply
    • 47of74


      Fornicate.  Six more weeks of winter according to Phil.
      · 0 replies
    • Jinder Roles

      Jinder Roles

      Currently obsessed with Laura Mvula, a musical genius
      · 0 replies
    • Bluebirdbluebell


      I highly recommend Not the Good Girl's Youtube channel. She is making great documentaries about cults.
      · 0 replies
    • BlackberryGirl


      Ohh jeeze, GrandBerry6 just came to me, snuggled his face in my neck and barfed, all over me. In my neck, in my hair, on my face, down inside my nightie all over the front of my nightie. Ohh FUCK! Bath, washed hair, cleaned sofa. Good times, good times.
      · 3 replies
    • Scrabblemaster


      I danced through my living room feeling awesome. From time to time I do this. Maybe wine is involved. Good music is definitely involved. It is awesome. I recommend it to you. With or without wine.
      · 2 replies
    • Hazelbunny


      After a few months of trying to decide what kind of new computer to get and my brother telling me a Mac would be the best decision I could ever make and my sister telling me that would be the worst and I ought to stick to Windows.... I now have a used Mac. I am trying to get used to it. Not easy, but the Magnifying program is a lot better than the Windows one (that was the ultimate reason for my decision) and FJ works a lot better than on my 10-year old Laptop, too!!  
      · 0 replies
    • WannabeHistorian


      Y'all, holter monitors suck. And naturally the palpitations that caused this test to be ordered are remarkably absent today. 
      I'm off to go work out in the hopes that triggers it. T minus 10 hours till I get this thing off. 
      · 4 replies
    • 47of74


      Fuck Fornicate.  Glad I got in to see this place before the world went to shit.
      · 0 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.