.: posted 1/30/2008 ::: by webmdave :::   

This is part of a superb series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science. -- Thunderf00t

 elephantman wrote:

His grand canyon claim has to do with depth of the grand canyon and you are disputing it based on the length. You should get laughed at for that. Extreme water pressure could carve out the grand canyon in a relatively short time (meaning a couple of years). Or it could have been created that way.

You also state that H2O is the second most common element in the universe. I believe you've just proved his thesis, that it is uncanny that so much of it is here. You've found it on other planets, but why is so much here compared to the other planets.

Percentages are based on a standard of measurement. Neither one of you stated your standard. It sounds like you're equally equipped to do battle.

I'm not saying that he's the smartest thing on the planet, but you certainly aren't either.

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Mr. Elephant,

There are 15 videos in this presentation. Did you only watch the first one?

Brother.

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Now if I could only figure out how to down-load them, as separate files, and burn them to a DVD so they could be used more easily in the class-room

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 tinyfrog wrote:

The creationist in this video is VenomFangX. He's snarky, ignorant, and thinks he knows everything. In one of his videos, he prevents proof that the United States government is being controlled by the devil and has claimed that the devil writes comments on his YouTube videos because he hates the "truth" that he is exposing.

I once posted something about his ridiculous evidence that giants once lived on earth. Giants, of course, were mentioned in the Bible, and he was using them to show the Bible was true. I found that some of the skeletons were photoshopped, the result of skull-binding, or were apparent hoaxes (several of them disappeared mysteriously before they could be examined by scientists).
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/youtube-creationism/

This is the "evidence" that creationists bring to the table?

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

tinyfrog wrote:

This is the "evidence" that creationists bring to the table?

...like this "evidence"?

Survival of the fakest

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 tinyfrog wrote:

Hi Anonymous. A couple things: First, I recently dealt with the Miller-Urey experiment on my blog and it's relevance. Guess what? Your pdf isn't telling the latest information.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/the-non-believers-review-of-%e2%80%9cthe-case-for-faith%e2%80%9d-objection-3-part-2/

Second, Well's presentation has been debunked in other places on the internet:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

The whole pdf is just slick propaganda. For example, it completely ignores all the fossils leading from primates to humans and concentrates on one hoax to somehow trick the reader into believing they're all hoaxes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Conveniently, your pdf also ignores all the genetic evidence for human descent.

Here's some information on evolution.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/creationismevolution/

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 tinyfrog wrote:

I also liked how your pdf says, "Behe is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinian theory doesn’t conform to observation and experimental evidence."

But, it conveniently ignores the fact that Behe argues for common descent of humans and apes - based on evidence. Well's cites Behe as an expert - the very same man who would trash Well's entire "From Apes to Humans" section. If human common descent was as flimsy as Well's says it is, don't you think Behe would agree with Wells? The fact is that Well's article ISN'T presenting the real evidence for human descent from apes. Instead, he's playing propaganda games.

posted: January 30, 2008 EST  

 Freebies wrote:

Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution only explains how one species can turn into another over time, but it doesn't explain how life began in the first place.

The big bang is a theory in which everything in existence just exploded out of nothingness, if that doesn't sound like God then I don't know what does.

posted: February 04, 2008 EST  

 casper wrote:

I'm sorry Freebies but your comment makes me laugh! Religion and Science ARE mutually exclusive!

Science deals with reality; religion deals with superstition, the supernatural, and mythology.

You are correct in saying that evolution explains how species change over time because it's Abiogenesis which covers how it started in the first place.

As for the Big Bang is concerned, nowhere does it say that existence came from nothingness. The theory is that all matter was compressed and exploded outwards. What existed prior to that is currently unexplained.

Why do you assume that because you can't explain something, somehow it must have been done by a supreme being? Did you even watch the videos? Are you truly incapable of thinking outside the god-box?

Wow [with the theme music from the twilight zone playing in my mind...]

Cheers, Derrick.

posted: February 05, 2008 EST  

 mkr32208 wrote:

"Extreme water pressure could carve out the grand canyon in a relatively short time (meaning a couple of years). "

So now noahs flood lasted a "couple of years?"

Foolishness on top of foolishness...

posted: February 07, 2008 EST  

Post a Comment | Create a Link | Post in the Forums | Permalink

  Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom).
Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).
Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page. Or, keep track of comments on individual topics by using .