Creationists are so Kooky

So much irony

Shelly, you start off with implications that all creationists fall under one umbrella. That's ignorant. You started wrong. You want examples? I gave them. You ignored them. One example of an example of how I showed you were wrong: there are tons of creationists that are not Christians and even Christians aren't all young earth believers. You started off wrong from the beginning. Then you make the implication that creationists are dumb or ignorant and you use the word horse crap? That's just rude.

But if you need more specific examples, I'd be glad to help. Nitpicking terminology and vocab isn't relevant either if the point is accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Rosado

Shelly, you start off with implications that all creationists fall under one umbrella. (I am not the one that does that. Look at the video from the Ham Nye debate. Ham put all the different scientist under one umbrella. Bill did not put all scientist under the heading of creationist and neither do I) That's ignorant.(You're right it would be if i did that. I did not do that. If you disagree then we just have a difference of opinion. Unless i am not aloud to have one of those.) You started wrong. You want examples? I gave them. You ignored them. (I didn't address every post. Long thread.) One example of an example of how I showed you were wrong: there are tons of creationists that are not Christians and even Christians aren't all young earth believers. (I present the definition of creationism: (creationism) the literal belief in the account of Creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species") You started off wrong from the beginning. (subjective statement. How am i supposed to address this without being snarky?) Then you make the implication that creationists are dumb or ignorant and you use the word horse crap? That's just rude. (I agree sorry about that.)
T
But if you need more specific examples, I'd be glad to help. (Ditto right back at you) Nitpicking terminology and vocab isn't relevant either if the point is accurate.What do you think most of the "creationism science" does? I never said god doesn't exist or that god couldn't have made things. I said that creationism does not work as as a scientific model.)

---

11

Try replying outside of the quote. That format is bothersome to read.

1. The ironic part is you tell me to watch a documentary and not be ignorant on the matter. This is the same advice I gave you.....before you suggested it to me. Go back and read your own post. You put everyone under the same blanket. Just because Ken Ham does too (incorrectly) doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean that you are right for following his lead in doing so. You both ignorantly place creationists under the same umbrella, and you're both accountable for being wrong.


2. I present evidence of your bias. All you had to do is literally search the internet for a dictionary definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism
"the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. " There's nothing about Genesis. There's nothing about denying evolution. You're wrong. Again.

3. You were wrong from the beginning. You don't have to respond with something snarky. Just look at the facts. When you're wrong, you're wrong. If you don't see where you're wrong, say, "How am I wrong?" Then I'll show you.

4. Thanks for admitting it was rude. Maybe now we can be a bit more civil.

5. I hear you loud and clear. The problem is that you're only aware of 6 day literal creation Christian creationism. There are quite a bit of very intelligent people who don't follow that model. Check the videos that were posted at the beginning of the thread. Not even to be convinced. Just to be more aware of other views.


Forgive me for being a dick in response to your rudeness.

Troll regeneration :(
Moar fire needed :(

I'll go make popcorn.

Was that a haiku? ;)