• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Put on your oven mitts folks, you are going to need them:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member

A new creationist movie is coming out on evolution. The trailer is one face palming PRATT after another.

Should we break down the claims one at time?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Good grief! Stupid beyond belief. Yet people fall for these asinine remarks and bogus claims because they don't know any better, and often don't care to. I loved the off-the-wall pot shot at Charles Darwin that he was a racist, which what; makes his work untrustworthy? OF COURSE IT DOES. And if Darwin is untrustworthy because he's a racist (which he wasn't) then how can evolution be true? Answer me that mister smart guy. :mad:

.


.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Good grief! Stupid beyond belief. Yet people fall for these asinine remarks and bogus claims because they don't know any better, and often don't care to. I loved the off-the-wall pot shot at Charles Darwin that he was a racist, which what; makes his work untrustworthy? OF COURSE IT DOES. And if Darwin is untrustworthy because he's a racist (which he wasn't) then how can evolution be true? Answer me that, mister smart guy. :mad:

.


.
And how do we know that he was a racist? By the full title of his seminal work:

" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Check mate atheists!!:rolleyes:
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Good grief! Stupid beyond belief. Yet people fall for these asinine remarks and bogus claims because they don't know any better, and often don't care to. I loved the off-the-wall pot shot at Charles Darwin that he was a racist, which what; makes his work untrustworthy? OF COURSE IT DOES. And if Darwin is untrustworthy because he's a racist (which he wasn't) then how can evolution be true? Answer me that, mister smart guy. :mad:

.


.

I always SMH when these types pooh-pooh any science while staring into a high tech digital camera capable of broadcasting their spiel to every corner of the globe. I guess some science is better than others.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
And how do we know that he was a racist? By the full title of his seminal work:

" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Check mate atheists!!:rolleyes:
Yeah! Wasn't that a great piece of creationist reasoning for you. Not that he necessarily believes it, but there's always the chance the rubes will buy it, and that's what's important. Lying for the Lord's greater glory is always justified. (you heard it first here on RF at 5:35 EDT, 9/5/18).

.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Yeah! Wasn't that a great piece of creationist reasoning for you. Not that he necessarily believes it, but there's always the chance the rubes will buy it, and that's what's important. Lying for the Lord's greater glory is always justified. (you first heard it here on RF at 5:35 EDT, 9/5/18).

.
Lying for the greater glory of my fanatical view that God works the way I believe he works.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
"In the beginning, man created God in His own image"

If man created God in man's own image then man would be living by the Golden Rule.
Since man does Not live by the Golden Rule (otherwise there would be No wars) then God is Not created in man's image.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If man created God in man's own image then man would be living by the Golden Rule.
Since man does Not live by the Golden Rule (otherwise there would be No wars) then God is Not created in man's image.
Sorry, your logic is faulty. Your conclusion is not justified by your premise.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
A new creationist movie is coming out on evolution.
As one who has read and been part of all sort of refutations of creationism and anti-evolution speech, watching the video almost felt like it was a big joke on creationists - I kept waiting for that moment when it turned around.

Interesting how they feel this works for their argument when it leaves them sounding so ignorant and blatantly biased against the material for completely non-scientific reasons (e.g. "Darwin was a racist" and "... not wanting to believe the creator to keep up with their hedonistic lifestyles). That Matt Powell that made an appearance is a particularly nasty character I've seen in other material. Very vitriolic and completely ignorant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As one who has read and been part of all sort of refutations of creationism and anti-evolution speech, watching the video almost felt like it was a big joke on creationists - I kept waiting for that moment when it turned around.

Interesting how they feel this works for their argument when it leaves them sounding so ignorant and blatantly biased against the material for completely non-scientific reasons (e.g. "Darwin was a racist" and "... not wanting to believe the creator to keep up with their hedonistic lifestyles). That Matt Powell that made an appearance is a particularly nasty character I've seen in other material. Very vitriolic and completely ignorant.
I am amazed that Kent Hovind, convicted tax cheat and liar has any credibility with other creationists.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Should we break down the claims one at time?
The first quote is very good at least.
"Spontaneous generation MUST BE TRUE. Not because it had been proven in the laboratory: but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creation (Ernst Haeckel)

Because to believe in Creation, you need a Creator. The Creator is not created. So that must be "spontaneous generation", ergo "spontaneous generation" is true.
 
Top