Comments

  1. says

    “It’s difficult to win an argument against a genius. It’s impossible to win an argument against an idiot.”
    I can’t remember where I read that, but it seems to fit.

  2. says

    It reads just like a discussion with Ray Comfort.
    Explain that that isn’t how evolution works with dogs, he’ll make the exact same argument with cats
    Tell him that that isn’t how it works with cats or any other animal, he’ll change the cats to whales and use the identical argument.
    They just won’t listen, because it interferes with their belief.
    There is none so blind as he who will not see, none so deaf as she who will not hear, and none so ignorant as they who will not learn.

  3. says

    You’re a coward if you refuse to debate an ignorant moron who refuses to admit that you’ve dismantled every single argument they’ve made, because “The Bible says so said so” supersedes all arguments of any kind. You can’t fight that kind of willful stupidity.

  4. says

    The other day I had a crusty old anti-abortionist sincerely tell me that science was bullshit because all scientists firmly believe that bumblebees can’t fly.

  5. says

    So I started a job not long ago where I evaluate manuscripts to see if it passes criteria (mostly making sure there’s no copyright or libel). There’s… a lot of Christian book.
    Yesterday I went through one that tried to make a “logical” argument for Christianity.
    Now I have more of an appreciation for your responding to stupid creationists, PZ. This stupid book said so much garbage–about how a half-formed wing would be of no use, how two wings couldn’t form at the same time so it’d just have one; no evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds, “should be lots of fossils everywhere”; evolution image of a monkey walking and becoming a man doesn’t show what’s before the monkey… and so much of it was addendumed with something like “I just don’t see how” as if his inability to understand something meant it was wrong.
    it makes me wish that we could fail a book for being full of factually incorrect lies

  6. PaulBC says

    Duth Olec@7 Do they ever explain how they get from these (flawed) observations to Christianity and not some other origin mythos?

  7. says

    @8/PaulBC Oh, probably. I’ve read several lately (legit it’s because those are the hard ones and they wanna test me since I’m still kinda new) so they’re all mixing together a bit. But there’s definitely one that said Jesus is the only prophet whoever who was brought back to life so the other religions aren’t true, or something.
    The evolution stuff was just about why evolution was wrong. He also went on about how the Bible was 100% factually true, because as we know if any work uses real things, historical or contemporary, it is automatically non-fiction and completely true.

  8. Kip Williams says

    The person who can point to a Ripley’s Believe It or Not column and claim that it disproves science is the person who will point to Caesar being mentioned in the Bible as proof that everything in it is therefore proven.

  9. Curious Digressions says

    A while ago PZ linked to some creationist fellow who insisted that unless someone could demonstrate how a cat could give birth to raccoons, evolution was false. I always think of the guy when I read creationist stuff. I didn’t read the whole comment section on the linked blog, as it was a lot of, “No, that doesn’t explain cats with raccoon-babies.”

    Anyone can demand that unless A=B, then C is false.

    Unless someone can make a cherry pie using only broccoli, apples don’t have seed!

    Ga’CHA!

Leave a Reply