The Stupidity is Strong With This One

creationistsEvery time I think I’ve seen the stupidest thing that a theist can say, I come across something worse.  I ran across this on a forum and the number of people pointing out just how stupid this guy is was quite amazing.  Of course, this dipstick has no clue what evolution is, it wasn’t long after this that he started talking about the Big Bang and abiogenesis and all that, things that have nothing to do with evolution at all, but even after being corrected, he doesn’t care.  It interferes with his mindless belief in the Bible and that’s all he needs to invent absurd crap about it.  Honesty and education are two things that never impinge on his thought processes.

So here we go, his first post, in its entirety.  How many fallacies can you spot?

First – evolution being the work of God is fine and not racist because God created all people as equal.

Taking the Creator God out of the “evolution” has that theory as racist indeed.

The thing is that the claim that evolution is just some happen-chance or non-Godly event is thereby claiming that the African people are the lower evolved while the white race is the highest evolve.

This makes so the Atheist idea of evolution is just a new guise of the never ending racism, and that is also the motivation for keeping God out of the equation even when the evidence is there of the Creator God.

There really is no sensible reason for a religious person to deny the obvious truth of evolution except for the Atheist intrusion in that the Atheist evolution thereby promotes injustice and iniquity against any person or group of people who are deemed to be lower evolved.

So let’s look at some of the most absurd parts of this, shall we?

First – evolution being the work of God is fine and not racist because God created all people as equal.

Well clearly that’s not true.  God didn’t create all people as equal or the Hebrews wouldn’t be God’s chosen people! He picked one particular racial sub-group to be his favored people and suddenly God isn’t racist? What about the Australian aboriginal peoples?  What about Eskimos? What about the indigenous American peoples?  What about Asians?  All of these people were around at the time this was going on, God was simply ensuring that none of these races could hear the “Good Word” and even if they did, they couldn’t be saved.  God is a serious racist.

The thing is that the claim that evolution is just some happen-chance or non-Godly event is thereby claiming that the African people are the lower evolved while the white race is the highest evolve.

Nobody claims that.  Oh, wait a minute, the religious claim that!  You have to remember that at the core of American slavery was Christianity who taught that the African people were descended from Ham and therefore, sub-human and only fit to serve their white masters.  Someone is projecting a bit, I think.

This makes so the Atheist idea of evolution is just a new guise of the never ending racism, and that is also the motivation for keeping God out of the equation even when the evidence is there of the Creator God.

Oh, there’s evidence, is there?  Where is this evidence?  He has it, he just won’t show you!  Hmmm, seems I wrote about that recently…

There really is no sensible reason for a religious person to deny the obvious truth of evolution except for the Atheist intrusion in that the Atheist evolution thereby promotes injustice and iniquity against any person or group of people who are deemed to be lower evolved.

Which, once again, there is no evidence of.  Oh, I’m sure he thinks he has evidence that he keeps locked up tight somewhere but he can do nothing, as revealed in the rest of the thread, to actually prove it.  Yet in the end, this idiot declares himself the victor and waits for everyone to ride him around on their shoulders, only to be surprised when everyone thinks he’s an idiot.  When asked where any of his evidence is, he’s self-assured that he presented it, yet is hard pressed to directly point to any of it.  Apparently, claiming that evidence exists is just as good as presenting the evidence.  Believing strongly that you’re right is the same as proving that you are.

This is really getting more and more typical of engagements with theists, where only the most absurdly stupid and self-deluded will take up the apologetic mantle.  It just leaves atheists shaking their head, wondering exactly what is wrong with these people, yet to the theists, this is the norm.  Believing in things they cannot justify, clinging to things they cannot explain, claiming things they cannot demonstrate, this is what is left of religion in America.  Stupidity, just because it makes them feel good, is the order of the day.

Sad, isn’t it?

49 thoughts on “The Stupidity is Strong With This One”

  1. When I see these types of posts on forums, I always have to wonder if it is just trolling. However, usually if you go look at some of the persons other posts, you see that they are legitimately insane.

    I will add this is the most insane thing I have seen in a while, so thanks for sharing.
    My recent post Pedophilia in Sunday School

      1. But "intelligent design" is still just made up nonsense, no matter how many questions you think it answers. It has no objective validity behind it, no evidence to support it, it's just wishful thinking for the credulous. I could just invent "intelligent leprechauning" out of thin air and have it explain every single question conceivable because I get to just assert answers, just like "intelligent design" does and none of those supposed answers are open to any kind of independent verification and require no evidence, just like "intelligent design". So is "intelligent leprechauning" any more valid than "intelligent design" because it answers every single question there is or eve could be?

        Or is it all a bunch of irrational bullshit?

        1. You say it is, and believe it is.
          Yet it's just as valid an opinion as your evolution.

          It has objective evidence, as in diversity of species that evolution would eliminate. The evidence of complex systemic functions that evolution doesn't account for.

          You could have a theory of leprechauns and I'd politely listen and not mock you for it .

          1. Evolution isn't an opinion, it is an extensively evidenced and well supported scientific theory. Intelligent design is religious bullshit that evangelical Christians pulled out of their collective asses. There is a difference. And if I had a theory of leprechauns that was as flimsy as the intelligent design nonsense, it would deserve derision, just like intelligent design does.

          2. Evolution is a theory,an idea. It ignores so much in the world around us. It remains 'flexible' to change and bend when confronted with that evidence. It is supported by people who are inflexible and throw bullshit when gaps and inconsistencies are pointed out. And those differences? One side listens and the other side doesn't.

            And yet hundreds of variations of delicate orchids remain in spite of selective survival of only the most advanced that proved to be the most fit.

          3. You clearly do not understand the scientific use of the word "theory". It's not an idea. It's a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." Evolution is a fact. There is no question whatsoever that it happened and continues to happen. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of *HOW* it happens.

            When you don't know what you're talking about, that's when you make serious errors.

          4. I understand, and I see that the theory is only well tested when not challenged and those who are so insecure they can't honestly look at the complexity around them feel driven to mock and go on the attack when the weaknesses of that theory are laid out.

            There is no question of micro, not macro evolution.
            There is also no question that there is more complexity and diversity in life than your preferred theory can explain.

            Survival of the fittest seems to allow the most delicate and fragile of life forms, and that is contrary to your world view on origins.

          5. But nobody is actually presenting evidence that evolution is, most creationists and their ilk just lie about it and make claims about it, they don't actually present any evidence in peer-reviewed journals that it is factually incorrect. They don't even TRY! The first scientist to prove evolution false is going to win a Nobel prize. If you think that there is more complexity and diversity in life than evolution can explain, by all means, write up your paper and submit it. Otherwise you're just making claims that you cannot back up.

          6. Evolution as a theory has origins in 'someone making it up'.
            Science isn't about consensus, it's about proof and replicated results.

            So far, nobody has replicated macro-evolution. So, the standards you just used to rip on creationists pretty much point back at you.

            Creation, as the Bible lays out is accepted by faith. I'll gladly admit it.
            The evidence for intelligent design is there, and that is a different origins theory than Creationism.

            The evidence is there, and I'll lay it out yet again.

            This appears to be designed, there is complexity and there is a diversity in this species that wouldn't be available with natural selection. That is the gap and flaw in the theory of evolution you can't explain. You'll just pretend I haven't made a point, and that shows you realize there is a flaw.

          7. No it's not because evolution isn't a theory of origins and you claiming that it is only betrays your utter ignorance of the subject matter. Evolution does not address where life came from. And nobody in the scientific community uses the term "macro-evolution", it's nonsense made up by creationists when they realized that railing against evolution as a whole was completely ridiculous so they made up some new terms that have no validity whatsoever so they didn't continue to look like complete idiots.

            It didn't work.

            Come on back when you actually have the slightest clue what the hell you're talking about.

          8. Of course it is, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

            It betrays your lack of integrity on this one subject. Evolution is the theory on how the world we live in came to be. And macro-vs-micro evolution is a pin point term to explain the differences between genetic coding helping life to adapt and changes from one life form to another, primordial ooze to a human for example.

            Why come back? You don't want serious level headed discussion on this topic. Evolutionists seldom do.

          9. Sorry, you're just wrong. Maybe instead of reading books by creationists, you ought to actually read books written by legitimate scientists, you won't look like such an ignorant fool on the subject if you do. That's about all I have to say about that.

          10. I realize you have to say that.

            Instead of just reading books by atheist secularists you should read some legitimate scientists who actually have an open mind.

            I notice you didn't deny the diversity nor the complexity I brought up.

          11. What makes you think I haven't? My bookshelves are full of all kinds of books, going back into the 70s and 80s with books from Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Just from where I'm sitting, I can see The Genesis Flood and Evolution: The Fossils Say No! The thing you have to understand is that it isn't about who writes the books, it's about what the evidence actually says and, whether you like it or not, the evidence just does not support a creationist/intelligent design perspective. It just doesn't. I don't care what your personal faith says, faith is meaningless when it comes to facts. The facts support evolution overwhelmingly, it does not, in any way, shape or form, support what you believe.

            You've lost, even if you refuse to admit it. That's the way it is.

          12. Things are legitimate if they match up with reality. Unless they do so, and your beliefs clearly do not do so, they are not worth taking seriously. Strength of conviction doesn't affect accuracy.

          13. You've got it backwards Roger. Evolutionary theory explains diversity of species. Diversity of species is exactly what we would expect of an evolutionary process. Intelligent design does not explain diversity of species. If you think it does then I expect you to present that explanation.

          14. With every post you display the amazing depth to which your ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution penetrates. Natural selection doesn't reward anything. Evolution doesn't reward organisms. Natural selection acts on the traits organisms have. You need to look up the meaning of the word reward. Its use in speaking about evolution misrepresents the process of evolution.

            Natural selection acts on the traits an organism has. Genes for those traits that result in organisms being able to survive and reproduce more are passed along at a greater frequency in the gene pool of a species until those traits come to dominate. This does not mean that at any given moment there are not members of a species that are in some way less successful at surviving and reproducing. But they tend to be the ones that have fewer offspring in which their genes are passed along.

            You need to stop talking about natural selection until you have more fully educated yourself on the subject. You have a lot of reading to do. And I don't mean the intelligent design/creationism nonsense about evolution. You need to read the works of the those scientists who have actually contributed to our understanding of evolution: Ernst Mayr, Stuart Kaufman, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Dawkins, J.B.S. Haldane, George Gaylord Simpson, T. H. Morgan, and many others. And of course Charles Darwin. Here is a link to some of the important, classic books on evolution written by some of the greatest evolutionary scientists of the past 150 years.

            Read some of these books and then come back and have a discussion about evolution. At the present time little you know about evolution makes a conversation with you about the subject a monumental waste of time.

          15. When you resort to big words to cover for a lack of evidence, it doesn't advance your argument.

            And with each comment you fail even more to show that if one carnivore is hunting and finds two animals, the one with the most advanced skills will statistically have the best chance of survival, hence "Natural selection" and that does not end up after millions of years encouraging diversity.

  2. Religious individuals won't recognize the psychological science behind religion. Why it works and why it fails. It has nothing to do with a God of any kind.

    1. No it doesn't but they can't imagine any portion of the world that doesn't completely rely on God. The moment you suggest that anything doesn't require God, their brains explode because that's a concept they cannot comprehend. We understand the psychology behind religion pretty well, we understand why the primitive parts of the brain tend towards simplistic supernatural explanations but trying to explain these things to people who are emotionally invested in believing in the supernatural is usually a waste of time.

      1. I don't even try. I do believe there's a science behind thought forms, collective energy, etc. Praying to a God (and that it can work) is a primitive explanation for capabilities we've only begun to evolve to. It has everything to do with evolution. imo.

        1. But there are a lot of people, one in particular at the moment, whose emotional comfort doesn't allow him to acknowledge the position that all of the evidence points to. It doesn't seem to bother him a bit though, his comfort is more important to him than reality. Yes, it is as sad and pathetic as it sounds.

          1. Yes, and in spite of that I have been polite and you haven't addressed the issues I point out.

            Complexity beyond any natural selection, or with any explanation in natural selection is one such example.
            My comfort? You're the one with zero flexibility on this one issue.

            I realize it's important for atheists to reject any responsibility to any designer. But there does seem to be a design to the natural world around us.

          2. Evolutionary theory more than adequately explains both the diversity of species and the complexity of life forms. You would know this if you were as informed about evolutionary theory as you seem to be implying you are.

          3. How? Natural selection rewards the most viable adaptations and life forms.

            That would result in the lesser forms being past up in the process. You would know this if you actually thought about it beyond the normal talking points.

            The whole point of evolution is that change is rewarded when the changes are good, and natural selection keeps the best and the brightest at the top of the survival chain. That does not reward the delicate fragile forms we see today.

          4. "Natural selection rewards the most viable adaptations and life forms. That would result in the lesser forms being past up in the process."

            No, you are wrong. Natural selection does not reduce species diversity. It increases it. The fact that you don't know this and could write this reveals just how little you know about evolution. Go educate yourself on the subject. Whatever education you have had thus far on the subject has been woefully inadequate and must have contained a considerable amount of wrong information. Stop paying attention to the idiots who work at the Discovery Institute and advocate the intelligent design drivel.

          5. If the most hardy and advanced are rewarded with survival it would necessarily winnow down the gene pool by eliminating the less advanced, or the flawed evolved features.

            How can you boast evolution is the reason advanced life exists if it didn't stack the deck for that advanced life form?

      1. I spent many, many years, in various religions, practicing the teachings. I've delved deeper into the theory of God than any other theory.

        Here's the deal Roger. If you want to talk to me, then don't start the conversation with your arrogance. If you can't be decent and not mouthy, just don't post to me. I'm not going to respond to your snarky comments. If you want to talk with me, talk with me. If you want to talk at me, please refrain.

        1. Here's the deal lips. You go ahead and sound like poof and someone here might make a connection.

          And dabbling in religion is like a taster deciding because he knows the flavors he is a chef.
          Without returning your vast arrogance, and you seem to have plenty, you should realize that Christianity isn't about what we do, it's about what God does.

          Humility is 'letting God fight His battle', that's why Moses was close to God and humble but not spineless. So, your entire approach appears to be rather 'uniformed' for someone that pretends to know so much.

    1. You're always welcome, even though there are religion (and non-religion) trolls running around spreading their absurd ignorance, I try to make it a good place to hang out.

      1. Intolerance seems to be the bigger threat, since beliefs in origins don't change the past. So far, in the western world we don't blow each other up due to our differences.

        BTW, did lips sound like someone you've had to toss? I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

        1. Belief doesn't change reality no matter what you're talking about. It doesn't matter how much you believe in something, it is either real or it isn't. Belief is entirely irrelevant.

          And honestly, I wasn't paying attention, it doesn't matter. You know, I never had any trouble here, I never had to ban anyone for 8 years before you and your asshole entourage showed up. Wonder why that is?

          1. Then explain the very real issues I've raised. And of course explain how your version of the past explains those two issue.

            And as for the trolls. They follow me and make sure I never have a chance to actually complete any discussion. Intolerance is a very rigid thing.

            Some people simply can't stand being wrong. The statist vision they have, it has never worked and denies the human nature element that keeps us from trying when all rewards are taken and given to those who want to take it as a right. Each according to his gifts, each according to his needs.

            The people who struggled against fascism in the past have often had detractors that tried to dehumanize them, Alinsky was the recent agitator that explained how they would act, and the trouble makers you had to ban follow his teachings.

            It's a religion of sorts, but it doesn't lead to a person being elevated or reaching for more, it's a doomsday thinking that only knows how to destroy and not how to replace that failed society with anything better.

            It's really quite sad.

          2. Out of respect for your site, Cephus, you should know that I've never been here (as your ability to see my IP will show), and I don't post under any other name. Even under other commenting programs, I'm still Lips. Roger tries to make it appear that there's only a couple people that he quarrels with. Not to mention the fact that he knows I'm no one else, which makes him a liar. He just doesn't want me here.

            Anyway, prior to the distraction, I didn't come to dispute or confirm the existence of God. Wasn't coming to debate, just to discuss. Some people stop at simply not believing and don't elaborate on what they do believe. Cause we know there's more than our physical world. And it's not governed by a god, witchcraft, sorcery, satanic rituals, unicorns, or fairies. There is a science. Was wondering what your thoughts were.

          3. In case you're not listening… Your belief does not equate to reality. And once again you've proven you don't know the difference.

  3. Interesting how the blogger coins that one phrase from the American colonists' Declaration of Independence.

    However, he never explained here how his god's evolution works, so we could compare it to his so-called "Atheist evolution", which actually is a scientific theory, but has nothing to do with atheism.

    He conflates evolution (minus his god) with Social Darwinism, which is an entirely different critter. That idea was firmly shot down by the defeat of Nazi Germany nearly 70 years ago.

    When he says that scientific evolution works by "happen-chance", he demonstrates he doesn't really understand how it actually functions, "over the course of thousands, or tens of thousands, of years," as Richard Dawkins has mentioned (that's from the Blind Watchmaker, I think).

    Even though it's true that many whites still look down on Africans, him bringing that up is an appeal to emotions instead of reason.

    Did this fellow say anywhere if he was Christian or Muslim? Doesn't really matter — just wondering.

    And as you stated, he never offers a shred of evidence to back anything up, expecting the readers to agree with him on every point. He claims there's evidence, therefore it exists. I'm surprised he didn't refer to his holy book as his source. He must've realized that wouldn't sail, so he didn't bother to bring it up. Maybe he's not too idiotic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)