Do smart creationists get annoyed when stupid ones make them look bad?

Question

I mean. Surely the well-educated creationists who come here and see people making arguments like the following, must slap themselves in the face: "If we came from monkeeeys, why is there still monkeys?! Huh huh answer that! o you cant because im so smart!"....I mean, it really makes people not ant to hear your debates anymore. Don't get me wrong, we have atheists who do the same thing. I hate arguments like "If god created everything, who created god? Ohhh I'm so smart, I dumbfounded you all there.." Ugh...

Sorry for any typos I'm SURE I had in there.

Yep, "Ant",there's one.

How are people confusing the word "Atheist" and "Creationist"?

Answer 1

That's an oxymoron if I ever read one before... "smart creationists".

Think about it.

Answer 2

Only people that refuse to see the truth can believe in evolution. There is no proof, but there is SOLID proof that the Earth can not be more then 30,000 years old...
1) The Sun is Shrinking.
Does the size of the sun change over the years? Recently, "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century--?? corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour.
o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...
The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?
2) Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.
1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.
2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.
3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14
4. The rate of decay is a constant.
1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.
2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.
3) The geologic column is based on circular reasoning.
The use the bones to tell the age of the rocks, and the rocks to tell the age of the bones.
If the different layers are different ages, then why are there plants, and even animals going through several layers.
4) Every "missing link" has been proven to be a honest mistaken or a deliberate fraud.
1) Lucy.
A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.
2) Heidelberg Man.
Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.
3) Nebraska Man.
Built from a pigs tooth
4) Piltdown Man.
The jaw was a modern ape
5) Peking Man.
Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.
6) Neanderthal Man.
Old Man with arthritis.
7) New Guinea man.
?
8) Gro-Magnon Man.
Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.
As you can tell, I'm not a "Dumb" creationist.

Answer 3

So why are there still monkeys? And where did God come from? I'm the only person that's ever thought of this. I'm a genius, and I've got you all stumped on these questions!


OK seriously.... Christians are not all creationists. Catholicism says evolution and God can coexist. One does not deny the others existence. I'm not a Christian, and I'm not a creationist. I think there are smart Christians but i don't know about smart creationists.

Answer 4

I didn't do this but it is similar to your situation but a lot worse. I worked for a big company that had announced it was having a major lay-off and everyone was nervously waiting to hear if they were getting canned or not. At the same time, a new email program was being rolled out and the Department head's secretary was holding a training sessions. Her computer screen was being projected onto a big screen in an auditorium with about 100 people in it when she opened up her email application. As she gabbed on and on, she was totally unaware that she had just been copied on a list of layoff notices and projected up onto the screen was in inbox listing: TERMINATION NOTICE FOR XXXXXX YYYYYYY TERMINATION NOTICE FOR XYXYXYXY XYXYX TERMINATION NOTICE FOR YEYEY XHXHXH .... as people gasped and screamed in horror. Anyway, I've never done anything that bad. At least not that I got caught doing.

Answer 5

Haha, good one... Yeah, it's quite interesting how smart Christians try to cope with this whole Creationism concept. On one hand, they don't want to look like backward hillbillies, but they also don't wan to give up the idea that God is the Creator.

Catholics deal with this by essentially saying "Yes, Evolution and the Big Bang are correct, but the First Cause is God". Unfortunately, Protestants take this view as a sign of weakness and another example of Catholicism being an "evil cult".

Answer 6

It's my opinion that both the dumbest and the most brilliant questions and answers have merit... They're opinions and each one counts for something.

While it's true that some show a remarkable shallowness of thought, they are yet all worthy of recognition - and although it may sometimes mean that a nudge or a poke to make improvements is called for, we must not fail to recognize the value of every point of view.

I appreciate what you're saying here. Believe me, I've often felt tired of reading the same old droning answers, too, but what better medium do we have to draw each other closer than this one and what better way is there to hand out the offer our own best opinions and knowledge ?

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb62/Randall_Fleck/worth%20reading%20gifs/Desiree_opinion_GIF.gif
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 7

Out of the hundreds of creationists I've spoken to, I would say I've only encountered 1 (in person) that was smart.

I've read the writings of perhaps 4 or 5 others that I would consider smart.

Answer 8

Yes, It's pretty bad when some creationists use arguments that even Kent Hovind's site advises against (2nd law of thermodynamics, "why are there still monkies [sic]", etc.).

Answer 9

I'm sure people of any "catagory" will run into at least one stupid person who is "one of them" but whom they wish wasn't... which is why it's good not to classify a whole group of people by the actions of the stupid few.

Answer 10

Although you were ranting more than asking, I would think that this is a pretty obvious answer. Dumb people always annoy smart people. End of story.

Answer 11

lmao - isn't that an oxymoron?

and it's a trick question - there aren't any that are smarter than the others!!!!!!!

edit: i must admit though; stupid and uneducated are definitely 2 different things, so we can't assume all creationists are stupid, i'm sure some are just uneducated