Creationists' Stupidest Argument

Wanna see the most dumbest argument given by creationists???

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Argument (complex Analysis)
• Argument (literature)
• creationism
• Darwin
• Evolution (film)
• Kent
• Hovind
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Darwinism
• Charles
• Lamarck
• Biology
• cell
• molecular
• Creationism
• Intelligent
• Design
• Debate
• Logic
• Proof
• Response
• Theory
• Reason
• Belief
• Earth
• Evidence
• Morality
• Theism
• Delusion
• Genesis
• Theist
• Selection
• Universe
• Creationist

[Answerquestions1]

@9906197439

for example my car is not perfect, but it is ´´fine tune´´ (with all the pars in the corect place) and it is clearly designed

same thing with the universe, evnthough it is not perfect itwas clearly fine tuned and clearly design

[9906197439]

@Answerquestions1 and that is what my point is. If creation started to deteriorate due to the fall, why do creationists like William Lane Craig (to name one) use the terms like "fine tuning" to tell how perfect creation is for life?

[ironman197268]

You're comparing plate tectonics from a global flood, causing present day earthquakes and killing people, and people killing people, to........ the distance the Earth is from the Sun, and the moon to the Earth and so on? That's your evidence for why the Earth doesn't have the perfect living conditions? Really?

[Answerquestions1]

@wearestarstuffsagan

the claim is that the world was originaly perfect (when God created it) but it started to deteriorate due to the fall

[wearestarstuffsagan]

@Answerquestions1 no, they almost always say the universe is set up for life to exist, which is obviously not the case

[Answerquestions1]

that is a stawman argument, no creationist claims that the world is perfect, we belive that the world was orignaly perfect, but it deteriorate as time passed (as a consecuence of the fall)