by AlmostAtheist 43 Replies latest jw friends
drwtsn32,
This site has to be a satire. A very, very good satire!
I was thinking the same thing when I saw your comment. You know, the more I looked at their material, the more I have to agree with you. If read as satire, it is also excellent comedy! Jim W.
hooberus:
I think that is fairly obvious that the site is really run by evolutionists to attempt to make fun of creationists. The sad part is that aparently some evolutionists here actually believed that it was a "real" (albeit flakey) creationist site.
I agree. However, it's the kind of satire that is so on the money that it's understandable people could be fooled initially. Anybody who has seen Jack Chick's tracts will understande this. See http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp - this is a genuine creationist/Christian site, and possibly one of the most hilarious things ever written. See also http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp for "proof" that dinosaurs are still alive. Some people actually do believe these things despite all the evidence, so it shouldn't really be a surprise that when someone takes the absurdity one level further, it's not always easy to spot.
Here is my question- If you can be taken in by your fellow evolutionists (albeit for a short time) on something like this, then how safe are you from harder to detect faulty arguments?
It's a website displaying some wacky beliefs. There are a lot of such websites, and as I've pointed out, they're not all jokes. Nobody thought that the arguments made on the site were sensible, just that some people really believed them. Given what some people really do believe, it's not surprising that some people were taken in by this sophisticated, subtle humour.
Really, then why don't you point out some flawed arguments (by evolutionists) on this page:
The flawed arguments on that page are the ones made by creationists, and the page does an excellent job of refuting them.
The flawed arguments on that page are the ones made by creationists, and the page does an excellent job of refuting them.
Did you detect (or even look for) any faulty evolutionist arguments on the page as well?
Did you detect (or even look for) any faulty evolutionist arguments on the page as well?
I looked, I didn't find any but I will admit I didn't look very hard, so I may have missed something. Perhaps you'd like to point out which arguments you mean specifically?
