Yeah, this is mind blowing, but pretty common, the most prominent example being the old 'something can't come from nothing, so god made everything'. dur, what?

Or rabbiting on about how carbon dating is a fraud and a lie, yet carbon dating shows the earth to be young somehow.

They also equate any fraud as discounting the whole of science, even if scientists have discounted that fraud as well.

I suppose it's them projecting what they think of their stance ("the Bible is inerrant and perfect") and projecting it onto scientific study ("if something in a position is flawed, then the whole is flawed, unlike my Bible") without realizing that their "perfect" Bible can barely be reconciled as a whole without a ton of mental gymnastics and a lot of fingers in your ears while going "la-la-la!"

I also think they don't like looking at actual science and paleontology because that takes work and learning things like math and that's haaaaard, while thinking bearded sky-people make miracles is easy.

Also any new information modifying or improving existing theories is the same as exposing the previous theory as fraud. In other words, they think that science working properly is the same as science being discredited.

They make fun of frauds being exposed yet don't bother to check any of their own material for frauds.

Shroud of Turin. Fraud! [HONK]

I can't believe creationists and dumbshits like this guy still keep trying to use the Miller experiments as some sort of trump card. It really shows just how bottomlessly ignorant they are, to an astonishing degree. The Miller experiments weren't lies OR fraud. At the time they were conducted (the early 1950s for fuck sake), they were a revolutionary, early attempt to re-create atmospheric conditions on Earth in it's primordial stages. They weren't very successful because the scientists who conducted them got a few things wrong, but they were things they couldn't have really known about at the time. After the scientific community kept working with his results and updating the knowledge about Earth's possible primordial conditions, later similar experiments in the 1960s were actually VERY successful at creating life. So much so that they changed thinking on what early Earth was like.
But here's the ultimate kicker. In 2008, scientists went BACK OVER the Miller experiments and found out that his work had actually been MORE SUCCESSFUL and more interesting than even Miller himself was aware. He had actually missed the fact that his experiments created more organic compounds than he was expecting, thus VINDICATING Miller's once-dismissed idea that volcanic activity may have been the catalyst to developing life on Earth.

Resurrection! [HONK]

My understanding was that the main thing keeping the Miller experiments and those it inspired from supporting abiogenesis is that amino acids do not self-replicate. (On the flip side, DNA cannot catalyze chemical reactions. But RNA can do both.) They're still immensely important as far as scientific experiments go, and obviously not fraudulent.

His onslaught of stupid is almost too relentless. I vote troll.

Take it to the BANK.

You're doing it wrong.

These stars are for you, brother.

No he is doing it right. Or as close to right as is he is probably willing to go. For this to make sense you need to take most of your brain out of commission. But no matter how much you drink you wont slow down your brain enough. Whats really needed is some severe brain damage.

It is the cycle of logic of the creationist.
"It's ok that our faith is unwaivering and based on illogical, ignorant stubborness, but if an atheist does this OMG IT'S LIKE HE'S BRAINWASHED INTO A CULT OR SOMETHING!"

Of course it is. Knowledge of any sort is anathema to the religious.

Funny that he should bring up poisoning the well...

here book, even