Talk:Creation Ministries International
|
This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Bad arguments[edit]
CMI has a list of arguments creationists should not use. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Astronauts: Not as cool as Jesus.[edit]
Yes, men walked on the moon. "However, as great as the Apollo event was, and as great the impact Apollo has had on humanity today, it pales in comparison to the truth of the impact of a single man on the lives of countless millions—a man whom we know as Jesus Christ and who lived, died and rose again about 2,000 years ago." ...Le sigh. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The better quote from that article is: "My response to [Moon Landing denial] is similar to my response to people who question the veracity of the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ—events which also are in the distant but recorded past."
- Yeah, there's no real difference between non-Christians and Moon Landing conspiracy theorists. A couple decades ago is totally in the same region of '2000 years ago'. (talk to a) /ˈnai:ɪlɪst/ 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
CMI discounts content of the Huxley-Wilberforce debate because it wasn't written down until 2 days later[edit]
I can't imagine what they'd say if we applied their standards to the Bible. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Invoking the name of Christ[edit]
That same wording is used by people who practice witchcraft. Not that I have anything against the craft as I practice it from time to time, but saying that is the same as witchcraft. So just call it Christian witchcraft.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I just came up with a wisecrack, but I'm not sure how good it is…[edit]
@Bongolian @Rairyu75 I got the idea to make a quick wisecrack about CMI's logo, specifically that the similarity of its logo to the symbol for yin and yang is in all likelihood a coincidence, because it really doesn't take a very clever person to represent the concept of duality or something similar with a white-and-black circle. But then I stopped and asked myself, "Wait, is this joke actually any good?" So I decided to ask for advice here. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally don't find that particularly funny, @Luigifan18. Having a note that says "The similarity of its logo to the symbol for yin and yang is in all likelihood a coincidence, because it really doesn't take a very clever person to represent the concept of duality." is not, to my mind, a joke. It is merely stating the obvious. It is certainly true that the logo is very unimpressive and unoriginal, but there is already a caption beneath the image that pokes a bit of fun at it.
- I do, however, appreciate the fact that you sought the feedback of your fellow editors before inserting such a note. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)