Grammastola is an apologist on YouTube. This means telling stories about some hypothetical guy you totally owned in a debate.

"So I says to the guy..."

If you comment on a video, he'll let your first comments through. After that, he'll reject any subsequent comments after his reply so he can tell people about the atheists left speechless by his YouTube profundity. If this guy's a Pinoy, I'm full of shame and indignation.

This theist wanted to learn about atheism. We all know the best way to learn about something is to talk at length about what you believe. Thanks to her, I know that Hindus are going to hell and atheists find their children "meaningless." She confessed to being afraid of what she would do if she didn't have Christianity as a moral compass and was left to decide her actions by herself.

She was particularly interested in talking to troubled young girls.

If we were to take the Old Testament literally, that is a 6000 year old earth and the like.
When would the flood have happened?
I found this (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html) that said:
Total - from creation to flood 1656 Years
2344 BC.
I would like to hear other people on this matter though.

Of course this would mean that the human race never really learned about the cultivation of race, beer wasn't a human invention.
The early history of Egypt was probably an illusion.
The Bristlecone pine tree known as Methuselah was probably either really sturdy, or not as old as we think it was (I wish I could talk to trees now). The Văn Lang kingdom of what is now Veitnam probably had to reform itself after the flood.

Here's another one, on YouTube, between me and "BetterThanU123". This is pretty funny. On the comment section for this video

I have this irk with creationism. This very specific problem.

While creationism itself is laughable.
One part always got me. It's never a creation debate, it's an anti-evolution debate.

I have never seen a debate about creationism that ignores evolution. Someone always has to drag it in.
This is where evolution gets points in my book, you can have a discussion of evolution and creationism can never be brought up.
But when you talk about creationism's flaws.

"Well, evolution can't explain..."
"Evolution doesn't make since either because..."

That's what sad about creationism. Outside of the (Other) logically flawed arguments, they only have a negative argument working for them.

I've been talking to theists lately. Mostly on GodTube, but on other places as well. Here's a conversation I had with a particular GodTuber, mikepl82.
It started out with this comment on the Christian response to "The God Who Wasn't There". (My name on GodTube is nothingman)

What goes around comes around. Blah blah blah blah blah.

The idea of karma presents itself as a method of inviting "good" into ones life by expelling "good" into the cosmic void. It takes cosmic forces to gather your "good" and "bad", but whatever plant you raise will present you with a yield or harvest of earned rewards.

Whatever.

If there truly was a way to gain a cosmic reward, for good or ill, it would present itself most assuredly in the immediate and horrible deaths of practically everybody on earth! Nearly everyone has done something that would cause the flow of "bad karma", inviting sure disaster.

Youth is wasted on the young.

Intelligence is wasted on the old.

The argument "I can't see it, so it isn't there" is a rather silly argument. and is usually met with the response "You haven't seen (Name of thing) so, is that not real too."

It's usually a theist who has the second sentence here (A logical response too), usually that sentence is met with another response.

Unless it's a creationist.
The very same argument that probably annoys some theists, tends to be (ab)used by creationists.

"You've never seen evolution, so how can you know it's true?"

Of course they never seen the creation, so how can they know it's true?

I have an idea.
When arguing a creationist, and evolution gets brought up.
There is a chance the creationist will throw in a strawmanned version of evolution. Instead of using the old "That's not evolution" or, "Evolution doesn't work that way."

Just reply "I thought we were talking about evolution, but apparently you decided to change the subject."