In the wake of Bill Nye the Science Guy’s debate with young earth creationist Ken Ham, the online media giant BuzzFeed ran a piece entitled “22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution.”
The premise of the piece was simple: ask 22 people who believe in creationism to pose whatever question they wanted to evolutionists, write it down and hold their questions up on a piece of paper for the camera.
BuzzFeed was admirably quiet on the ideological fodder of the piece, leaving it open to the interpretations of viewers and commenters. But the folks over at The Science of Sarcasm took an opportunity too good to pass up, translating the questions into language they think might reveal a little bit of what could be behind the creationist’s train of thought.
Check them out (Original photos by Matt Stopera at BuzzFeed):
Shannon
January 3, 2015 at 11:20 pm
Could it be possible that Evolution and the Big Bang Theory were actually acts of a higher power, and for all intensive purposes, God? Not necessarily a Christian God, but some sort of Devine design? That is wasn’t just random. It happened for a reason. Just as everything does. Destiny? The universe? What ever you want to label it? Isn’t it really all the same thing? How come we don’t learn about the Golden Ratio in school? And that everything in existence forms in this mathematical pattern? We learn useless things like pi, but never are taught the equation that explains EVERYTHING?? And if everything can be reduced to this ratio, don’t you think there might be a reason for that? That maybe this unexplainable force is “god”??
David Manhart
January 4, 2015 at 2:24 am
Your basic understanding of math is, of course, lacking. I expect you flunked algebra because you simple had different beliefs as to what the answers were.
As to some divine design, if there were, he would be extremely incompetent. Having stars expand and engulf planets (like Earth)? Same thing humans. We still have vestigal organs left over from evolution. All humans have a tail during the embryonic stage which is absorbed back into the embryo. Well, almost all humans have the tail absorbed. People such as the singer Ke$sha was born with a tail which was cut off after birth.
Do you really want to believe in an incompetent deity? Do you really want to stop science from progressing and figuring out the universe more?
David Loewen
January 4, 2015 at 5:43 am
Could it be possible? Sure. I guess it could. Without any evidence pointing to a higher power, though, why assume there is one to begin with?
Stacie Daniels
March 14, 2016 at 7:01 am
Intensive purposes??
Simon Peters
March 15, 2016 at 1:49 am
Shannon, simple answer – NO.
Michael B
March 20, 2016 at 9:19 pm
Not very scientific of you to slap a giant ‘NO’ onto a ‘Couldn’t it be possible?’ The only way to answer a question like that with a definitive like that is to have discovered everything about the universe and how it works, which we, of course, haven’t. Whether one believes in God or the Bible or not, there is most certainly evidence of a creator or creators.
Dave in Sacramento
March 20, 2016 at 11:02 pm
If you had ANY evidence of some magic creator, you would instantly become a trillionaire and the hero of religion across the globe. Are you hiding this evidence?
Simon Peters
March 21, 2016 at 2:55 am
Shannon your statement “there is most certainly evidence of a creator” is just not so; that’s the whole point.
Martin Forde
March 21, 2016 at 5:56 am
Michael B. Ok, take your argument to its full conclusion. Is it possible that unicorns exist? I mean we dont know everything, so it must mean they exist. This is called argument from ignorance. Now in terms of evidense, the inclusion of god into any theory is speculative, unverifiable, and unfalsifiable. This is called underdetermination of evidense. E. g., the big bang explains the origin of our universe because the flying spaghetti monster makes it so. I cant just tack nonconsequential things on to the end of a theory because it suits my personal beliefs (i. e. principle of parsimony)
the1neuron
January 3, 2015 at 11:36 pm
I really do try and not point out something funny at another’s expense, but I can’t resist this one, and I will not name the author of the comment from which I took it, and don’t think anyone will bother to search for it. I did actually laugh out loud when I read it. If you didn’t notice it, here it is: “…calling out the Hippocrates.”
David Manhart
January 4, 2015 at 10:28 pm
Couldn’t they have merely been calling out/pointing our the oath?
“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow…”
Although the original oath was:
“I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant…”
the1neuron
January 5, 2015 at 2:40 am
I tried to not give too much context and didn’t give enough. Here is the whole sentence:
“Christianity was birthed from Judaism bc a Jew was nailed to a wooden cross by the Romans for loving others and calling out the Hippocrates.”
David Manhart
January 5, 2015 at 3:14 am
the1neuron I was trying to be funny. A doctor’s Hippocratic oath? Ok, that joke fell flat.. ba dump dum
the1neuron
January 5, 2015 at 8:32 am
I didn’t try to make a joke. I just quoted something I found funny. And The theist that said it probably wasn’t trying to make a joke. They are either just a really bad speller or don’t know the difference between hypocrites and Hippocrates.
I think the latter and thought it was hilarious. I do have a great sense of humor, that’s why I bothered to read the comments here, but each to his own.
Donald Jaramillo
May 28, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Gimme that Old Time Religion!
wulfdreamwalker
November 30, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Donald which old time religion do you mean since pagan religions existed long before any christian or judeaic based religion
did
Danny
January 4, 2015 at 4:54 pm
anyone else have to look up the second theory of thermodynamics on wikipedia to get the reference………yea, me too.
spookiewon
June 3, 2015 at 7:47 pm
Second LAW of thermodynamics. And no, I didn’t have to look it up. Learned it in college physics.
Annoyed
January 4, 2015 at 7:35 pm
These “answers” made by “science lovers” about what the creationists are really saying are complete garbage. All this article is doing is promoting a close scientific society that hates and fears anything that isnt “accepted” by those in the “know”. You can love science and still be a creationist/intelligent design believer. how about trying to promote a world of open scientific dialog where people with radical ideas aren’t branded as pariah. The “Intellectual elite” are so sure of what they know and threatened by anything that could challenges it you get ostracized. Pushing the envelope is how you get progress and if it takes seriously looking into some crazy ideas who knows what you may find. and shame on you buzz feed for attacking those who don’t agree with your ideology.
David Manhart
January 4, 2015 at 10:34 pm
You are forgetting to includes the medical profession. They are the ones who came up with DNA (which proved evolution, which had only been theorized that DNA could prove evolution). And hey, why not attack electronic engineers? The are also “in the know” and might be trying to fool you too.
Science is not an ideology. Facts cannot be equated to one’s personal beliefs.
therandjerandje
September 18, 2015 at 4:20 am
No. Let me assist you. God ‘came up’ with DNA. Scientists only discovered it. See the difference? No need to thank me.
Andrea Frazier
January 4, 2015 at 11:07 pm
“The ‘intellectual elite’ are so sure of what they know and threatened by anything that could challenges [sic] it…” Could we please just dispense with this assertion once and for all? If anyone feels threatened, it’s the creationists who have been challenged. The creationists have raised, and continue to raise, childish and simplistic questions that have been answered over, and over, and over. If they feel threatened, it’s because they don’t like — or aren’t capable of understanding — the answers they are provided.
David Manhart
January 16, 2015 at 12:23 am
Wrongo Andrea Frazier. No scientist who is credible will assert a particular fact of science is beyond refute. The whole thing about science is always questioning and challenging what is known as fact (“conventional wisdom”). Just as Stephen Hawkin proved Einstein wrong in a couple things. Science is always advancing due only to always questioning and always trying to prove something wrong. They get accolades when they do. Just like someone coming up with an improved “mousetrap” (ie rocket science, computer engineering, larger hard drives, more fuel efficient cars, etc). However. Some things just cannot be disputed or improved upon. Such as the “theory” of gravity. Nor the “theory” of evolution. The facts and evidence are too numerous when it comes to evolution. If there was even ONE single instance, in the entire world, in the entire history of science, evolution would be questioned and all we know about evolution would have to be updated to take in account that single case. At one time, scientists had no idea that space would be a vacuum. They thought there was a thing called the “ether”. A real tangible “thing” going out through all of space (a kind of air). Future science was theorized that space would be a vacuum. And predicted that accurately. Same thing with DNA being predicted to prove evolution. And DNA evidence has proven evolution. When some upstart scientist comes along to prove conventional wisdom wrong, and succeeds, they win awards and gain deep respect among other scientists.
The same cannot be said of religion.
Douglas Mckeever
June 8, 2015 at 5:11 pm
@David Manhart – I suggest you read Andrea Frazier’s post again. You obviously didn’t understand it., making her last sentence particularly ironic…
(I’m replying to Andrea, as I am unable to reply to David. Andrea’s op is a reply to ‘Annoyed’s post)
David Loewen
January 5, 2015 at 2:55 am
When one can show observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence of creation/ID, the scientific community will listen. So far, nothing.
David Manhart
January 5, 2015 at 3:28 am
But but it’s here in a book. The book that was thrown together to be the bible was done at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. The New Testament was written (in chapters) between 50 AD and 130 AD.
The words couldn’t be less than accurate right? That would be like something not being true on the internet.
Michelangelo
January 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm
There is no evidence for creationism. Science has debunked the notion so thoroughly even the Pope acknowledges the big bang and evolution are true. And that’s the church that once considered the earth revolving around the sun to be heresy.
Acting as if people are just ignoring creationism by making fun of it is just revealing your own ignorance. We’re making fun of it because at this point it’s just ridiculous that we have to continually explain it over and over and over.
Creationism isn’t true. Evolution isn’t an ideology, it’s the foundation of the entire field of biology. When you argue against it, you’re fighting an entire scientific field whose results you use and accept every day. It’s like not believing that space is real and then using a GPS. That’s you every time you go to the doctors office.
therandjerandje
September 18, 2015 at 4:24 am
I don’t go to the doctor’s office. You mean to say there is no “scientific” evidence for Creationism. The Pope acknowledging evolution makes it less credible to me, thank you. BTW, Science just decided the Big Bang theory isn’t right. Dammit!
BigYawnAtPolitics
January 6, 2015 at 10:40 pm
This comment is so blindly ignorant. I can only shake my head, as people like this are making decisions based on this mentality at the highest levels of our government.
Hypocrisy is amusing
January 9, 2015 at 8:00 am
So… What about the Christian religion then? Those that -attack- those that don’t agree with their ideology? I’m sorry but you can’t pretend you are innocent and offended here when it’s the Bible-thumpers who have and continue to hurt people because they believe in a different Invisible Sky Daddy.
I guess now you know how it feels.
Ralph Wolf
January 16, 2015 at 1:36 am
Actually, the intellectual elites *love it* when a radical new idea turns out to be correct!
“Hey! Check this out, the earth is ROUND!”, “Not only that, but it travels around the sun!” and “Holly shit, it distorts space-time in the process!!” But my personal favorite is de Broglie’s conjecture that matter has wavelike properties. That was his (famously short) PhD thesis. Even his professors didn’t know what to make of it. They thought it might be some kind of joke. They asked Einstein for his opinion, and he said it was not impossible so they grudgingly gave him his PhD. 5 years later he got the Nobel Prize for it too….
But the thing is, you are ignoring the “correct” part of all of this. The crazy idea has to be correct too.
You clearly have an emotional attachment to your religious beliefs. I suppose that’s understandable, but you can’t defend them on emotional grounds by assuming (or trying to convince yourself) that scientists are motivated by emotions too. If you want your “theory” to be accepted it has to make some sort of prediction that can be verified by experiment. THAT is what motivates scientists.
Faith is not what makes a cell phone work, or keeps jet planes in the air. Those things happen because the science behind them is correct.
As a scientist, I’m not often wrong (a least about scientific things) but when I am I rejoice. It means I’m about to learn something new….
Stephania
August 16, 2015 at 11:49 am
This is what we need to discover, why people believe lies and even when presented with the truth and why they will stand by the lies rather than admit that they are wrong. Most of these religious & political zealots would rather slit their throats than admit they are wrong. That is a problem we need to attempt to solve. The studies already show they will not change their minds, will not admit they are wrong, we need to discover why. Or is it just as simple as sociopathic or narcissistic behaviour?
J.c. Ryan
January 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm
I think it’s funny how almost everyone of the creationist/intelligent design has poor penmanship. Why is that? Does ignorance cause it or is it just a random factor?
Tina
June 8, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I don’t think it’s funny. I find it very sad that a fellow human being is kept so ignorant by the garbage that he, or she, puts their misguided faith in. All that wonderful potential wasted. It’s tragic.
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 8:12 pm
stupid people think stupid things. smart people outsmart each other, and then themselves.
Aynne
January 31, 2015 at 2:41 am
. . . “The “Intellectual elite” are so sure of what they know and threatened by anything that could challenges it you get ostracized.” Yes the ‘intellectual elite” are sure of what they know, because they KNOW it is based on years of studies and collaborative research of genius scientists who have all come to the same conclusion without having any agenda just an honest quest for knowledge — not because, out of a complete vacuum this omnipotent, narrow-minded, narcissistic, homicidal maniac (“believe in me and do everything I say in the way I saw– or I’m gonna burn your ass for eternity.” Really dude? That’s some ego man! How did you get to be all that? Oh, sorry; not supposed to ask, just accept this incredible, cruel blackmail.)
Let’s say we lived in a world where no sense of religion in any capacity had been introduced culturally (because at the end of the day, it is just cultural; You believe what you have been TOLD to believe because you fear the repercussions you have been TOLD to fear. You have never really been allowed to think for yourself and you dare not question those with power over you.)
So let’s suppose you were going on your merry way, maybe on a hike in the mountains you discover this book lying in the dust, you open it and begin reading this incredible tale about a man named god who created earth in 7 days, and that he was all about love as long as you did his bidding and if you didn’t you would be VERY sorry, Then he created Adam and Eve (who happen to be the grandparents of everyone who has or will ever live) in a beautiful lush garden, put a delectable apple in front of Eve, but told her not to eat it; however she just couldn’t resist — and well the rest is history — or NOT. Yet, let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is real. Why does he need to punish all of humanity for adam and eve’s mistakes, when he gave them free will and desires and then tempted them with a forbidden fruit. Seems sinister to me.
So anyway, back to this book you found on your hike — you would have a good laugh wouldn’t you.
It is not my intention to disrespect or ridicule those with long-held and culturally instilled views and beliefs– I would just love for you to do your own thinking; you may think you are but you are not.
Oh, and one more thing, the “intellectual elite” are not threatened by anything and they don’t promise eternal torture to those who chose not to believe what they have presented. I mean really, what is it to them? They simply present their compiled work/data (yes work — not magic and mythology) and leave it up to reasonable minds to accept or reject it as they see fit.
I had no idea this was going to be so log when I starting this post and I do apologize for being so windy. But look on the bright side, I could have gone on for another 10 pages but just got tired of the whole debacle.
kevminer2
June 12, 2015 at 1:46 am
I would point out, though, that it’s not *just* “genius” scientists. in fact, people of average (or even below average) intelligence is quite capable, if they choose, of learning scientific method, biology, the reasons why we know things to be true — the decades of experimentation and observation, the refining of theories (the MEANING of “theory”). Heck, nowadays we even have calculators and computers to do the heavy mathing for us, if you’re not up to it. Combine that with free education form accredited institutions, and it is easier than it has ever been to become acquainted with actual science. There is really no excuse for anyone to not understand any of this, if they actually want to understand it.
Bob Gonzalez
March 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm
To further expand on the Adam and Eve problem: if you believe the story, then Adam and Eve were created without the ability to know the difference between good and evil (Tree of Knowledge)- and they got punished anyhow.
marshall maxwell
February 13, 2015 at 6:07 pm
Hello, Annoyed, I will try to give a very honest and non snarky reason why there is heated debate, rather than just getting along. If society is to move forward, we need every child who has the mental capacity and desire to be a scientist to do so. The edge that america has held for a long time is slipping, as evidenced by us cancelling the construction of the hadron collider and it being built elsewhere. Creationism being taught in schools will hasten that decline. I can see this from a person who only has a high school degree but a fascination with science. I am not a scientific elite, yet I understood why the people who asked the thermodynamics question were off base. If children are prevented from being able to learn science in science class then that generation of children has been effectively walled off from science. This happening in the 21st century right before humanity is about to start exploring or solar system would be a reprehensible waste of material, manpower, energy, and lives of every Explorer that came before. THAT is why there is seeming to be a life or death struggle between people who want to push creationism, and, well, everybody else.
David Manhart
April 10, 2015 at 6:37 pm
Yes!!! And, being a nerd, we need to make it feel safe for little girls to be fascinated by science and math and not discourage them.
Hyprus
March 16, 2015 at 1:15 am
Honey, you need to watch the second reply on this:
http://deadstate.org/christian-pastor-offers-atheists-100000-to-prove-god-doesnt-exist-atheist-proves-pastor-is-dumb/
And the first and only on this:
http://deadstate.org/video-creationist-student-challenges-her-anthropology-professor-epic-smackdown-ensues/
Because they better explain what I’m going to TL;DR for you: Better than you have tried and failed. Science has already gone down the ‘Faith’ route and came back with ‘it doesn’t work’.
David Manhart
May 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm
Using those sciency facts huh? Are you not aware that BELIEF is just as valid as facts? And that math teachers are persecuting Christians when they flunk them if the student has the “wrong” answer? Darn you heathens! 😉
jibalt
March 21, 2015 at 4:40 am
Your comment is complete garbage.
Kevin Webb
March 26, 2015 at 1:06 pm
By that logic gravity is still debatable. Like evolution it is not. The ship has sailed. We do not continue to try to disprove the earth is flat. It makes no sense to continue to research IF germs cause disease, nor does wasting time proving, again, that evolution is factual. Here’s a thought. Prove creation. Scientifically now since you infer you are a science lover. Your opposition has done so with remarkable detail. We’ll wait……………
Scott
May 13, 2015 at 5:17 pm
well said…enough
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 7:33 pm
no the point of the article is to show exactly how meaningless the creationists points are. 1) because they completely misunderstand scientific method, 2) because they completely misunderstand scientific terminology, and 3) will completely ignore well-substantiated scientific theories not based upon any rational ground but solely because it is in contradiction with their religious beliefs.
Daniel Burnett
June 11, 2015 at 12:09 am
“You can love science and still be a creationist/intelligent design believer.”
You can love medicine without knowing enough to be a doctor, but I wouldn’t want you to perform surgery on me.
To get away from analogy, I’d like to mention that you cannot RESPECT the scientific method or its importance while still believing in creationism. Why? Because in order to believe in creationism, you must first ignore the null hypothesis, and that’s a foundation of the scientific method (for very good reasons).
If someone says, “I love medicine! I also think a bullet to the heart cures all disease,” would you doubt they love medicine or consider them ignorant and dangerous?
John Petry
June 11, 2015 at 8:54 pm
It never ceases o amaze me when some Christians [not all] take a passage out of Jewish scriptures which is complete allegory, something Jews have knows for millennia and try to claim it is factual.
They may as well take the story out of Lord of the Rings and do the same. It takes a special type of silly to ignore scientific theory and go with misconceptions of a creation myth originally written in a language they cannot even read.
Kevin Bealer (@kevinbealer)
July 18, 2015 at 6:09 pm
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Stephania
August 16, 2015 at 11:28 am
Annoyed, your comment is annoying. First, one is not typically a science ‘lover’. One accepts science for what it is, reason based facts. That in itself would exclude accepting any silly creationist/intelligent design ‘theories’. There cannot be any “open scientific dialog” regarding subjects such as creationist/intelligent design ‘theories’ as there is absolutely no scientific basis to that nonsense nor would they hold up to any proof or testing. I suppose however, that you could be a ‘science lover’ based on your love of technology that results from scientific discovery while having no understanding of it, while in addition choosing to believe in the folly of unscientific thought, such as creationism. Otherwise, they just do not go together.
Angernostic
August 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm
I don’t see why creationists are hell bent on demanding that evolution doesn’t exist. It seems like a people willing to believe in invisible sky Santa could stretch their imaginations a little and say God created the universe and directed natural means to achieve its goals.
wulfdreamwalker
November 30, 2015 at 11:39 pm
therandjerandje lease post credible proof of god existing and than post which exact God of the thousands you mean
Defaithed☺︎☞ ✝☪☸✡ ☜☺ (@Defaithed)
December 5, 2015 at 9:37 pm
@Annoyed: “You can love science and still be a creationist/intelligent design believer. how about trying to promote a world of open scientific dialog where people with radical ideas aren’t branded as pariah.”
Ooh, looks fun! Let me play!
“You can love chemistry and still be an Alchemist. how about trying to promote a world of open scientific dialog where people seeking alicorn-based elixirs of invisibility aren’t branded as pariah.”
“You can love reason and still be a Witchcraft/Voodoo practitioner. how about trying to promote a world of open scientific dialog where people casting the Evil Eye through fetish dolls aren’t branded as pariah.”
“You can love fact and still be an Alien Yeti Vampire theorist. how about trying to promote a world of open scientific dialog where people wearing Garlic-Infused Crystal Pyramid Helmets of Protection aren’t branded as pariah.”
This is fun! Am I doing it right?
David Manhart
December 6, 2015 at 7:52 pm
Sure.. But I think you forget to add….
🙂
William LaRue
December 27, 2015 at 8:48 pm
The idea that there is an “elite” that defends itself against qualified questions is just another way to state that we should celebrate ignorance and stupidity. If you can’t run with the big dogs, don’t cry that it isn’t fair. The number of people who post absolutely inane garbage that illustrates their astounding ignorance is huge. There is a consistent denial of reality coupled with an insistence that they are equal to learned individuals when stating scientific “facts”. This is just stupidity demanding that the public worship at its altar, and it should be ridiculed for what it is. It has no predictive value, and seeks only to enslave the gullible. Go sell your nonsense to the ignorant. It does not play well among those who have actually “done” science. Finally, the idea that anyone who is actually involved in scientific inquiry is threatened by you brand of lunacy is laughable, as are your “theories.”
weeble mcfartle
January 4, 2015 at 11:10 pm
Paul Robinson-
Challenge accepted! (That is, if i interpret your incredibly incoherent post correctly.)
Antibiotics.
Go suck a f*@k.
Pat
January 5, 2015 at 2:22 am
hahaha, I love this, some people here dont like it because it pokes fun at their beliefs. Get over it people, its meant to me amusing, if you dont like the humor dont look at the page getting offended and huffy at others is a waste of everyone’s time. Just appreciate that people are able to post whatever they want online and leave it at that.
that said, I wont be checking this page after this posts so arguing to this post is pointless.
happy new year everyone!
Jessica
January 6, 2015 at 5:13 pm
#BullyingIsNotFunny
David Manhart
January 7, 2015 at 6:20 am
Laughing at complete ignorance IS funny.
David Manhart
January 16, 2015 at 12:35 am
As is laughing at people who think wearing a tin foil hat will prevent the “mind control rays” from the “Illuminati”. Scorn is appropriate when someone’s claim is outrageous. Would you not laugh at, and scorn, someone who said your particular god was really a human being who was a mutant with special powers?
jibalt
March 21, 2015 at 4:43 am
Being a loser is somewhat funny.
Carrie Bubb
May 13, 2015 at 2:07 am
Why read it then? If you think they are bullies then you only validate their efforts when you read and respond.
Me, I find it HILARIOUS. Believe or don’t believe, but the answers are really clever. Hahahahahahahahs
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 8:16 pm
you fight fire with water, jessica. theocracy is all too common in our country. and i will not standby as someone with an illformed belief tells me they have a religious right to dictate policy to the masses.
Austin H.
January 5, 2015 at 2:57 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ_BtZ-5O60
Ralph Wolf
January 16, 2015 at 1:53 am
Ironically, that little video helps to restore my faith in humanity….
Jessica
January 6, 2015 at 5:11 pm
The big debate always comes down to creation vs evolution. Why? There are far more fascinating things to debate. Who was Jesus? Did he really exist? Did he really fulfill a prophesy more than 400 years old? Was he really the son of God? What supports that claim? Did he perform miracles? Why would he willingly die a brutal death? Did he conquer death? Did he really come back from the dead? Who is Jesus?
“Seek and you will find.”
David Manhart
January 16, 2015 at 12:28 am
Fascinating as in did the demi-god Thor actually exist? Or is Star Trek real? I am a big ole science fiction nerd for over 35 years.. I can get into a fun debate about “facts” of Star Wars (how could Luke Skywalker train so quickly with Yoda – it doesn’t make sense), but I know it isn’t real. The difference between you and I is that I can discern reality from fantasy.
Simon Peters
January 6, 2016 at 9:13 am
The difference should be ‘between you and me”.
‘Grammatical pedant’.
MrPeach
April 9, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Because the crazy religious folks just won’t let it go. We’d love to move on but they just won’t let us.
Chuckes Tarone
June 8, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Are you are the New Testament was written long after Jesus was dead? That there is no evidence that the New Testament has anything to do with actual historic events.
There is no, absolutely no contemporary written works that mention Jesus. Nothing written that is written about Jesus that wasn’t based on Christian preachers.
So the answer to your questions is:
Because religious people have no evidence for their religion, but evolution does.
No. A made up figure. No. No. Nothing. No. He didn’t. No. No. A myth.
Look for actual evidence if you want the truth.
Quicksand
June 10, 2015 at 7:05 pm
On a bunch of the answers, the ‘science lovers’ advise the creationists to open a wikipedia page.
If you followed this advice too, you could have read: “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus.”
Of course this does not prove that he is the Son of God, but it proves that you are as close-minded and uninformed as the creationists that you are criticizing.
David Loewen
June 11, 2015 at 12:15 am
The problem is that the gospels (like a lot of the rest of the Bible) are filled with contradictions, and, in at least one case (Matthew 28:19), probably forgery. Not exactly a reliable source. Add to that the fact that the only references to Jesus outside of the Bible (Josephus, for example) are also considered to be forgeries. Did he exist? Maybe, maybe not. Was he the Son of God? Show me evidence of God’s existence, and I’ll entertain the notion. Otherwise, I highly doubt it.
martyphoto
June 9, 2015 at 8:59 am
1) A reasonably well constructed MYTH. 2) Likely not. 3) No. 4) No. 5) Nothing. 6) Just part of #1. 7) No. 8) No. 9), Already answered by #1.
herps2art
June 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Because debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin is always more useful than using evolutionary principles to design new drugs.
Michael
June 11, 2015 at 10:16 pm
While we are seeking, some additional questions. Was Jesus gay? Did he live with his parents most of his life? Did he like to party, turning water into wine. Were his BFF’s all men? Did he go out with them for his Last Supper? Since God has infinite wisdom, would God want a Son who procreates? It would be awfully messy having to deal with a bunch of grandsons and granddaughters of God running around confusing everyone.
Ilona (@isfturtle)
January 6, 2015 at 8:32 pm
I think there needs to be more clarity with regards to the word “theory.” This word means something very different in science than it does in the vernacular. The vernacular use of the word “theory” is more similar to the scientific use of the word “hypothesis.” A scientific theory is a proposed explanation for something that makes testable predictions and is supported by a body of evidence.
David Manhart
January 16, 2015 at 12:31 am
It is more accurately a “this is the best we know so far, but it could possibly be improved on in the future”… The basic facts of evolution are as solid as the “theory” of gravity as I am sure you know.
eXSavier
January 9, 2015 at 10:38 pm
Theory of relativity could explain the creation of the earth in 7 days: 7 days to a giant omnipotent being could be a Sagan of years. Along with evolution, could be the sculpting through generations among generations of selective breeding. Just because you are religious doesn’t mean you have to take in every word without any questioning on why it was said that way
David Manhart
January 16, 2015 at 12:41 am
Changing one’s religious beliefs is normal for christianity. Remember the time when Galileo was put to death for asserting the earth revolved around the sun? Or is that another fact of history you choose to be ignorant about? Unlike science, which constantly evolves based on new evidence, religion is always set in concrete. It takes centuries for christianity to finally acknowledge what science proves is factual.
Steve
May 14, 2015 at 5:05 pm
“Remember the time when Galileo was put to death for asserting the earth revolved around the sun?”
Galileo Galiliei died of natural causes aged 77 and was buried in a Catholic Church.
It rather detracts from your otherwise perfectly reasonable point when you get such an easily-checked fact incorrect.
David Manhart
May 20, 2015 at 5:34 pm
To Steve who responded to me regarding Galilieo.. Thank you for correcting a fact I stated which was not a fact. You are right. I was wrong.
Galileo was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, forced to abjure, and spent the remaining nine years of his life under house arrest. He was not forced to commit suicide as others were.
Living under house arrest until you die for the unforgivable sin for teaching factual astrology, teaching facts instead of make believe, certainly is different than being forced to commit suicide.
This is what is called “peer review”. The one thing that religions hates the most.
Lew
June 8, 2015 at 4:13 pm
David Manhart, I’m sending you a hug. Thank you for being a voice of logic and reason.
Sylwester Kogowski
January 11, 2015 at 2:51 pm
I am not sure who is stupider – the Creationists that try to use logic to explain something illogical by definition?
Or an evolutionist who doesn’t understand the science of evolution, only heard about it and later makes laugh from creationists while being happy that at least once he is a bit smarter than some others.
Don’t laugh from others or you might be laughed from also.
Did you had your 5 minutes?
Stupid people are both among creationists as well as evolutionists.
The influence of an answer to that question to our life is so minuscule that the bigger question is “why does anyone bother?”
David Manhart
January 12, 2015 at 11:52 pm
The stupidest would be you. Science is not open to “split down the middle”. I take it you are another who failed math and got angry with your math teacher because you “simply had a different belief in what the answers were”. And that the math teacher failed you due to your different beliefs.
Valerie
January 14, 2015 at 9:27 am
LOVE IT!
Aynne
January 31, 2015 at 3:33 am
I am making another comment in order to resubscribe to this conversation. I accidentally unsubscribed and could find absolutely no format for undoing it. (I bet God is teaching me a lesson — old meany:)
Jason bills
February 12, 2015 at 7:33 pm
Just get over it religion was doomed the moment we figured out that thunder wasn’t Thor’s hammer. Let’s get past this and worry about the crazy people that are killing our kids or let’s debate the war on drugs and what it’s done to harm society.
Matthew Crockett
February 25, 2015 at 5:31 am
It’s funny but I get offended by the fact that creationists are stubbornly convinced that anyone who accepts evolution can’t possibly believe in God. I happen to ascribe to the view called BioLogos (the belief in a Creator and the view that anything revealed by honest science is, by definition, “how God made things”. Nothing said by the “science lovers” matches my views on religion.
Cri
March 6, 2015 at 7:03 am
Imagine you’re a science teacher in the bible belt. You’re coming up to that critical “Evolution” chapter and you know, you just know, someone is going to pop up their little hand, eyes angry with indignation saying “GOD MADE THE WORLD! EVOLUTION DOESN”T EXIST!”
What would you tell them? What should you tell them?
I’d ask them, “Why? Why do say that? Why do you believe God made everything as it is this very day? Is it because your parents told you so? Is it because the bible told you so? I can’t tell you what to believe or who to listen to. I don’t even want to. But i do want you to question why. Cause that is science. Questioning everything. That’s what archaeologist and geneticist and anthropologist and geologists and physicist and Scientists of all sorts do. Question EVERYTHING. They aren’t out there to “believe” or to “have faith”, but to KNOW. Even the word “science” comes from the latin word “scire” which meant “to know”.”
“Well, i KNOW God exists, and the bible is true!”
“Why? I have data up the wazoo that i can show you that “i know” evolution not only exists, but is happening right now. I could show you, over the course of a couple of months how fruit flies mutate and “evolve”. I have fossil records, and dna evidence that supports what others have said about evolution. Famous people, famous thinkers and tinkerers and men who wonder and question everything. So why? Why do you think evolution doesn’t exist? I can’t make you “believe” evolution exists. I can’t make you do anything really. All i really ask, as your science teacher, is listen to the evidence i put before you with an open and questioning mind.”
Then the kid tells his parents his mutilated version of your speech and turns you into a bible burning satanist as you bang your head on the table.
David Manhart
March 7, 2015 at 5:44 am
That is not a teacher’s role though. I am a long life anti-theist (the Christopher Hutchins style). A science teacher trying to debate a child on religion is verboten. That science teacher should be fired. The role of a science teacher is to pass on facts. When it comes to religion, their role is only to present facts and try to get the kids into appreciating science. If a kid speaks out and challenges the teacher on the facts of evolution, the teacher must not try to debate the student and treat their beliefs on an equal level of scientific facts. The classroom is not a place for debate about facts. Nor is it a place to indoctrinate kids. That is what religious schools are for. Indoctrinating children instead of educating them is only permissible in religious institutions.
The real life of teachers in America teaching science is not as bad as you are making it out to be. Except in religious schools. I would not be surprised if they taught that the sun revolved around the earth as the bible says.. But that is their legal right to teach that. Religion has a constitutional exemption in providing real education.
I do understand your frustration. But you have to let it go. We need to focus on encouraging kids to have a love and appreciation of science. And astronomy. Sure, I want teachers to tell a child that astrology is soooo much bullshit.. But that is not their role. They have to stick to the facts and not get deterred.
Kichan
April 21, 2015 at 8:34 am
Can someone who is christian please explain to me why the Theory of Evolution is such a challenge to your faith? Is it impossible for you to find a way to incorporate it into your belief system (such as God creating the world in such a way that it can evolve?)
Using evidence based science to prove evolutionary theory is not claiming that your God isn’t real, just that the world has developed and is ever changing. Sometimes people use it as an attack, but the theory on it’s own is not a bad thing.
hmmm
May 14, 2015 at 8:51 pm
The problem with this article is that at no time does it account for microevolution vs macroevolution. You can believe in God creating the universe while still believing that things evolve (Darwinism, etc). There is no scientific “proof” that multi-celled organisms originated as one single-celled organism eating another. Nor is there any “proof” that at one time there was a single star that exploded (aka the Big Bang theory). There is scientific support that organisms are genetically similar, but a banana and a human share 50% of the same DNA. I find it harder to believe that a banana and a human have a common ancestor than in a higher being creating it that way. And no evolutionist can ever answer the biggest question of where the original exploding star came from. It comes down to the original existence. Do you believe that something or someone created it, or simply that it “was” and go from there.
David Loewen
May 21, 2015 at 7:03 am
“at no time does it account for microevolution vs macroevolution”
The whole “micro v. macro” idea is a creationist concept that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. There is no macro- or micro-evolution. There’s just evolution. I hope that. some day, at least on creationist will actually understand that when it is explained to them. Maybe then. we can start down the road to removing these useless terms from the equation.
“the biggest question of where the original exploding star came from.”
1) There was no “exploding star”. It was all the energy in the universe compressed into a singularity.
2) There was no explosion. It was an expansion of space-time.
3) Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Two completely separate theories.
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 8:00 pm
Nope, there is empirical evidence supporting macroevolution. For example, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full.pdf
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Also, the big bang wasn’t an exploding star. It was a singularity, and we actually have lot of convincing data that some sort of event like this did occur. The problem is that considering the limits of our current technologies, we can not experimental produce the amount of energy release at the moment of this event. We are getting close though, and as we get closer we achieve a more comprehensive understanding of what happened. Also apes and humans share over 99% of their genome, so apparently 1% makes a big difference in terms of development, physiology, phenotypes, etc. So it’s not entirely surprising that 50% difference could produce something like a banana.
ME
May 16, 2015 at 1:38 am
Doesn’t every one know that you should not value wikipedia, due to the fact that anyone can change it…. It is not a valuable determination, of proof.
David Manhart
May 20, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Don’t YOU know that Wikipedia is peer reviewed? If anything written on a particular subject is inaccurate, even an inaccurate year, it WILL be corrected. That is the point of peer review. Inaccuracies get left by the wayside. The exact opposite of religion. Which is probably why you don’t like Wikipedia. It conflicts with the information you get from GodHatesFags.com, 911WasAnInsideJob.com, TheSlenderManIsReal.com, etc…
Ultra Hateful
June 8, 2015 at 9:57 am
My beliefs are the same as your own, but it’s abrasive, crass people with pretentious arrogance that really paint a picture of modern atheists. Here’s something factual since you like facts as much as I do: You can be an atheist without being an asshole. I have a friend like you. You dudes make our collective seem like a bunch of pricks. Are you gonna try and presume to have an idea about my life’s events that led up to this post about you like you did with others you replied to? Go ahead. I’ll let you know if you’re right, the same way I’m letting you know that you have a shit attitude.
Lew
June 8, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Thank you David Manhart.
Reginald V. Finley
June 6, 2015 at 5:21 pm
The common theme is ignorance and appealing to figures that have no clue what they are talking out. Sigh…
Pingback: 22 Answers from a Pirate to 22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution | FSMoSophica
Joe U
June 9, 2015 at 5:06 pm
Until the rationally-minded population recognizes that the creationists/ideologue/intuitively-dominated population is simply brain-wired differently, this silly “debate” will proceed indefinitely and without resolution. We should be spending more time discussing this physiological difference instead of the rationality of the existence of a “god/creator/master-designer”. We have been talking past each other ever since before Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by those of the same creationists lineage. Ask yourself what is your goal of this debate? Mine is to understand just how we really are different, and then ‘fix’ that so that we’re all wiser and can make progress without this horrible friction. If your goal is to simply bark at the opposition because it feels good to express your intellectual-disgust or self-righteous-threat/fears, then go ahead (but neither of you are going to “win”).
Lalis
June 9, 2015 at 10:37 pm
missing link lives in China
Lalis
June 9, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Yu Zhenhuan – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUCi84IbkQg
David Manhart
June 10, 2015 at 10:26 am
You are mistaken. Ted Cruz lives in America. Even though he was born in Canada.
Lalis
June 9, 2015 at 10:38 pm
Sorry left off the link – China’s Yu Zhenhuan – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUCi84IbkQg
Jesse Caron
June 10, 2015 at 1:30 pm
Seriously. False dichotomy reigns supreme in the cultural hegemony that perpetuates it and enjoys the fruits of its political distraction.
Martin James
June 10, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Evolutionary biologist working at a world renowned research institution here. While evolution is a theory, theories are not by definition untestable, unobservable, or unrepeatable. In fact, legitimate scientific theories need to be either falsifiable (http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf) or to some extent verifiable (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/#VerCriMetClaPer). In the former sense, when we can not test a hypothesis, that hypothesis unfalsifiable. Typically this type of theory is then referred to as metaphysics. It’s an important distinction because we could theorize that unicorns subsist on a diet entirely composed of glitter, however that theory is nonsensical metaphysics primarily because in the strong sense unicorns don’t exist or in the weak sense they have never been observed. Verification is a bit more iffy granted, and it’s typically not viewed in the same light as those ascribed by the logical positivists. Instead, verification by todays standards refers to supporting evidence, it’s veracity, and the reproducibility of that data. For example, say I theorize that gravity attracts objects of mass, and that objects of greater mass exhibit greater gravity. I can test this theory, namely by dropping a ball. When I do drop a ball it is invariably attracted to the earth namely because of the massive size and mass of the earth. I can repeat this experiment over and over again, and get the same results. Moreover, I could publish my findings and let other like minded individuals test my theory and determine if their observations are consistent with my own. To that end the scientific community is capable of produce large swaths of empirical data from multiple sources which all test the same hypothesis, and from that can have high degrees of confidence that their explanations for certain phenomenas are sounds and supported by evidence.
XaurreauX2015
June 10, 2015 at 8:00 pm
Common translation (except for the girl who asked about metamorphosis): “I don’t really want to know the scientific answers because they are a threat to my fragile, woo-woo-based faith.”
Bear Bear
October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm
The metamorphosis one is interesting, but we have observed and can reliable replicate macroevolutionary events in yeast, e.g., the molecular shift to multicellular & diploid organism.
Hurpdurp
June 11, 2015 at 4:41 am
Goddamn these people just look so smug and annoying!
Pingback: Recent reading. | perry street palace
XaurreauX2015
July 25, 2015 at 11:38 pm
One line that could have been included in the right-side answers is “I really don’t want to know the answer because it is a threat to my fragile, blind faith.
David Manhart
July 26, 2015 at 7:00 am
An answer by the creationists should have been simply:
“I am firmly unconvinced of all the science I haven’t read.”
Dandan Callighan
September 17, 2015 at 11:07 pm
I don’t think any of them watch The Big Bang Theory 🙂
John
October 25, 2015 at 8:50 pm
This is offensive. The translators are not so much “science-lovers” as “christian-ignorants”. These translations not only portray just how little they understand about the heart of Christian faith, but also just how pompous and plain mean they are. They impugn the intelligence of Christian people of faith in order to defend their own faith in a cold impersonal set of “laws” (of nature), which by the way are misunderstood to have been “discovered” by scientists, when in reality were “invented” by physicists to describe observable regularities. What the christian-ignorant don’t realize is that they cling to their faith for the same reason any of us do, to feel safe in a chaotic world. But the reason their faith is so appealing to them, over the Christian faith, is because it doesn’t require them to delve too deeply into their own hearts. How can you be judged by cold laws of nature? So why worry about forgiveness since what we do is ultimately deterministic and outside our control anyway…
Bear Bear
October 28, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Well John, we all live in this world. I’m not sure what postulating something above and beyond it does to help us actually understand it. It’s really not about faith what-so-ever. It’s about knowledge. I know that a human baby can not be born from a virgin. It’s a physiological impossibility for many many reasons. I assume if a tabloid reported that a baby had been born from a virgin, you would think the same thing that I think. Specifically, that it’s a bunch of nonsense. So when you turn around and make some weird exception to that rule and for some event that there are no historical witnesses to, then yes I have the duty as a scientist to, as you say, impugn your intelligence. You can believe whatever it is you want to believe. But you have no reasonable expectation that I should believe the same, unless that is there is evidence to support what you’re saying is true.
Icabod
May 12, 2016 at 9:01 am
Ever notice it’s always about how evolution is wrong? Nobody really asked creationist about their beliefs? As example, “Which creation story do you accept and why are the others (about 10) wrong?”
How about. “The Bible sets creation to be on October 23, 4004BC. do you support this becoming a holiday? Why not?
Pingback: Translating the questions Creationists ask | dis0rder