22 Answers to 22 Creationists Part 1

Over on Buzzfeed, Matt Stopera interviewed a number of creationists following the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate and asked them to write a question about science in a notebook.  Here are the first 11 pictures that Matt took, along with my answers to these questions.  I’ve seen a lot of very short answers to these, I wanted to do something a little more indepth.  I’ll do a part 2 with the last 11 images.  So away we go!

Creationist1

I’d say absolutely, a lot moreso than the religious do.  After all, to my knowledge, Bill Nye has never molested a child, even though I did encounter a theist who was convinced that he must have, because that’s what atheists do.  Apparently, said theist has not kept up with the news. Teaching children about the real world as it actually exists, without lies, faith and idiocy, certainly strikes me as a positive influence and one that a lot of religious children would do well to experience more often.

Creationist2

Why would anyone be afraid of something that there is no reason to think actually exists?  Is this theist scared of Krishna?  Or Odin?  The Atheism Wiki estimates that there have been approximately 28,000 potential gods and goddesses that have been worshiped by man during his 15,000 year history, perhaps more.  Do we think she’s scared of any of them?  Probably not, mostly because she doesn’t think any of them, with one exception, is real. Atheists just take that one step further.  We  don’t fear what we don’t think is real.  We’re not afraid of your God any more than we’re afraid of getting speared by a unicorn.

Creationist3

Yes, I would argue it is completely and totally illogical.  First off, there’s no evidence for it and secondly, it just makes your God a liar and thus totally undeserving of any respect or admiration.  Ask yourself why your God, who you think wants everyone to believe in him and worship him, would purposely mislead people to make the planet look exactly like it was not created?  What is the purpose?  Then realize that your God is purposely sending people to hell, he knows exactly what will happen because you think he’s all-knowing.  So he knows that by misleading people, leaving faulty evidence and hiding behind the trees to watch what we do, most humans are going to burn forever in eternal damnation.  Your God is a dick.

Creationist4

No, you don’t know what the second law of thermodynamics is, which is clearly a problem for more than one of the people in this photo survey.  The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.  The Earth is clearly not an isolated system, we constantly get new energy from that big glowing ball in the sky, the sun.  Thus, the second law of thermodynamics has limited application to evolution, as you’d know if you had the slightest scientific education whatsoever.

Creationist5

I’d like to answer this with a picture:

Sunset
Click to enlarge

 

I’d also like to invite this woman to learn how to spell, it’s very difficult to take her seriously when she cannot even use the word “their” properly.

Creationist6

They don’t.  Go talk to your friend above.  You’re just wrong.

Creationist7

There’s no evidence that “noetics” has any application in the real world.  It is a particular belief in some schools of philosophy that has never been demonstrated.  This also might apply to “noetic science”, which was a nonsensical woo-claim, most famously pushed by Dan Brown in his book The Lost Symbol.  It’s largely the product of The Noetic Institute, a pseudoscience outfit started by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell and woo-believing-billionaire Paul N. Temple and is associated with the fundamentalist Christian group The Family.  The Noetic Institute has been placed by the pseudoscience watchdog group QuackWatch on their “questionable organizations” list.

Creationist8

There is no objective meaning of life.  Each individual is responsible for determining what meaning and purpose they wish their meaning to have.  You’re on your own, dude.

Creationist9

This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which requires pre-existing life to operate, but most Christians are completely clueless of this fact.  However, there is a lot of solid research into abiogenesis, the beginning of the first life on the planet and we have a lot of possibilities, none of which require an imaginary father figure in the sky.

Creationist10

 

Um… yeah.  Blonde.  Figures.  Anyhow, that’s really stupid and  you ought not smile when you say it, people might think you’re serious.  Or maybe you are and people ought to think you’re an idiot.  Either way, not worth a serious response.

Creationist11

 

You’d have to show me where anyone credible accepts that, I have yet to see anyone claim that they actually believe that really happened in reality.  There are some that have said it’s a possibility but the only ones that really buy into that tend to be the crackpots like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe.  You ought not listen to your religious heroes, they don’t tend to tell the truth.

So that’s the first 11 of the series.  Is there anything you disagree on?  Any of them that you think are remotely credible?  I just look at these things and say “there’s your problem, you’re ignorant gits!”  Next up, the last 11.

4 thoughts on “22 Answers to 22 Creationists Part 1

  1. The answer to the mature Earth question is perfect. It displays every single hole in Christian thinking.

    As for the last question, I remember seeing it the first time and thinking that these people need a serious education into basic science definitions or for that matter basic reading and writing.
    My recent post Set of pre-debate questions.

    1. But you know they don\’t care, right? The Christian worldview looks like Swiss cheese and they think it\’s perfect, no matter how many problems we point out in it. None of the answers I provided required a lot of thought, they\’re things that people should have come up with in response to their own questions before they went on film looking foolish.

  2. "…crackpots like Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramsinghe…"

    Are they crackpots in general or just where it concerns this topic?

    You do know that Fred Hoyle contributed significantly to our understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis?

    1. Yes, he did, but then he and Wickramsinghe spent the later parts of their lives trying to convince people that human life was seeded from the stars by aliens. Even otherwise intelligent people can go crazy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)