...and now there are 22 things from Evolutionists to Creationists http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-…

The crazy is strong in that room.

Well, #13 might not be completely stupid. But that's probably just because I have no idea what her point could be.

All the rest are either questions they (willfully) don't understand have been rebutted ad nauseum, or...sunsets???

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."
Nietzsche

It's telling that thepeople who posed with their questions ask the same few questions repeatedly. They each learned a couple of talking points and that counts as being educated on the subject as far as they are concerned. You can't debate a delusion.

Most of these questions are easily answered by googling or looking at Wikipedia. Those people don't want to know the answers to their questions. That's the whole point in Ken Ham.

They all look like nice people, which makes their questions seem almost sweet and child-like from here in my bubble.

It isn't just a curriculum problem, it's a critical thinking problem—which is alive and well in progressive country as well.

@6 well put.

In Los Angeles, we have brilliant sunsets because of air pollution.

Why would a just God want to fuck up my lungs so the tourists can take pretty pictures?

And, by the way, Right Wing Nut Job, it's spelled "humanist" not "huminist."

Surely an all-knowing God would have fashioned your "humin" brain so that you could spell your native language, and not hold you up to ridicule from those who doubt He exists.

For a message to the creationists, I would have asked why they feel compelled to treat their 2000+ year old book of faith as a book of science.

Jesus wept.

1. yes
2. no
3. yes
4. no
5. the earth is round...
6. whut
7. what about it?
8. why is meaning necessary?
9. yes
10. so?
11. they don't
12. so?
13. yes
14. scientific theories are not "theories". and the bible is not a theory, it's a book.
15. scientific theories ARE testable, observable, and repeatable.
16. you got me
17. why must there be purpose?
18. we've found hundreds of pre-human ape fossils
19. who believes the big bang is proven?
20. it's easy
21. who knows
22. we're apes, not monkeys.

Max won the internet today

What a bunch of nice (white bread), well meaning morons.

@12 - For a few of these questions, the best answer I can come up with is "mu." The questions themselves are invalid, like 16 and the ones that ask about "purpose."

#4 in the OP is a complete fucking idiot because the 2nd law applies to isolated systems. If the earth were entirely isolated then maybe you'd have a point, but we have the goddamn SUN counteracting the arrow of time's push toward maximum entropy. But hey, invoking the Second Law sure makes you look smart, right?

The logical failure here stems from his inability to understand things on anything but a human or personal scale. This is a trait shared by many on the Religious Right -- hence climate change denial, evolution denial, their denial of rights to LGBT folk, and so on.

Where do they find people willing to humiliate themselves like this?

Oh, the Creationist Museum, never mind.

#16 right?!

This idea that thermodynamics disproves evolution ignores the fact that every organism from birth to death consumes energy from an outside source in order to grow more complex. Whether that source is sun or food, everything does it. You know what happens when we remove outside energy and make a human a closed system? It dies. Entropy. Tada! Idiots.

p.s. To that twit in the OP who asked why there hasn't been instances of observed increasing complexity in genetic code. There are instances of increasing data in the genetic code. We see it all the time in cancer. Typically additional genetic data is a BAD thing...but that doesn't mean that there hasn't ever been extra data that wasn't useful.

The republican party is full of people just like those "nice looking persons" that post ignorant views on creation vs. evolution. There is evidence in evolution, there is no evidence in creation. We all evolved from some scum in a pond in The Netherlands, the algea crawled ashore and a million years later there was a life form that slowly grew to be a sort of humanoid person. This is where it get's difficult. The lower scum pond inferior (challenged) lifeforms were known as republicans, the more intelligent life forms known as Democrats were in charge, as it should be. The lower scum pond republican sorts never really got off the ground intellectually and that is why we have persons who still vote for and support "creationist" theories that can't stand up to any scrutiny. Go dig up a few more dinosaur bones a tell me the earth is only 6,000 years old.

@16: The failure is not logical, it is epistemological. They only learn things to support their preconceived notions. They were taught early on that "this is how the world is" and from then on are taught to only look for confirmation, never rejection. Thus a good thing happening to them is because God is good, and a bad thing happening is because God is good.

And, they're gone! Both.

Anyone know if they're archived anywhere, or why Buzzfeed took them down?

@6 and @20 - That's it right there.

@12 I don't think #16 herself knows what the hell she's asking.

@21 I just looked at it.

If you want to be an advocate for evolution, you're going to have to learn to answer these questions on the fly. This link, shared by another Slogger on a previous evolution-creationism post, is a good start.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary…

@4 Great quote!

Also, people need to learn "their" vs. "there" vs. "they're". Arrrghhh..

@5 FTW: "You can't debate a delusion."

Creationist talking points: the Second Law and Lucy. Both of which they're wrong about, especially since we not only have fossils, we have DNA.

It's entirely possible to be religious and think creationism is bullsh*t, but only if you have at least half a brain.

Aaaaaargh. "Just a theory."
Scientific theories are what we know BEST about science. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity proved that Newton's Laws of Motion are wrong (at very high speeds).
And if they prefer biblical demons to the Germ Theory of Disease, then by all means they shouldn't ever take any antibiotics when they get sick.
Ignorance of language, ignorance of science, ignorance of the whole world around them....why can't they be ignorant of voting?

Is it just my imagination, or are all those people's eyes really far apart?

@23: Thanks for the great link, but that will take a back seat until I've managed to memorize the entirety of the rant at the end of "Storm."

@ 22 Messages For Creationists From People Who Believe In Evolution. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-…

1. Because both your great grandma and the T-rex are extinct. Sorry about that. God's will.

2. Easy God is a clever artisan.

3. What? You don't get horny and go on a rampage with your God powers?

4. Manscaping. Once snakes start shaving it's all about that slithering sex.

5. Totally. What makes you think God doesn't have a sense of humor?

6. Easy. the same way I ignore the NFL.

7. I don't date carbon, we're just friends.

8. Yes. It is easy to deny what I can't read.

9. It is the omnipresent part of God that is in everything, the omniscient part just knows everything.

10. Gilgamesh.

11; And exactly who do you think but Science in charge?

12. If God is true all religions are true. God by definition is difficult to approach.

13. Those particular dinosaurs were vegan.

14. It was only 40 days and 40 nights.

15. God does have a sense of humor.

16. See above.

17. See above.

18. See Harry Potter.

19. No worries.

20. No of course not Religion should be taught in Religion class and Science in Science class. Why is this so hard?

21. Well duh.

22. Jesus not only rides dinosaurs he Medals in dinosaur dressage. It is walking on water he is having problems with these days. What with the holes in the feet n all.

@13,
Here's some of the leading Creationist theory in regard to that. http://harunyahya.com/en/Books/964/the-c…

The second paragraph gets to the heart of it: They argue that evolution is based on chance mutations of genes (this part they mostly state correctly). Whereas metamorphosis is a process outside of evolution because it unfolds as a kind of evolutionary process (not explicitly stated) within an individual organism, as well as within one generation, that is not due to a change of genes*, thus differentiating it from actual evolution.

The rest of it is the irreducible complexity argument :

"The process of metamorphosis happens through exceedingly sensitive balances and timings in hormones which are in turn affected by different genes. The creature will pay for even the tiniest error with its life. It is impossible to believe that such a complex process could have come about by chance and by stages."

---------------------------

*Of course we know that the selective pressure toward metamorphosis is very strong in organisms such as insects, and very much gene-based.

As this pretty good article states, "Between 280 million and 300 million years ago, however, some insects began to mature a little differently—they hatched in forms that neither looked nor behaved like their adult versions. This shift proved remarkably beneficial: young and old insects were no longer competing for the same resources. Metamorphosis was so successful that, today, as many as 65 percent of all animal species on the planet are metamorphosing insects."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…

They show no ability at logic or reasoning and a complete and willful ignorance of the facts. Typically religious.

Sunsets. nuff said.

1. Yes, he's encouraging kids to think critically.
2. I am in awe of God. I feel not awestruck, but rather threatened, by people who claim that their personal interpretation of Scripture is God's literal words.
3. Look up 'parsimony'.
4. The Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems.
5. The rotation of the Earth causes the Sun to be blocked from our view by the Earth. Also, *there
6. They don't.
7. notscience.bmp
8. Evolutionary biology explains how humans came to be from LUCA. Philosophy isn't what science is about.
9. Exactly. By chance.
10. Good for you, and I care why exactly?
11. We don't.
12. You are actually quite wrong. We've found hundreds of proto-human specimens, and by definition, EVERYTHING is a transitional form.
13. No. Ontogeny doesn't necessarily recapitulate phylogeny.
14. Yet another person who doesn't know what a 'theory' is.
15. Ditto.
16. Gene duplication, such as the divergence of hemoglobin and myoglobin from a common ancestor gene that was duplicated at some point. Also, horizontal gene transfer (which is mostly seen in prokaryotes).
17. Who said I don't believe in God's lovingkindness? I can be religious without being a Creationist.
18. See 12, we've found many many australopithecine fossils.
19. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Also, the model for the Big Bang predicted that we'd see a certain level of background radiation. Boom, we do. Science. It works, bitches.
20. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That just speaks to your lack of imagination.
21. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Also, you profoundly misunderstand what the Big Bang was.
22. If cakes are baked from flour, why is there still flour in the universe?

Yyouu...
DENSE motherfucker!

@33 W.T.F? Do you have a job? How long did it take you to post this nonsense?

@22 Thanks. They're fine this morning. For whatever reason, they weren't working for me during the half hour I tried before my post.

@27 Thanks for posting that. It was thoroughly enjoyable all over again. Definitely needs periodic re-watching.

@34: I work part-time in the mornings. That took me about 10 minutes.