START A PETITION34,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Group Discussions
  Blue Label
| track thread
« Back to topics
Lame Claims of Creationists
10 years ago
| Blue Label
Throughout the history of the modern Creationist movement, incredible claims have been made, such as the idea that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But perhaps NONE of these claims were as outrageous in their stupidity as THESE:
Creation vs. Evolution in Reasons to Beleive

Did humans evolve from chimps?
OF COURSE, we humans did not evolve from chimps! OF COURSE, we humans and chimps belong in different genera! OF COURSE, there are differences between humans and chimps! Evolutionists have ALWAYS known these things!

Humans and chimpanzees actually are thought to have a common ancestor that lived about five or six million years ago. Since the two lines that led to humans and chimps split, members of both lines have evolved different features, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER LINE. To argue against evolution because of differences between humans and chimps and imply that evolutionists teach
that the chimps alive today are EXACTLY like our ancestors is both ridiculous and dishonest!

Here's another bogus argument!
Kidney Stones Evidence for Divine Design

If that is considered "evidence" by Creationists, then ANYTHING can be argued, no matter how absurd!
Creationism cannot be falsified, it is supported by semantic ploys like THAT above, and therefore it CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SCIENCE AT ALL!!!!

You know that Creationists are getting desperate when they start publishing retractions of arguments they have used frequently in the past, yet are not intellectually honest enough to face the reality that Creationism itself is bogus precisely because such arguments were used to prop it up!

One of the most disgusting rumors spread by Creationists is that support for the theory of evolution implies that you are also racist, or that all those who promoted evolution were racist in their outlook. No doubt, some were, but that does not justify worthless crap like these web pages:

Evolution: Basis for Racism!

Racism Questions and Answers

Darwinism, Evolution, and Racism

A Notion Rooted Deep in Racism, but not in Science!

Did it ever occur to these hypocrites that branding all evolutionists as racists or the theory of evolution itself as a racist dogma is itself a form of bigotry and a LIE?!

Evolution promotes racism...NOT!

Posted in Evolution Education itself!

Evolutionism has some contradictions with Science. It contradicts with the Law of Casualty, and the Law of Thermodynamics. Why do schools/colleges teach Evolution as a fact as opposed to teaching it as what it is...a "theory"?

Appearantly I was not the only one who was outraged at Kaela's attitude, for her Care2 account has been completely TERMINATED!

10 years ago

Whale Ankles - No Support For Neodarwinism

By Hugh Ross

Proponents of gradualism often trot out so-called “transitional” whale fossils as evidence supporting their view.1, 2 In my book, The Genesis Question, I explain why no other animal has a higher risk of rapid extinction and a lower chance of natural advancement than the whale.3 My short explanation for the fossil record’s “transitional” whales is simply that God likes whales. He repeatedly made new ones to replace those that went extinct.

A new challenge to the claims of naturalists and Darwinists comes from the first-time discovery of some relatively complete ancient whale ankle bones.4 Theorists have insisted that modern whales descended from either artiodactyls (archaic hippos) or mesonychians (archaic ungulates). Thus, expectations ran high that this discovery would settle the question. The surprising answer is that ancient whale ankles do not look anything like artiodactyl ankles or mesonychian ankles—or any other known ankles, for that matter. The Bible’s claim that God specially created the great sea mammals receives further affirmation.

It does not matter what the ankles of prehistoric whales looked like. The common ancestor of whales, artiodactyles, and mesonychians probably had ankles that did not look like any of its decendants either, because evolution can change the structures of ankles in any animal line just like any other feature as it evolves over the ages. The deduction that modern whales are (relatively speaking) more closely related to hippos than any other land mammal came from analysis of their DNA sequences! And, of course, the issue of why the Creator would bother to make whales with useless rear legs remains unanswered!

Perhaps the DUMBEST Creationist claim EVER!

{{{4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.}}}

An outright lie about Charles Darwin

The Ridiculous Claim of Philip Gosse

10 years ago

A thought:

Organizations (presidents and priests) who want to teach children to use threats hell, and bullets, to UnNaturally select the future Inhabitants of Earth will opose the discussion of the Natural Evolution of Life.

An entire website of lame claims!
9 years ago
9 years ago

1. The Universe is a Result of an Explosion.
Evolution used to explain how the universe evolved from the Big Bang. Now, evolutionists claim The Big Bang theory is the study of Cosmology, not related to evolution, and refuse to admit to any possible connection knowing full well that it would point to God.

2. The Creation of Life is a Result of Spontaneous Generation.
Evolution used to explain how the origin of life was created from a miraculous chemical reaction. Now, evolutionists claim the origin of life is the study of Abiogenesis, not related to evolution, and refuse to admit to any possible connection knowing full well that it would point to God.

These are outright lies, since neither Darwin nor other biologists who followed him ever said that evolution had anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the entire universe.

From the Apologetics Press website
9 years ago

Apparently it is acceptable for evolutionists to spout “rejected, inadequate ideas”—like Archaeopteryx still being considered as a “missing link” between reptiles and birds, Eohippus having given rise to Equus, the “fact” that genetic mutations actually possess the power to pass on completely new information and cause evolution at the level of the genus, family, class, order, or phylum, etc. But it is not acceptable for creationists to point out that exactly the opposite is known to be true scientifically. Nor is it acceptable for creationists to employ what the “man on the street” recognizes as everyday common sense—that from the microcosm to the macrocosm, the world around us is filled with evidence of design, which can only mean that there had to have been a Designer.

Mr. Rennie and his colleagues would do well to examine more closely the rejected inadequacies of evolutionary theory before spouting their venom against those of us who already have carried out such an investigation. They can attempt to belittle creationism by aligning it with “flat-earth” cosmology, and they can claim with all their professional might that creationism holds “nothing of intellectual value,” but that will not change the evidence—and it will not make us go away. Make no mistake about it: we will continue to stand in defense of that evidence! In fact, seeing the paltriness of evolution only causes us to be more determined to see the ultimate collapse of evolutionary theory. And, if we may kindly say so, if the type of arguments that Mr. Rennie employed in his Scientific American article are the best the scientific community has to offer, that collapse surely cannot be too far in the distant future.

Evolutionists need to know: we will not go quietly into the night. And when the dust settles, it will not be evolution that is “triumphant,” but truth—the truth of creationism.

Strawmen, turning reality upside down, and unsupported assertions. Sorry, but if you are going to insult our intelligence with lies, you already lost!

This post was modified from its original form on 20 Oct, 11:15
Focusing on one statement in particular from the last post
9 years ago

Nor is it acceptable for creationists to employ what the “man on the street” recognizes as everyday common sense—that from the microcosm to the macrocosm, the world around us is filled with evidence of design, which can only mean that there had to have been a Designer.

That's just it! Science does NOT use "everyday common sense" because if it did, we would still be assuming that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits it, because that is what our eyes tell us at first glace. Only scientific investigation, liberated from dogmatic limitations, enables us to reach opposite conclusions that are actually true and lead to new discoveries. Including those of evolution.

This post was modified from its original form on 20 Oct, 11:46
Eradicate Science influences
9 years ago

Mari E.
StarsButterfliesGold Notes 


Some would say it wasn't Evolution. Satan did it! Now why would they do that? Is it Satan or Science? Was it Satan or is it our History? Why do they always put the blame on Satan? Satan did it!!

Proving Satan Invented Evolution

genetic evidence planted by SATAN!

Satan Invented Evolution Part 1 Disproving the Big Bang

Satan Invented Evolution Part 2 God created the World

Satan Created Islam and Women

There is no real proof Satan ever existed or planting anything to alter History or Science. It's a lot easier to Blame Satan than to admitt they lied and stole. 

Some Christians go this far to eradicate Pagan influences, cultures & Science.

Dale H: Any attempt to blame Satan for the physical evidences that support evolution is an insult to God, implying that He is weaker than Satan. That's BLASPHEMY, of course. You might as well argue that it was SATAN who created the world itself!

9 years ago

Mari E.
StarsButterfliesGold Notes 

Satan Invented Evolution Part 3 Impossiblity of Abiogenesis 

Satan Invented Evolution Part 4 Dinosaurs & Age of Earth
Bananas, peanut butter, and crocoducks, oh my!
8 years ago

Petrified Human Brain!
8 years ago

Category: CreationismKooksStupidity
Posted on: October 20, 2008 1:42 PM, by PZ Myers

Reader wombat found a fascinating site in response to the creationist debate in Kentucky, led by Dr. Ben Scripture. It's an utterly bizarre page about a petrified human brain, and it is typical creationist tripe. They have gathered a collection of "authorities", where they make much of their pedigrees (don't blame me, the "Dr. X, Ph.D." is the redundant formula they use on the site.)

  • Dr. Suzanne Vincent, Ph.D., a neuroanatomist(!) at Oral Roberts University
  • Dr. Ross Anderson, Ph.D. of The Masters College
  • Dr. Bedros Daghlian, M.D., a retired doctor
  • Dr. Ben Scripture, Ph.D. in biology
  • Dr. Travis Shipley, Ph.D. in theology (snort!)
  • Dr. Frederick Trexler, Ph.D. in geology and Physics

The photos show these people and others gushing over this lump of rock, with testimonials like:

  • "It is scientifically impossible for this to not be a brain"
  • "Clearly, this is the brain stem and spinal cord, see it wrapped around there? Everything right where it is supposed to be."
  • "Dr. Daghlian checked microscopically, and confirmed residue to appear cellular."
  • "…I spent several years in medicine before obtaining my Doctorate in Theology. When I reviewed the x-rays of the rock and different brains, I chose incorrectly which was which!"

After all that, you'd expect to find some remarkable degree of similarity, wouldn't you? It convinced a neuroanatomist, after all, and surely all those people with their fancy degrees couldn't be fooled. But then they show us a close-up photo of this "brain".


They've got to be kidding. That's a lumpy rock. It's no brain; I've seen a lot of brains in my time, from fish to frogs to lizards to birds to all kinds of mammals, and that looks nothing like any of them. Here, in case you haven't seen one, is a photo of a human brain:


This is the Ed Conrad effect. Hand some ignorant people a random lump of rock, tell them it's a fossil, and their imaginations will do the rest. There is no excuse for these "experts", though — the author of the page claims that "It has been examined and determined to be a petrified human brain by many people with high degrees in several different fields of study and occupation." That just goes to show that even the most qualified people in creation 'science' have to be flaming idiots.

8 years ago

I saw a documentary on HBO about evangelicals and their move to take over the USA. The brainwashing of children and adults with creationism was astonishing! It is the complete and total dumbing down of humanity!

Trilobites and their eyes, by Kurt Wise
8 years ago

Dale Husband: The inserted numbers refer to my notes in response to Dr. Wise's nonsense.

The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. (1) All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. (2) There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures. (3)

I believe that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of organisms past and present. The schizochroal compound eye of the trilobite (a horseshoe crab-like organism of the past), for example, contains the only known lens in the biological world which corrects for focusing problems that result from using non-flexible lenses. (4) The designs of the schizochroal lenses, in fact, are the very same designs that man himself has developed to correct for the same problems. Furthermore, the design of the schizochroal eye combines this optimum focusing capability with the optimum sensitivity to motion provided by the compound eye as well as the stereoscopic (3-D) vision provided by closely spaced eyes.

The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. (5) This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. (6) The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. (7) Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye. (8)

1. Actually, the "evidence" in the Book of Genesis, written by authors thousands of years after the events it claims to describe, is hearsay. Thus it would be inadmissible in any American court of law, because it could be faked.

2. What about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others?

3. Because of finding errors in the Scriptures that fundamenalists then attempt to explain away with all sorts of unfounded speculations and even outright lies.

4. If trilobite eyes are so amazingly designed, why did their Creator allow the trilobites to become extinct later?

5. Better than the eyes of man, who is supposed to be the one made in the image of God?

6. This is not a fact, but an assumption based on no evidence.

7. Science says, "We don't know yet, maybe we will find out later." The attempts of religion to fill the gaps of our knowledge with unproven acts of God creates a God whose existence becomes less and less important as scientific knowledge expands.

8. It's amazing how often you see opponents of evolution underestimating the ability of natural selection to improve parts of organisms over millions of years. Didn't Darwin write at length about the eye and its possible evolution in the Origin of Species?

Proof of Creationism!
8 years ago

Creation, Evolution and Interrelation
8 years ago

Looks like word salad to me!

Inside Kirk Cameron's Brain (The Creationist Mind)
7 years ago

7 years ago

Claim CB952:

An important element in an animal's struggle for existence is adaptability to a varied diet. If, say, a bird depended for its existence on a diet of one particular gnat, and that gnat disappeared, then the species of bird would die of starvation. But evolution proposes that an ancestral wasp with a varied diet evolved into species with very particular diets. Such evolution would not be advantageous.

Fabre, J. Henri. 1921. A dig at evolutionists. In: Alexander Teixeira de Mattos (transl.), More Hunting Wasps, New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, pp. 203-213.
Response:  Evolution does not operate for the long-term benefit of the species. Rather, it favors individuals which leave more surviving offspring, regardless of the implications for the species as a whole. Individuals which specialize on a particular diet often do better due to greater efficiency in their area of specialization. For example, a wasp which specializes on hunting only lycosid spiders might succeed in capturing them 20 percent of the time, versus a 10 percent capture rate for the generalist. That edge will make specialization an advantage as long as there are plenty of spiders to eat. If the diet goes away, the species which feeds only on it will go extinct, but evolution does not have the foresight to consider that. This would be one case in which evolution is not the same as survival of the fittest.
The craziest claim by a creationist - EVER
6 years ago

This is not a joke. This man is being serious! You can see the entire interview here;
the relevant part begins at about 25 mins into the video.

The website Free Christian Teachings can be found here;
The Golden Crocoduck 2010 voting video is here;


New to Care2? Start Here.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!