Response to Creationist 12

12. “There is no inbetween… the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds neccessary for an “official proof””

There are two things we can learn from 12’s claim, which is a variation on the old “missing link” objection.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 11

11. “Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of inteligent design from aliens or other extra-terestrial sources?”

I’m disappointed that the photo doesn’t show 11’s face, because I’d love to see what kind of deranged, delusional idiocy is beaming out of it. Except it probably isn’t, is it? He probably looks completely normal. It’s the banality of insanity.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 10

10. “I believe in the Big Bang Theory… God said it and BANG it happened!”

Other commentators have suggested that 10 is describing a belief in deism, the idea that god is an unknowable, ineffable entity who created the universe but who has not interfered since – and therefore cannot be the personal god of Judaism, Christianity, or any other revealed religion. Her mention of the “Big Bang Theory” and the phrase, “it happened” do seem to suggest some concept of deism or theistic evolution in which god set the fuse on the Big Bang, and then left “it”, ie the entire subsequent history of the universe, to happen as science understands it.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 9

9. “If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?”

The poor framing of 9’s question reveals its rhetorical nature. If it were a genuine enquiry, it wouldn’t need the first clause. “How did the first single-celled organism originate?” is a perfectly good question, clearly and accurately stated, and easily googlable. If 9 really wanted an answer to it, she could have it in seconds. So either she doesn’t want the answer, or the answer is too hard. I’ve already accused 1-8 of not wanting the answers, so for a bit of variety, let’s be generous to 9 and suppose she does want the answer, she’s tried looking it up and she still doesn’t understand.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 8

8. “Where do you derive objective meaning in life?”

This is another interesting one because it shows what 8 – and presumably many others like him – is really concerned about. It certainly isn’t “which theory of the origins of life and the universe is best supported by the evidence?” He really doesn’t care at all about that.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 7

7. “WHAT ABOUT NOETICS?”

Yeah, what about noetics!?

No really, what is noetics? I had to look it up to find out. Then I was embarrassed, because apparently it’s a branch of philosophy, and I studied philosophy at university, and I’d never heard of it. Then I was relieved, because I discovered it’s utter bullshit.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 6

6. “If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?”

If I were simply answering the questions, it would be tempting to simply refer back to 4, but I’m not, so I won’t.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 5

5. “How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?”

This is the one which inspired me to respond to any of these at all. At first I laughed at 5 like everyone else, but later I convinced myself that she couldn’t possibly be as stupid as her question seems to be. I simply refuse to believe that she’s asking a question to which the answer, “the rotation of the earth relative to the sun,” would make her go, “oh, yeah, that makes sense, thanks.”

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 4

4. “Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove Evolution?”

No, it doesn’t. In brief summary, the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy (disorder) increases in a closed system, and since the planet earth, the system on which life evolved, is not closed – it has energy being put into it from an external source, the sun – it doesn’t apply.

Besides, the law refers to the average entropy of the system, which means that pockets of order can appear as long as greater disorder occurs elsewhere, like several space modules converging and docking to form a more complex object, but only by firing their rockets and spreading plumes of propellant exhaust all over the place.

Damn it, I’ve got side-tracked already, trying to argue logically against creationist bollocks. I’m meant to be concentrating on why they’re asking the questions, not on the actual answers.

Continue reading

Response to Creationist 3

3. “Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings… Adam created as an adult…”

Again, 3’s question gives us an insight into how he tries, and fails, to understand the world.

Continue reading