7 Jaw-Dropping Creationist Claims

Posted on by JohnG (JohnG)
URL for sharing: http://thisorth.at/1ae0

Creationists. Say the word and images of rainbows, Noah's ark, and velociraptors having tea with Adam and Eve come to mind.

No, seriously.

So where to start? The willful ignorance of a person who has access to the hard-won knowledge that science has made available to the modern age, but chooses instead to believe that the universe is mere thousands of years old; that humans co-habitated with dinosaurs; that all the millions of species of life on Earth appeared suddenly in their present form and that all of them could fit onto a wooden boat - it boggles the mind. Yet some claims go beyond familiar generalities like "The world is only 6000 years old," and "Evolution doesn't happen." Some claims are so specific, so oddly bizarre or ironic that they deserve to be singled out.

Prepare for some brainhurt and read on.

1. Moon Craters Prove Noah's Flood

YouTube Creationist Nephilimfree informs us that, obviously, craters on the moon came from ice ejected from Earth during Noah's Flood. It's called Hydroplate "Theory," and it goes something like this: Noah's flood was no mere deluge of rain like you learned about in Sunday school. Actually, the crust of the earth split around the mid-ocean ridges and fell down onto a secret subterranean ocean that God apparently had installed just for the occasion. The falling earth forced the water up through the cracks in the crust, ejecting it skyward. The super-sonic water shot all the way into space and straight to the moon! Icy meteors struck the moon, creating the craters we see today.

And the frozen marine animals you can pick up off the surface of the moon...the Apollo astronauts found those, right?

2. God Loves Horses and Whales (just not enough to keep them from going extinct)

Creationists like to deny that fossils can show evidence of evolutionary transition through a lineage of species. To them, the discovery of one transitional fossil simply creates two new gaps in the fossil record, one before and one after, which must be filled with transitional forms before they will be satisfied. You see the problem here. In reality, every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every species is in constant transition, never quite the same from one generation to the next as it evolves through time.

So here's an interesting tack - take something that provides strong evidence of evolution, admit that it's real, but then say that it's actually evidence of special creation. This one comes to us from Dr. Hugh Ross, and even his creationist audience chuckles when drops the punchline just after the 2:00 mark.

Transitional fossils exist because God knew large animals would go extinct quickly, so he made a lot of species in each group to make up for it. Brilliant. But why not just use his omnipotence to keep them from going extinct in the first place?

3. The Magic Comet

Here's another take on how Noah's Flood really happened -- according to "The Hovind Theory" (modestly named by its proponent, Kent Hovind), the water for the flood wasn't ejected from within the earth, but was delivered from space via a giant comet. And this was no normal comet; it was a magic, anti-physics comet able to ricochet around the solar system like it was a giant pinball machine, creating the craters on other planets and even the rings of Saturn before heading for Earth.

You know how meteors streak through the sky, heated to incandescent temperatures by friction with Earth's atmosphere? That didn't happen - remember that this is a magic, anti-physics comet. Instead, it broke up and wafted gently down to the earth's poles as snow, creating the ice caps and freezing mammoths to give the illusion of past ice ages, which of course never happened.

Also it created the Flood somehow. Did the new ice caps melt or something? If so, why do we have ice caps today? Does it even make sense to ask logical questions about a completely inane idea?

4. Dinosaurs = DRAGONS!

Just watch the video. Creationist Dr. Kent sets the stage for his no-I'm-actually-serious insanity, and then the delivery... just - wow. As with Dr. Ross's audience, the interviewer here can't help but LOL when Dr. Kent deadpans the punchline.

Dinosaurs had trouble breathing after the flood, and the increased friction in their nostrils caused their noses to catch on fire, leading to myths of fire-breathing dragons. You know what? This might be a good time to take a breather - read a book or something to make up for the IQ points you've lost by coming this far. Then, if you feel like another masochistic stab in the brain, come on back. The worst is yet to come.

5. The Magic Canopy

What exactly was God's method for creating a flood to wipe out life on Earth? There seems to be a lively debate about this in the Creationist camp. Was it magic water from beneath the earth? A magic comet from outer space? Or was there a magic canopy of water suspended above Earth's atmosphere all along, creating the conditions of paradise and providing God with a convenient way to wipe it all out? Teach the controversy, I say.

If I were God, I would have gone with the comet thing, but that's just me.

6. Evolution Exists...Just Not That Evolution

Natural selection and "microevolution" both exist but "macroevolution" doesn't. That's right - we admit the existence of Natural Selection but deny that it has anything to do with evolution. We admit that species can change over time, and that these changes can even lead to speciation, but deny that these changes can compound into large changes over time because... the passage of time is impossible?

The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the time scale involved. Is that really such a hard concept?

7. The Cambrian Explosion Disproves Evolution

I'm sorry, what were we talking about? I think I blacked out for a second. Maybe that was just the rational part of my brain committing seppuku, for surely an honorable death is preferable to a life among... this. I just... I don't even...

OK, here goes.

In the distant past, many modern phyla of animals evolved during a relatively brief period in geologic history commonly known as the Cambrian Explosion. To creationists, this "sudden" appearance of many animal forms is proof that they were all poofed into existence. Never mind that the Cambrian explosion, while geologically brief, played out over tens of millions of years and that it all happened over 500 million years ago. Never mind that the major groups of animals to evolve during this period were phyla, not modern species.

Large scale groups that still exist like arthropods, echinoderms, and animals with something like a backbone evolved, but none of the particular species that evolved during that period are still alive and most of the species from that time bear no resemblance to their modern descendants. Never mind that even at the end of the Cambrian Explosion there were still NO animals or plants living on land. Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, flowering plants, and other major groups did not yet exist in any form. Yet, somehow, the creationist is able to say, in effect, "The fact of this major evolutionary event disproves evolution."

There you have it! Evolution proves Creationism! Checkmate, Evolutionists!

Oh, wait.

* Special thanks to YouTubers like Thunderfoot, AronRa, dprjones, and others for carefully debunking Creationist silliness with videos far more clever and thorough than the claims themselves deserve.

Which better explains the diversity of life on earth?

30895 views & 78 votes

Debate It! 17

This reminds me of a family guy episode:

Posted By stech01,

I'm not a creationist, but transitional fossils ARE something of a problem. Why? Because we have lots of fossils for distinct species. Yes, we have a few fossils that give evidence of things not-quite-monkey and not-quite-human, for example, but those are rare. VERY rare. The only explanation for this is punctuated equilibrium, which is mathematically infeasible and leads to a slew of other problems; I'm yet to be convinced that puncuated evolution occurred.

"The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the time scale involved. Is that really such a hard concept?" Microevolution over the time scale of macroevolution is NOT guaranteed to produce speciation. So your statement is wrong. Try to leave the science to the scientists, OK?

Posted By Telanis,

Excellent list! I was expecting the whole Ray Comfort banana argument on here, though.

As to the controversy over transitional fossils, I believe you say it correctly when you state that all fossils are transitional fossils, because this "lack of fossils" claim that ID'ers spew out gets pretty old, because that's not something they readily get.

Oh, and Telanis: macro and micro evolution do functionally work the same way. An example of micro evolution in terms of species compatibility exists with the Herring Gull, which can interbreed with related Gull species in Western Latitudes, who can in turn interbreed with other species further west, etc, but once you make a full chain of species around the globe, the species of Seabird you end up with is no longer compatible with the original Herring Gull. Although the boundaries between the individual species seem small, their accumulation ends up creating a clear boundary between to separate animals.

Posted By The Samurai,

Every living organism on planet earth is a transitional form. Evolution has not stopped. Evolution continues at a gradual pace that only can be observed over great lengths of time.

Consider this. When the first Homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago, it was visually indistinguishable from their parents or grandparents or even great-grandparents. The change from one species to another species is gradual and virtually imperceptible.

Fossils, while nice, are no longer required to prove evolutionary history. The field of genetics has confirmed the findings of the biologists, paleontologists and geologists. As all fans of CSI know, the DNA does not lie.

Regardless, I find it interesting that modern theological thought can't get past evolution. Possessing a basic understanding of evolution is not what is turning theists into atheists; rather, it is theisms insistence in clinging to outmoded ideas about gender, race, sexual orientation, sexual expression and marriage. Having religious texts that either promote or condone slavery, misogyny, homophobia, racism and ethnic cleansing has done far more to harm theism than any work ever penned by Charles Darwin.

Posted By D.E.Kesler,

@Telanis If speciation is defined as the development of new species then this has already been observed before our very eyes in nature. Transitional fossils or the lack there of is not a problem for evolution, might be a problem with for punctuated equilibrium as you claim (not sure how it is mathematically impossible however, is there a published math paper on this?). As Dawkins more or less put it, it is like a murder trial and all the forensic evidence points to the butler and then new video evidence emerges showing the butler getting the gun. The other side says "But what about the gaps? You don't have video showing him walking down the hallway with the gun. Now you have less evidence!" We don't need a comprehensive fossil record to know evolution occurred, the whole thing is a strawman.

Posted By zbyte64,

As part of number 7, you should have focused more on the silliness that is called "Intelligent Design."

Similar silly arguments go right down the stack of turtles that apparently hold up the universe. "How could something so improbable as [phenomenon X, which may or may not be all that improbable] happen?"

One answer: "Because the universe has been around for a longass time, and even very unlikely things are predicted to eventually occur given enough time."

Another answer: "Natural selection acts reduces entropy, the tendency of things to fall apart into chaos, and it even acts on things that don't replicate, so things you think are improbable might not be so improbable if they are under selection."

@Telanis: I have a bunch of bones to pick with your statement. First, not-quite-monkey, not-quite-human? You do realize our closest ancestors are apes, right? And that apes aren't monkeys? And that we are, in fact, apes? Second, I don't know what you're smoking when you say punctuated equilibrium is so improbable that it could never happen. Indeed, there is a quite recent (2006) study in SCIENCE, you know, the most reputable peer-reviewed Science journal published in the United States, and one of the two biggest ones in the world? Anyway, the article I link to below uses sophisticated phylogenetic (evolutionary tree building) methods to suggest that 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level could have been due to punctuated equilibrium. The study isn't perfect, but it is done by some of the best phylogeneticists in the world. In addition, it's results suggest that punctuated equilibrium does not account for the majority of evolutionary process. Here is a link to the article.


And finally, transitional fossils are not a problem. The fossil distribution patterns that Gould and others purport as evidence that punctuated equilibrium is more important than gradual evolution (phyletic gradualism is the scientific jargon) may be artifacts of the taphonomic processes that produce fossils, or the remnants of migration processes. In addition, the fossil evidence ALSO shows a LOT of gradual change.

Leave the science to the scientists, okay?

Posted By Brash Equilibrium,

BTW, I cite that Pagel et al paper not to say the punctuated equilibrium has happened, but to show that the jury is still out. This is a SCIENTIFIC problem that is as yet unresolved....but it doesn't disprove evolutionary theory as FACT. At all. PERIOD.

Posted By Brash Equilibrium,

"transitional fossils ARE something of a problem. Why? Because we have lots of fossils for distinct species."
Question: What could a fossil possibly be of if not a species of organism?

"Microevolution over the time scale of macroevolution is NOT guaranteed to produce speciation."
This is probably true in some cases. Selective pressures can cause something to stay pretty much the same if it's a really good fit for its niche (horseshoe crabs haven't changed much in a long, long time.) This is a part of evolution, not a problem for it.

Posted By JohnG,

Furthermore, the statement that macroevolution is not guaranteed to produce speciation is irrelevant. It's like saying "That the sun is out does not guarantee that it will be a warm day."

Posted By Brash Equilibrium,

Let us now consider the difference between Indian cows and American cows, both I may assume had a common ancestry,(?) and both are QUITE different now. What happened? Evolution? I would say so, accelerated by SELECTIVE breeding by humans. Artificial? Yes, but based off the established parameters of genetics and genetic evolution.

Horseshoe crabs have changed greatly over time, in terms of size and color and adaptations to various environments that species has been found in. (Not as much as others sure but maybe they have reached an equilibrium of sorts for now, and have no reason to change greatly at the moment, yet this does not negate the fact that in the future, horseshoe crabs may need to evolve in a faster manner.) I am obviously NOT a evolutionary scientist of any sort, yet I am wise enough to understand that a fossil is analogous to a photograph. A brief snapshot of an evolutionary change that takes place over millions of years. So yes, we are not going to find another fossil next to the original that shows a nice progression that is easy to follow, like connecting the dots in a coloring book for scientists. But we CAN study the genetic evidence between two species, and see if there is any common ground to support a theory that the two animals are related by evolution. If they are NOT related, then how do they share each others genetic make-up? (I would actually like to know for I do not have the answer either.)

Any theory is a work in progress and Empirical evidence may NEVER be found to totally prove one idea or another, yet the evidence suggests that evolution is a pretty good idea to make an understatement. When we can SEE evolution take place, witness the effects of SELECTION, attribute some of it to ADAPTATION and some to MUTATION, and reference a convenient FOSSIL RECORD, I think we have a good thing going. We have to understand that we are not going to find fossils of all species in varying degrees of evolution, we will find so little!

Yet evolution is not everything, I must make a Brash objection to my genius cohort in crime, Brash Equilibrium himself in all his glory, and say to outright dismiss I.D. in its current form, while tempting to even me, his BIG brother, may not be prudent. For I have a simple argument that posits the notion: That evolution does not NEGATE an Intelligence behind it. That is all, I have nothing more to add to it. For it is just an idea. One that suggests forms of both theories able to coexist. This is assuming of course an intelligence behind all evolution, cosmic or otherwise. I am simply stating this as a possibility and not a belief, and of course is a topic of a different discussion altogether.

Posted By 11thzone,

I am also a fan of Winnie the Pooh, but have yet to see any fossil evidence of such a creature, yet I know him to exist.

Posted By 11thzone,

Bro, evolution makes it so there doesn't have to be a creator. Along with other logical arguments, I conclude that the only creator could have been a supremely intelligent life form that was the product of evolution, and if you went down any chain of creation, you would not find a god. God lives in hearts and minds. More precisely, in minds alone.

Posted By Brash Equilibrium,

it's just i guess a crumb of common sense about this, i mean im not against the creationism but is lack of somethings

Posted By Eliwood3323,

The data is in the strata .. Evolve Fish

Edited:04-25-2011 12:34PM by Rebecca
Reason:removed URL

Posted By Kmuzu,

It's obvious that god loves horses

Posted By Incents92,

Evolution it's everything!

Posted By Sper1988,

I have lost the faith in human beings

Posted By Carring,

Make a Comment

You must be signed in to add a comment. login | register
view profile
You are now following
You are no longer following
test message