A great comeback to creationists?

Question

Here is a funny comeback to use when a creationist says that they don't believe in evolution:

"That's fine. The theory of evolution doesn't care whether or not you believe in it. The theory of evolution won't damn you to eternal hellfire for the sin of disbelief, and the theory of evolution won't severely punish your children for your sins."

It's much more effective than trying to educate them because they twist, distort and ignore scientific evidence anyway, and the look on their faces is priceless.

To fs: You do realize that Kent Hovind knows nothing of science, right? I'll address a few of the main points:
-Due to the conservation of mass and energy, the most scientific and logical theory is that the mass and energy (matter) which makes up the universe has always existed.
-The famous Miller-Urey experiments proved that amino acids (the building blocks of life) can come from non-living elements.

As for the questions directly regarding evolution, I don't have the space to show you why all of your points are wrong, so I would suggest that either do research, or simply e-mail a science professor or biologist and have them tell you why the points are wrong. But considering the gaping holes at the beginning of Hovind's "refutation arguments," I would say that should pretty much prove that he doesn't know anything about science.

And to all of the people who don't seem to understand how evolution works, if you're actually interested in educating yourself, then read the works of Richard Dawkins. Or, if you wish to irrationally cling to the belief that evolution is false, then don't do any serious research and take the word of idiots like Kent Hovind, as fs has demonstrated.

To bobhayes: Wait a minute...It's the sinful parent who punishes his own children for his sins? That's not what the bible says.

ddead_alive: Your first two analogies are so illogical that I'm not willing to subject myself to the rest.

1. The problem with this argument is that the can had no maker. The can is assembled by humans from pre-existing materials. And these materials weren't "created" because due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, all of the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.

2. The existence of a coconut refutes the banana argument. Coconuts are hard to get, don't fit into the human hand, and are incredibly hard to crack open. And what about hot peppers? They have a non-stick surface, fit into the human hand, are easy to get, etc. but will fill your mouth with searing pain. The fact that anybody would ever consider that a banana is proof of a divine creator just shows how simple-minded people can be.
And I'm not going to subject myself to your other analogies if you can't even use logic with the first two.

To pastorj: Keep up with the scientific advancements. We have found transitional fossils. It's like they're purposely avoiding scientific information.

To fs: This should be fun. For one, Time Magazine is not a peer-reviewed scientific source. Two, an enormous number of other transitional fossils have been found. As far as the scientists who claim that evolution is not true, you failed to mention that a recent poll showed that 98% of scientists do support evolution (and 94% are atheists. Imagine that). Hovind is not an authority on any kind of science, and I thought that we had already showed that. If he (or you) knew anything about science then you would know that no scientific theory is proven, just backed with mountains of evidence, and that Darwin story is false (I'd like to see your source for that quote).
The buildings and paintins show that human beings are able to assemble objects out of pre-existing matter. Due to the conservation of mass and energy, the pre-existing matter did not need to be created. This argument is a logical fallacy.

To fs: You clearly don't understand how the big bang works. The big bang theory merely explains how the matter in the universe spread out. It has nothing to do with trees, or any other life forms. Other natural laws cover that. Seriously, your lack of scientific knowledge is embarrassing.
Bacteria and other single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, which means without a partner. I would expect an expert on science to know this.
As far as your next point goes, once again, transition fossils have been discovered and they answer this question. Do research before making an idiot out of yourself.
And then the fact that you delve into the bible drops your credibility into the negative numbers. 1. Why the Christian god? 2. Provide reliable historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus (writings from the time that he lived, not afterward).
Well, it's been fun. Your ignorant copy and paste articles are too easy to refute, though.

Oh, and as far as the whole "the bible is the word of God" thing goes:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Look fs is still posting things that aren't true, except now he's trying to support the bible instead of science. I'm not reading through that crap, but I did notice that he wrote that there are no transition fossils that have been found, and this supports the bible. We've been over this; do research before making an idiot out of yourself.

Oh, and once again, provide reliable historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus FROM THE TIME THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY LIVED.

And, fs, as to your "I must profess that at the present time there could be evidence for a god," you fail to mention it, but that's a double-edged sword. "There is a god" is also a positive claim. What you mean to say is, "It is possible that in the future evidence could be uncovered to support the idea that there is a god." Do you people actually use logic, or is critical thinking too hard? Or are you just hypocrites?

As to your "creationists challenge to evolutionists (scientists)," the very first argument is false, stating that no transitional fossils have been found. And elements count as matter; all substances in the universe are matter. All of the matter that makes up the universe has always existed; the big bang is not a theory of how this matter came into existence. This is basic science. The famous Miller-Urey experiments showed that life can come from non-living elements; many organisms reproduce asexually (without a partner); an animal was able to survive through the development of organs because it was already able to survive in its previous environment; the law of gravity is simply the term humans have given to that particular phenomenon (much of gravity still baffles us). I'm not even going to bother with the other points. We've been over this many times already; please do research before cutting and pasting your bullcrap here.

Answer 1

ROFLMAO! Do you mind if I re-write that for my Atheist chick-tracts?

For the guy above me...
-The Watchmaker, by Rev. Jim Huber-

While walking through the park, I found a watch. Watches (in my experience) do not simply spring into existence alongside the path. Someone of fairly high intelligence must have made the watch, then left it there. Wondering why someone might do such a thing, I decided to find the Watchmaker.

Luck was with me. On the way home I saw an advertisement for similar watches available free (with the purchase of a meal) at a popular fast-food chain. I went to the nearest franchise and asked to see the Watchmaker. The counter-person was not helpful. "Dude, there's no Watchmaker here, we just pull 'em out of a box."

I expressed my conviction that the watch could not simply happen. There must be a Watchmaker. The manager (who took an interest when I began to raise my voice) was able to shed some light on the matter. "Sir, we receive these watches from corporate headquarters in Vermont. If you want to find the Watchmaker, you will have to contact them."

A very nice person at corporate headquarters was able to refer me to her contact at an import company, who referred me to his contact at a Far-Eastern manufacturing firm. Once I convinced him that I was not investigating his company's employment practices, he was kind enough to provide me with a description of their manufacturing process.

The watches were assembled by unskilled workers paid the equivalent of about two dollars a day. (For some reason my contact thought it was important to point out that this is nearly one-and-a-half times the local minimum wage.) The watch band, case, and face were injection molded in an automated process. The electronic portion of the watch was purchased in bulk from another company.

Contacting that company, I found that the electronic portions were produced on an assembly-line using a combination of industrial robots and semi-skilled labor.

The microchips were cut from blanks grown from vats of molten silicon and traces of other elements. The machinery that did this is impressive, but it did not build the blanks so much as control the environment so that the silicon could assemble itself.

The control circuitry is photo etched on to the silicon chips. The photo etchers are fairly complex, as machines go, but hardly intelligent. The operators of these machines are better trained than the laborers who assemble the finished product. However, their knowledge is limited to running the machines. They had nothing to do with the design of the watch.

The doohickey that counts off the seconds is a small bit of quartz. Quartz is a naturally occurring crystal that vibrates at a constant rate when an electric current passes through it.

I'm sure all the folks involved in the manufacture of the watch were quite competent. Many of the folks I talked to seemed quite intelligent; but none of the people directly involved in the watch's manufacture would have been able to make a watch themselves from scratch. No one I had talked to so far was truly the Watchmaker.

The engineer who actually produced the design was knowledgeable and helpful. Unfortunately, his enthusiastic description of the process of circuit design was largely beyond me. I was able to glean two important facts: First, he used a computer aided design system. Second, his design was an enhancement of a previous design by another engineer, who based her design on an even earlier design, and so on; back through several decades.

The engineer was also able to provide me with a very interesting pamphlet entitled A brief history of time-keeping. This pamphlet traced the development of quartz clocks and watches back to a team of designers in the sixties. It went on to trace time-pieces in general back to the water-clocks of the ancient Greeks. It even contained a little speculation about the prehistoric people who built Stonehenge.

The watch was the product of intelligent design and construction, but there was no single Watchmaker. The watch embodies the combined intelligence of countless entities over the course of millennia, from the geniuses who invented the semi-conductor, to the minuscule "intellect" of the silicon and quartz crystals, back to the Babylonian scribe who invented astronomy, and even the purely mechanical motions of the heavenly bodies that inspired him.

Seeking respite from thoughts of watches and Watchmakers, I returned to the park. As I walked along, I found a flower. Flowers (in my experience) do simply spring into existence. The flower grew from a seed, which grew on a flower, which grew from a seed, and so on. The flower is its own manufacturer. This makes the initial design of the flower all the more impressive.

Before researching the Watchmaker, I might have supposed the flower had a single, super-human designer. With the Watchmakers firmly in mind, I contacted the nursery that produced the flower.

A staff member described the process. The flowers indeed grew from seeds. When I asked about the design of the flower, I was surprised to hear that they were a patented variety developed by a midwestern firm specializing in such things.

A botanist developed this variety from existing varieties by selective breeding. The botanist knew what he wanted, but had no way of making the design changes directly. There was also no way to communicate his desires directly to the plant. For that matter, there was no way for the plant to make the changes had there been a method of communication. There were small changes in each generation of plant, but these mutations were random.

Together the botanist and the plants were able to make deliberate, intelligent changes through a process similar to a game of twenty questions. The variations in each new generation were the previous generation's way of asking "How should I change?" The botanist supplied the answer by growing the next generation using seeds from the plants representing the closest guess.

In times past, gardeners made it a practice to save seeds from the best flowers to use in planting next year's garden. In hindsight, I saw that this was a kind of selective breeding.

Again the development was a cooperative effort between humans, and the existing varieties of flower. The gardeners had only a general idea of what they wanted, namely better flowers. The variety still asked the question "How should I change?" Humans still supplied the answer by growing the next generation using seeds from the plants representing the best guess.

There was a blight at the turn of the century that nearly caused this species of flower to become extinct in North America. For several years the American population of this flower declined, then it leveled out, then it started a slow climb. Eventually the flower returned to its previous numbers. Seeds imported from Europe continued to do poorly against the blight. Americans had to rely on their new, blight-resistant varieties.

There was no intelligent botanist or gardener, but the development of blight resistance was, in a sense, still an intelligent design choice. The variety still asked the question "How should I change?" The blight supplied the answer by destroying a greater proportion of the plants representing the wrong answer, leaving a greater proportion of plants representing the correct answer to provide the seeds that would grow into the next generation.

Blight was not the only non-human quiz master. Insects, other plants, higher animals, cooperative microbes, and many, many others all contributed their limited intelligence to the plants' design. Even the Sun, rain, and soil (literally dirt-dumb) made a contribution.

Even discounting the human intellect of the botanists and gardeners, the flower is the product of intelligent design and construction of a sort. There was no single Designer. The flower embodies the combined intelligence of countless entities, over the course of billions of years; from the tiny intelligence of the bee, to the minuscule "intellect" of various microbes; and even the nearly mechanical actions of wind and rain.

Returning to the park I contemplated this process of evolution. I marveled at the diversity and complexity of the life it creates. I considered the process of evolution itself. I meditated on its elegant simplicity, and sublime design.

Old habits die hard. Soon I found myself wondering if there wasn't some subtle intelligence behind the design of evolution. Suspecting the answer almost at once, I was able to complete my research quickly.

Sexual reproduction, one of the key elements in the whole process, was itself a mechanism that evolved from a simpler process of asexual reproduction. If the process of evolution itself can evolve, it requires no great leap of imagination to trace the process back through the ages to processes so basic that they are none other than the laws of physics.

The process goes the other way, too. The learning ability of higher animals is essentially an improved form of evolution; able to make improvements in less than a single generation. Our own natural intellects are yet a further enhancement. Beyond even that, we develop better ways of learning, and of sharing our knowledge, nearly every day.

I am able to make it back to the park before nightfall. I watch the Sun set, then I watch the stars come out. I am a direct descendant of the laws of physics, the product of intelligent design and construction, but with no single Creator. I embody the combined intelligence of countless entities since the beginning of time, from the first primates who used stone tools, back to the first creatures to experiment with sex, forward to my college instructors, and back again to the laws of physics themselves.

The stars are out in all their glory. As I stargaze, I think how lucky I am that the universe is a place where the laws of physics allow life and intelligence to evolve. I wonder, for just a moment, if those laws just happened, or if they were the product of intelligent design. I laugh, and go back to stargazing. I do catch-on eventually; given enough time.

-SD-

Answer 2

After the last discovery about evolution was found the creationist have it for the time being. Don't worry pretty soon a new discovery will be made to prove evolution again.

If you look throughout history we have always debated everything that has ever come up. The things that can not be truelly proven or disproven have been faught ever since they were born (religion, evolution, ect. ect.) Even the exsistance of unicorns has been fought over.

As for the 2 biggies evolution and creation they have the biggest fighters. Don't think only evolution is on the for front all religions are right there with you. For instance Jesus is thought of as a common man by science standards now.

I'm sorry if I offended Christians, for I am one too, but I am trying to make a point.

There is no use us fighting about it, let science do what they do. If they some how prove 100% Evolution then I guess I was the dumb one.

We need to stop fighting and accept each other no matter our beliefs.

added: I can throw up all kinds of statistics. You say a recent poll showed 98%. Guess what if I wanted to I can find a recent poll to show the oppisent. The truth is on polls and statistics you can make them say what you want them to say. For instance your poll might have been done in an area that believing in God is rare, then they eliminate some scientists because they don't study stars(they might only study evolution), ect. ect.

A perfect example of this is the US unemployment rate. After 2 yrs. you are considered unemployable thus not being added to the unemployment rate. As you can see numbers could easily be manipulated to whatever you want them to be. I mean I thought it was crazy one time I went into a city near me and I saw 2 cafe's voted #1 cafe in the city at the same time. I don't mean to bash you I am just showing you can not trust any numbers without researching them first. I personnally go by many statistics (well researched), major magazines, and new scientific discoveries to see changes in numbers on a regular basis.

As for that newer fossil you are right they don't want to bring it out yet. The sooner they bring it out the sooner it can be disproven. They want to make sure they have all of thier bases covered before they bring it out. They do not want a repeat of the last times great fossil.

No I have not heard about it, but I am waiting to see what happens.

Answer 3

I am never surprised by what the fundamentalist christians and the evolutionists can come up with next... dont either of you get tired of the same ol same ol..... tired a** arguments ?
The fundamentalists want to act like our creator is sitting around wringing his hands worried about whether you believe in Him or not and threatening you with hellfire and damnation if you dont..
and you evolutionists wanna keep bringing up the same old argument that evolution is a fact when its a theory and thats all -- you can no more prove your point than the christians.. so you keep going back and forth over the same old crap ......
get a life people !!!!!!
and both of you might want to consider this: if there is a God (which I believe in whole heartedly) and He decided to create life -- would he not start "somewhere" and see what develops ???
a entity that has NO concept of time ( something our finite brains have to make up in order to deal with our own mortality) may very well start life and sit back and see what works and what doesnt--
its all new .......... like i said get a friggin life and shutup

Answer 4

amen brother...couldn't find a question there...but you should put that on a business card and hand it out, it would be easier than saying it 50,000 times a day!!

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

SPACE STRETCHES AS THE UNIVERSE EXPANDS

2. Where did matter come from?

ENERGY...THERE WAS A GREAT QUANTITY AT THE BEGINNING. A "GOD" MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING HERE...BUT THE COMMON THOUGHT IS JUST THAT IT EXISTED, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

TRUE, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, AND THEN WE WOULDN'T EXIST TO QUESTION THEM.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

OH? IT'S NOT PERFECTLY ORGANIZED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, SINCE IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT MATTER IS SPREAD INHOMOGENOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE, LOCATED IN CLUMPS CALLED GALAXIES. DO YOU THINK GOD CREATED ALL THE GALAXIES AS WELL?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

I ANSWERED THIS ALREADY. ANYWAYS, THERE WAS A VAST QUANTITY OF ENERGY AVAILABLE AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR UNIVERSE. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT MANY UNIVERSES EXIST NOW, IN THE PAST, AND IN THE FUTURE.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION, FOR THERE TO BE "DEAD" MATTER, THEN BY DEFAULT, THERE WAS "LIVE" MATTER. GENETIC CHANGES OVER A BILLION YEARS IN AN ENVIRONMENT SO SEVERE IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

THAT IS WHAT LIFE DOES. IF YOU ASK, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF LIFE, IT IS TO PROCREATE.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

NO SUCH THING...HAPPENED OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS, AND THE FIRST LITTLE GUYS WERE BACTERIA, AND MOSTLY REPRODUCED THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED BINARY FISSION.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

THESE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE CONDENSED...ALREADY ANSWERED.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

WHAT? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE VAST AMOUNT OF GENETIC CODE STORED IN ONE STRAND OF DNA? ALL IT TAKES IS ONE COSMIC RAY BABY, AND THINGS CHANGE FOR THE WORSE (OR BETTER)!

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

SO YOU BELIEVE SOMEBODY UP IN THE CLOUDS WAS WALKING AROUND SAYING...HMMM...LETS MAKE A ZEBRA, I'M TIRED OF HORSES! READ UP ON THE SPOTTED MOTH IN ENGLAND. BEFORE THE TIME OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, THE MOTHS WERE MOSTLY WHITE, AND LIVED ON WHITE TREES SO PREDATORS COULDN'T FIND THEM. SOME MOTHS HAD BROWN SPOTS, AND THEY WERE PROMPTLY EATEN, SO THEIR DNA WASN'T PASSED ALONG. HOWEVER, THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION POLLUTED THE LANDSCAPE, COATING THE WHITE TREES WITH BROWN SOOT, AND SUDDENLY ALL THE WHITE MOTHS WERE BEING EATEN, AND THE MOSTLY BROWN SPOTTED MOTHS SURVIVED, HENCE A CHANGE IN THE SPECIES, DRIVEN BY MANKIND.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

WELL, SEE ABOVE, THAT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE. STABLE? WE ARE UNDERGOING EVOLUTION AS A SPECIES RIGHT NOW. IT IS A PROCESS THAT TAKES HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS...SOMETHING YOU WON'T FIND IN THE SHORT, WRITTEN HISTORY OF MANKIND. THESE THINGS ARE ON A SCALE THAT IS NOT IMAGINABLE BY YOU OR ME.

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

SURE, OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS. DO YOU THINK IT IS MORE CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME "BEING" SHAT US ALL OUT AS WE ARE?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

SAME QUESTION, ALREADY ANSWERED. BTW, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET A WHEN, THE HOW IS NATURAL SELECTION AS NATURE THRIVES, AND FROM WHAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE MOTH EXAMPLE. IF A SPECIES FOUND IT DESIRABLE TO LIVE IN TREES, THEY ADAPTED THE NECESSARY FEATURES, OR THEY DIDN'T SURVIVE.

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

TOO WORDY, BUT MOSTLY ALREADY ANSWERED. NATURE IS AN AMAZING THING, AS IS THE PROCESS OF LIFE. IF YOU HAVE CERTAIN BELIEFS, THAT IS FINE, BUT KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF PLEASE. RELIGION WAS INVENTED TO MAKE PEOPLE LESS FEARFUL OF DEATH, AND PROVIDE HOPE. BUT THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE GOD, IF ANY AT ALL, AND LOOK AT ALL THE RELIGIONS. YOU CAN'T SEE THE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS BEHIND IT, OR YOU ARE BLIND TO IT.

Answer 5

Heres a question if evolution is so scientific. What came first the lungs or the legs? If lungs then the critter would have drown while waiting for legs to evolve so it could crawl out of the water. If legs as soon as it crawled out of the water it would have died as it's lungs would not have been developed. Where are transitional forms? There aren't any and Darwin himself said if no transitional forms were found evolution would be disproven. What about the simple fact that science has proven that DNA could not sponteneously generate. We cannot exist without DNA and DNA cannot be made on accident or by any series of mutations through the so called evolutionary process. Without Intelligent Design and Creation there is no DNA and you and I do not exist.

People go to hell and are punished for thier sins by their own choice. God has made the way to be forgiven in Jesus and people are unfortunately unwilling to receive the truth. Jesus loves you yes even you no matter how much you hate Him. And when you are ready to accept the truth He will be there to forgive you for your blaspheme. Jesus died for your sins and will forgive you if you come to Him.

Answer 6

Creationist expect one to believe in creationism without proof yet demand proof of evolution.

Evolutionists demand proof of creationism yet still can't give concrete evidence for evolutionism.

There is evidence that shows lifeforms progressing from one form to another, to adapting to extreme environemental changes- this evidence helps support evolution. Yet there are gaps in scientific timelines, there is missing data.

Who's to say the gaps can't be filled in with a little faith.

Arguing over who's right and who's wrong, as usual- is a bigger waste of energy than trying to explain the big bang theory to cromagnon man.

And how I wish people would stop using Religion/God/Jesus/Scripture as a tool to insult others.

Answer 7

I heard this little story from my professor once that her Rabbi friend told her about the fight between religion and science:

"These two shouldn't be fighting. They both answert different questions. Science answers how, religion answers why."

You don't need to be rigidly canonical and follow the cosmology of a book religion to believe in its concepts as a whole. The exact letter of the words spelled out in the Bible were written almost two thousand years before our time, and were important and valid to an entirely different society. At this point, I'd say the argument has become diseased and permeated with stubborn, unbending bias. It would be best to shoot it in the head like Old Yeller and let it lie dead.

Answer 8

It might be fun to use that response and watch their reaction, but I ultimately care more about convincing people to think rationally than I do about seeing the "priceless" look on their faces. It's difficult work teaching religious fanatics to think for themselves, but someone has to do it.

As for pastorJ's answer, I guess snakes can't survive on land since they don't have legs. There are also species of fish alive today that can survive out of water without legs or lungs. Plus, the transitional forms of fins evolving into legs have been found in Canada.

Answer 9

FS needs to study a little bit about quantum physics and he'd realize there are excellent explanations for almost all of his questions but the first two.
And hey, if science had all the answers, a lot of very smart people would be out of a job.

Alas, one cannot argue with a fanatic.

Answer 10

I'm not (strictly) a Creationist, but I am a Christian.

My response to your comeback would be, "God cares about you, and He cares about whether you believe in him or not. He won't damn you to hellfire for the sin of disbelief, but your disbelief can very easily lead you into the hellfire of your own volition. It is not He who punishes your children for your sins: it is you who do that. But through it all, He loves you and wants to cherish you and hold you close, and I pray that you will let him."

Best wishes, and God bless.

Answer 11

Creationists are just pig headed. Evolution by natural selection is proven beyond the slightest shadow of doubt. Now we even know the mechanism on a molecular level with DNA.