100 reasons creationists make me want to leave this planet

This right here is a creationist attempting to take some shots at evolution. i'm exactly 11 minutes and 21 seconds in and i want to throw my computer across the room i'm sitting in. not because of the fact this guy is christian but for the simple fact that he is spewing the most ignorant bullshit i've ever heard, and is basing his arguments on statements that are in short wrong.
So lets play a game
see how long you last during this! post the time you made it to!

(this isn't to take shots at christians or any other religion. it is simply to state that some people have the most basic and misinformed knowledge of scientific theories. the arguments so far in this video is ludicrous and to be frank wrong. the level of understanding about these theories is virtually non existent and when broken down are flat out wrong.)

19:30 i despise this man..... what he is saying just.... wow...

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 10

    I believe in God AND evolution! Fuck me right?

    No, you are what I would consider normal.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:37 pm
    Haha, my mother hates that I believe that. But I guess that's her right, right?
    - FurryLegend October 10, 2012, 10:00 pm
    Hell, for all we know it could be both? Who is to say that evolution started all on its own without any outside stimuli?
    - destroyer124 October 11, 2012, 12:03 am
    Same here
    - imfrikknbad October 11, 2012, 1:42 am
    Yes its her right to believe, just as its your right to hold your own beliefs.
    - johnecash October 11, 2012, 9:48 am
    Wow, it's almost as if they have little to do with each other and one doesn't disprove the other.

    You see, this is why creationists bug me as much as they do. Evolution is an observable fact whether you believe in god or not. If you interpret most of the bible as allegory. (Like many religious people do) they're basically compatible. That being said, I don't believe in god for reasons that have nothing to do with evolution.
    - CrazyJay October 12, 2012, 8:33 am
    No one's saying that at all. We're just saying that outside stimulus wasn't sky daddy.
    - Ertrov October 14, 2012, 6:26 pm
  • 6

    I started the video 20 minutes ago and in that time I have drank half of a fifth of scotch, I'm not gunna make it to the end.

  • 4

    Where's Sheldon when you need him?

  • 2

    Oh god... this might kill me, but here goes.

    • Ertrov
    • October 10, 2012, 4:31 pm
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 4:35 pm
  • 2

    41 minutes in, my god what a tool.

  • 1

    The thing that gets me is people saying their theory of how we got here is fact when the only fact is that nobody knows. It's the same for both sides and the people that argue about it are closed minded/ already chosen their belief so they get nowhere.

    The key difference being that there are mountains of evidence for evolution and an old universe, whereas there is literally none for creationism. True, we can never know something with absolute certainty, but saying that makes something with no evidence equal in value to something with quite conclusive evidence is a complete fallacy.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 4:53 pm
    Agreed. But i also feel that there is no reason why evolution and creationism cannot be so different. It mentions nowhere in the Bible that everything wasn't created using evolution.
    - BadassSquirrel October 10, 2012, 4:59 pm
    Actually it does. In the first chapter. It lays out pretty specifically that it was made in six days. That cannot be a description of evolution.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 5:13 pm
    oh right yeah...duhhh on my part :P Although It also says that to the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day so it's a matter of interpretation on that part.
    - BadassSquirrel October 10, 2012, 5:26 pm
    Which adds up to 6,000 years. Still a few billion short of the time needed for evolution.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 5:28 pm
    ''LIKE'' doesn't mean exactly 1000 years. But then again, now we are into interpretation which then leads to faith and all that craziness.
    - BadassSquirrel October 10, 2012, 5:35 pm
    1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
    11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
    16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
    30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    Your assumption is that a day to us humans is the same as a day in Gods life. What BadassSquirrel says can be correct if, God is the answer to WHY, Evolution is the answer to HOW.

    Obi-Wan: So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.
    Luke: "A certain point of view"?
    Obi-Wan: Luke, you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:35 pm
    Correction: God is an untestable hypothesis as to why, evolution is the scientific answer as to how.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 5:37 pm
    Fair enough, but like you said, it's all about whether or not you have faith in it. And that can't be compared to science.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 5:38 pm
    If we didn't know everything about a duck billed platypus and we only knew it had webbed feet, a duck bill, and it lays eggs, then we might assume there is a mountain of evidence that its a bird like a duck.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:39 pm
    You are correct, I misplaced my why and how. none the less i hope the message I was attempting to say made it out.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:40 pm
    Your assumption is that a day to us humans is the same as a day in Gods life. What BadassSquirrel says can be correct if, God is the answer to WHY, Evolution is the answer to HOW.

    i did say that, you have me forgetting what i just typed. well played, well played
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:41 pm
    I feel it is still a theory though. But i have now realised i've been a big hipocryte tonight as earlier i stated i hate people who ''argue'' about this stuff when they are both closed minded/ chosen what they believe :P
    - BadassSquirrel October 10, 2012, 5:42 pm
    both are still just a theory. the only difference is one is faith and one is science. none the less both at this point in time are theory.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 5:46 pm
    yeahyeahh true true
    - BadassSquirrel October 10, 2012, 5:48 pm
    Actually, one is a hypothesis, and the other is a theory. To be a theory, it must have been tested repeatedly.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 6:12 pm
    To that I say semantics.
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 6:50 pm
    To that I say, the meanings of words matter. Evolution and creationism are not on equal ground.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 6:51 pm
    To you they are not. in this case you want to paint it black and white. I won't question that's what you think none the less much of life is semantics. As an example can you give me the difference between a motor and an engine?
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 6:57 pm
    No, I'm not a mechanic. Not my area of expertise. But you even admitted that one is related to science, the other faith. Ergo, they are not on equal ground as valid theories.
    - Ertrov October 10, 2012, 6:59 pm
    It is a loaded question. My wife works at airbus as an aeronautical engineer, she has a masters from Georgia tec, even she can't answer that one. The difference between an engine and motor, just like theory and hypothesis is semantics at best. And for both cases, just as Star Wars and life showed us depend on how you see it. No everything in life has a definitive answer, like the last digit of pie. I am sure we can agree on the fact that is there's god has been tested. You say hypothesis, I say theory. The difference is a semantic point of view. Ps Detroit is called the motor city and they make cars. Cars are powered by engines. Yet put that same device on a boat and it becomes a motor .... Confusing
    - johnecash October 10, 2012, 7:42 pm
    A hypothesis is not similar to a theory at all. If you want to compare hypotheses and theories to motors and engines, a more accurate simile would be a hypothesis is to a theory as a spark plug is to an engine. One is a working piece of equipment and the other is a small step towards a working piece of equipment.
    - casper667 October 11, 2012, 1:44 am
    In the case of Motor vs Engines, not even engineers with PHD or masters in electrical (degrees from Georgia Tec and MIT respectively ) and aerospace ill take their word that there is no clear distinction between the two.
    - johnecash October 11, 2012, 9:54 am
    First, quickly: YAY KENT HOVIND. I hate everything about him, especially that he went to jail for tax fraud.

    Anywho, the word "theory" in the scientific realm means "a proven explanation detailing the process by which a fact has happened." A theory is, in fact, why AND how, all in itself. Why did evolution (which is a fact) happen? Because of genetic drift and natural selection. How did it happen? By the same processes above.

    Creationism isn't even a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a testable explanation (once again, using scientific definitions). Creationism is not testable, thus it is not scientific. End of story.
    - Logos385 October 11, 2012, 12:25 pm
  • 1

    I believe in god but i only made it 3minutes. This guy is just boring.

  • 1

    Well i believe in God but i also see that there are things that can be explained by science, so i would say a mediation of both... But this gentleman is the perfect example of someone who is closed minded and wont see things any other way, i mean sure there are unknowns in both sides but before you can without a doubt say someone is wrong i want proof. Thats just my opinion i suppose :P i couldn't watch more the 15mins

    I'm not saying he's wrong in his belief at all, i'm saying he's wrong in the science aspect and the way he describes ideas and theories. he doesn't truly know what he's talking about when he speaks about this stuff and is basically spewing out nonsense that confuse people as to what science has actually done. he doesn't know the subject matter well enough to talk about it in a legitimate way.
    - 24paperwings October 11, 2012, 12:09 am
    yes, he does give his audience a false sense that he knows what he is talking about but if you really do listen to what he says it is complete nonsense indeed.
    - destroyer124 October 11, 2012, 12:18 am
  • 1

    Relax people, he's from Florida. Nothing to see here.

  • 1

    hour and six minutes...hate when i cant sleep

  • 1

    Surprisingly, we managed to get through the entire video. We found it interesting, although it didn't really change our views on anything.

    • Dawn
    • October 11, 2012, 9:56 am
  • 1

    I do have to give this guy credit, he is an intelligent man. If i didn't have the understanding of science i have, i would believe him. He does point out some of the hokeyness of science. Out of all the ignorant religious zealots in the world, i would have to say this guy is my favorite and the least ignorant imo.

    Intelligent in the art of misdirection maybe. He's very good at sounding as if he knows what he's talking about, and switching points before people can really think through the flaws of what he's said.

    His main strategy seems to be saying, "Look! Scientists are jumping from point A to B without connecting them! They must be wrong!" When in fact, there is a connection between the supposed 'gaps' in scientific theories, he's just choosing to leave them out to make his point.
    - Ertrov October 11, 2012, 8:43 pm
    I agree. Like i said, he is intelligent in that sense. To an uninformed person, science can seem very mysterious and hard to believe. Some people would rather have blind faith. Its much easier to believe in something without having to hear of all the hard facts about it to prove it. Thats why i feel like many people turn to religion
    - bufus101 October 13, 2012, 2:39 am
  • 1

    Honestly, I wish people would stop making posts or comments about religion. It really only leads to flame wars, and those are never really any fun at all. Sharenator is a comedy site, can't we just stick with funny posts?

    Sharenator is a sharing site. Some of that is opinion, some of that is debate, and a lot of it is comedy. I don't see many flame wars here, to be honest, I see honest discussion. Sometimes heated discussion, but honest nonetheless. If you don't want to see the religion posts, why not just avoid them? Debating is one of the reasons I choose to come back to this site time and time again. : ).
    - Logos385 October 13, 2012, 1:45 pm
  • 1

    Thanks for your advice. I try to avoid religious posts, but I guess I just want to see what people have to say.

  • 0

    For one thing he is right. For the vast majority of the people science is not more than just another religion. He is equally far from science as any of those evolutionists like the person who posted it. At least he does read science books which makes him an interesting person to spend time with.Don't get me wrong, the post is interesting but the way you describe your feelings about it talks a lot more about yourself.

    • cmangu
    • October 11, 2012, 9:13 am
    First of all, I'm not quite sure what your point was. If I miss it, please just correct me. However, it seems like you are saying scientists are just as dogmatic as religious people, and that Kent Hovind is somehow as correct, scientifically, as "evolutionists."

    Science is not a dogma, it is an objective process designed to weed out dogmatic belief and correct it.
    Kent Hovind is not a scientist, has never been one, has no evidentiary support, and is a known fraudster.
    - Logos385 October 11, 2012, 12:28 pm
Related Posts