Do we have a new contender for the title of 'Most ill-informed Question About Evolution?

Sorry,people I may do this a lot. If you have left Y/A R&S never to return because you couldn't take it anymore, you may wish to skim past my blogs!


I think this one has a real chance. Do feel free to rate it on spelling and grammar, incorrect terminology, willfull ignorance, genuine ignorance and gratuitous abuse of atheists. 

Did you know not all science is true?

Equations made after human understanding predict two silly things

broken cups reassemble themselves

waterfalls flow upwards after falling downwards to conserve their energy

nothingness decays into matter and antimatter constantly, filling the Universe with more stars

None of these is true. Scientists themselves observed this

Additional Details

One more thing, animals can't give birth to humans even if their womb is injected with human baby cell

35 minutes ago

Monkeys and humans can't have children together, even if they are the same evolutionary branch

Not to mention the paradoxes in physics and the unsolved puzzles in mathematics

34 minutes ago.

Equations do say all that stuff is true. But humans are more intelligent than their own equations



If I were to give this a rating out of 50 it would go like this:

Spelling and Grammar - 0/10 (makes a nice change)

incorrect terminology- 10/10

Willful ignorance- 9/10

Genuine ignorance - 8/10

Gratuitous insults - 0/10


Hmm - 27/50, not as high as I thought. I think the 'DNA can't exist because acid would make us all melt' question is still in the lead because of his grammar issues and abuse of atheists. I give him a 33/50. If anyone else cares to give a score I may inform the lucky winner when I have five contenders.


Views: 439

Comment by Helen Pluckrose on September 10, 2011 at 11:22am

Ooh, this is a good one too.

Atheism is a proven hoax!?

Most of these "atheists" are not what they claim to be.

They say "atheist", but maybe they mean atheist only to mythological gods, like aphrodite or hera.

It's enough for them to not believe in at least one of those "gods", for them to lie about being "atheist".

In reality they are not. They are subservient to other religions, like Islam, or Judaism, or other extremist fanatic cults.

In reality they only claim atheism, to those many forgotten gods. And say to Christianity. But their "atheism" does not extend to Judaism or Islam, or etc.

So take heed everyone. When they say "atheist", they don't mean they disbelieve in All gods. It just means they're terrorists in disguise, payed to lie and spread their scum faced propaganda nonsense.

They are still Theist to one of those other religions, that are rivals to Christianity.

Has everyone got this, or should I explain better?

Thanks, and warn everyone you know.
Have just pointed out that atheists have had the majority for quite some time in Britain and other European countries but we have not yet attempted to establish Islam or any other religion in our countries.
Comment by Godless Conservative on September 10, 2011 at 11:36am

Only he's a rather obvious troll. He's been doing that all morning. Christians look bad enough on their own.  We don't need to help them.

Comment by Helen Pluckrose on September 10, 2011 at 11:38am

Is he? He's been texting me getting quite angry and telling me he is loads more intelligent tham me - that's the second one I posted here - was that who you meant?

Comment by Godless Conservative on September 10, 2011 at 12:09pm

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that's a troll.  It's so stupid it just looks like parody.  But the big thing is he's been blocking my accounts since I called him on it.


Annie is one too.  She's just better at not getting called out.  I called her once too, and she emailed me asking that I keep it quiet.

Comment by Michael on September 10, 2011 at 12:32pm

 is true that monkeys can't develop a human embryo. This was attempted by a Russian Scientist during Stalin's times. Matter and antimatter particles do spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum. What that has to do with the price of tea in China, I do not know.

Comment by Helen Pluckrose on September 10, 2011 at 12:40pm

That's interesting - he's just emailed me calling me Twatpie and telling me I am stupid and blocked me. Takes his trolling seriously then. It must be very hard to tell trolls - the man who believed that DNA could not exist because its an acid and we'd all melt was completely genuine and removed his own question when some Christians informed him its OK to believe in DNA.

Comment by Steve on September 10, 2011 at 12:54pm
It's called Poe's Law:
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor it is impossible for someone to make a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing"

And the corollary:
"It is impossible for an act of fundamentalism made that someone won't mistake for a parody"

That's because believers have become so shrill and all-out crazy - and we have become so used to that - that it's hard to think of anything they wouldn't say or do
Comment by Godless Conservative on September 10, 2011 at 12:58pm

That DNA thing was a common joke about a year or two ago.  I've never heard a creationist use it seriously, and I regularly read their websites. I mean fats are acids too.  It's too easy to hammer.


It's possible he's that stupid, but I don't think.  He didn't block me the first time for anything other than calling him out for trying to prove Poe's Law.  The really asinine creationists tend to stick to one, and only one, creationist website for their material.  It's an automatic flag to me if I see something I haven't seen someplace else.


They run out of blocks.  A lot of us who go there regularly have at least ten accounts.  I do so I can switch them if someone starts reporting on one.  But I can switch in about 5 seconds, so when they block me I just answer anyhow.  They get 200 blocks.  I've never had anyone block all ten.

Comment by Beth on September 10, 2011 at 3:47pm

Anyone remember back in '85 when Dr Leonard Bailey at Loma Linda University hospital transplanted a baboon heart into a 2 week old human baby? What I wonder about is why did it fail yet they can use pig/cow parts for heart surgery.

Comment by Pierre H. Vachon on September 10, 2011 at 4:25pm

Pig hearts can get rejected as much as baboon hearts. It is genetically modified pigs that allows better acceptance of transplants, since they are given human "self-recognition" genes (putting it in layman's terms, here), thus lowering the chances of rejection. Actually, with the case of the little girl, if her heart surgeon had actually accepted the science of evolution (he said himself that he did not "believe" in it, in an interview a couple of years ago and after the little girl had passed away), then he would have instead attempted to transplant a chimp's heart. Then the girl would have had better chances at not rejecting it, since chimpanzees are more closely related to us than baboons. That is also why transplanting pig organs have dangerous chances of being rejected to begin with (way too distant on the evolutionary tree from us) - and thus require genetic thinkering on our part to lower chances of rejection.


I hope this answers your question.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service