Search for your favorite topics and vote on Top 10 lists!

See your idea turn into a WatchMojo video

WatchMojo

Top 10 Dumbest Creationist Arguments

My appologies, some of the arguments presented here are more oriented around atheist/religion debates than creationism. So, I'll have to redo the whole list again. My bad.
  • Click UP or DOWN to vote on entries! +1
    1"If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"
    Not to mention, there's plenty of countervariations to this argument: if Americans came from English settlers, why are there still English people? If God created Adam out of dirt, why is there still dirt? If you came from your parents, why do you still have parents? See where I'm going with this?
    A stupid, stupid argument. For one, the theory of evolution does not state we came from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys, and all living things for that matter, evolved from a common ancestor. And it doesn't say we evolved from apes, because humans ARE apes, members of the Hominid family.
  • 2"Were you there?" by Ken Ham
    Fact is, people make the worst kind of evidence because they can lie on their trials, they can leave out details, or they can simply misinterpret the events. All of the above events have left behind evidence that can be detected, studied and tell us a tale regardless of lack of eyewitnesses. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Bible is
    By the same logic, we can't say anything happened if there were no witnesses. Nobody alive today was there when the Columbo discovered America, nobody was there when the pyramids were built, and nobody was there when Pompeii blew up. For the same reason, no crime in history would be solved as long as there are no eye-witnesses to testify for it.
    Possibly the dumbest sentence ever to escape Ken Ham's mouth, it basically states that nobody can tell for sure that either the Big Bang, dinosaurs, evolution, or creation of Earth really happened because nobody was there to witness it, but we "know" God exists and the Bible happened because God wrote it. Is this even deserving an explanation?
  • 3Various "Proofs" of Noah's Flood
    FACT8: Layers of rocks have nothing to do with alditude. And if they did, it would suggest moluscs, trees and other slow organisms whose fossils were found in upper layers somehow managed to outrun escaping dinosaurs.
    CLAIM8: Sedimentation of fossils in rock layers shows what animals failed to escape the flood, as those that are found in upper layers managed to get on higher mountains during their runaway.
    FACT7: It goes without saying why this is idiotic. Volcanic eruptions kill things. They cannot be used to transport anything living, let alone across the globe.
    CLAIM7: Volcanoes could've been used to transport animals across the globe by erupting them to their natural habitats after the flood.
    FACT6: For one, the term "kind" is not a systematical term nor can it be used to explain any of this nonsense, and this is only one of the problems Noah would face, a few other include how to get the animals from across the globe, how to return them to their habitats without leaving evidence of migration, how to make sure animals survive the trip,
    + 13 comment(s)
  • 4Second Law of Thermodynamics
    In short, a creationists using this argument clearly has no idea what the 2nd Law really says and/or has no idea about science in general. This is easily the dumbest, most milked argument ever.
    Thirdly, if even the 2nd Law would apply to evolution, it would likewise apply to similar changes, such as crystalization of ice, formation of crystals, organogenesis, growing up, forming of galaxies and forming complex structures out of a pile of rocks. All these are things that get more complex over time, so how come the law does not apply to the
    *converts this light energy into chemical energy via photosynthesis, then they use this energy to grow larger and more complex. The animals then eat the plants, and thus have their own external energy source, so in any way, living beings DO evolve.
    On a second note, this law only applies in a closed system, and the closest thing to that is the universe itself, because there is always interaction between planets, solar systems, and even galaxies. In this case, the Earth is not a closed system because it constantly gets energy from the Sun, allowing plants to convert this light energy into chem
    For one, the 2nd Law does not mention an increase of chaos, but of entropy, which is merely an increase in lost heat and interaction between particles, and has nothing to do with how complex any structures should form, so it is entirely unrelated to the theory of evolution.
    + 1 comment(s)
  • 5"There are no transitional species"
    *are father and son. The argment is completely wrong, and entirely misrepresentative, yet it's still being pulled out by creationists who are either delluded, dumb or dishonest and have no idea about evolution and science to begin with.
    *as if we haven't filled those up before and as if we still aren't filling them up today. We did, and we are. And apparently, there is no sattisfying the creationists' claims even if every single generation of organisms leaes behind a transitional fossil and we discover all of them. Next, they'll point out there's a gap between a animals that are f
    In short, there ARE transitional forms, and the only reason why creationists don't see them as such is because they choose to see them as seperate organisms, only they cannot seem to come to an agreement which human ancestors were entirely ape and which were entirely human. They also keep pointing at "holes" in the evolutionary lines as if we haven
    For example, we have found transitions of the before mentioned Archaeopteryx going both ways: dinosaurs like Velocirator, Avimimus and Microraptor show more dinosaurian traits and are linked to the archbird, and it also has a bird-like relative, the hoatzin, which is still alive today!
    Each of these mentioned animals shows every trait predicted by the theory of evolution and some of them are so transitional between forms that we are having trouble classifying them. But that's not all: not only are there transitional forms, we also have transitional forms OF transitional forms. See above for an example.
    + 7 comment(s)
  • 6"Evolution is still just a theory"
    There's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. Otherwise, we'd call it a hypothesis, or an ascertion. On the other hand, creationism is not a theory, hypothesis nor an ascertion, because it has been disproved in many different fields, so it only classifies as a dellusion.
    So are the cell theory, gravitational theory, Big Bang theory, string theory, germ theory, tidal theory, nuclear fusion theory and many more. In science, a "theory" is described as a set of assumptions that are supported and provable by facts and evidence. In other words, it's a set of facts, and evolution is among the strongest theories to date. T
  • 7God of the Gaps fallacy
    *But exactly what contribution came out of the explanation "God did it"?
    *they're the result of hexagonal water crystalisation under certain percipitation conditions. Also, we have explanations for many things and used these explanations to better our lives and save people. We know diseases are caused by germs, so we developed cures for them. We know how electricity works, and now it's powering up our daily lives. But e
    Also, plenty of things that were once unexplanable have a perfectly rational scientiffic explanations. Lightning bolts are not signs of God's wrath, but merely massive electric discharges in the atmosphere between clouds and the ground. Volcanoes are not God's work, but th result of tectonic movement. Snowflakes are not God's work, they're the resu
    Basically, this fallacy puts God as an explanation for whatever is bexond explaining by science, such as the origin or life, the universe, and even orbital placements of planets. What people saying this fail to notice is that there is no indication as to what god fills the gap, if that were the case.
  • 8Pascal's Wager
    On first sight, it may seem like a 50% chance of winning, but this disregards all other religions. What if Islam is the right religion, for example? That means you're hosed either way. There's thousands of religions in the world, and tens of theousands of denominations in Christianity alone, so the chances to make the right call are tens of thousan
    ... Unfortunately, this is the wrong approach. For one, it's a matter of chance, not faith, closer to a gamble than a virtue. Also, if you're going to take this route to belief, "just to get to heaven", you can't be a good person to begin with because all you want is your eternal reward. But there's another problem, and that's chances.
    The argument goes like this: If you believe in God, and you're right, you go to heaven, and if you don't, nothing happens. If you don't believe in God, and you're right, nothign happens, and if you're wrong, you go to hell. So, it's better to believe to be safe, right? Well...
  • 9"Evolution and atheism are religions"
    *on the planet becomes a theist. The only thing that evolution requires are facts and evidence, and we have plenty of those to around with.
    What's also notable is that neither of those things depend on any classic religious tropes. They don't require prayer, ceremonies, priests, holy books, temples nor faith in order to work, although having museums and scientists teaching them does help in spreading the information, they would still be accurate even if every person on the planet becom
    As for evolution, it's not even a rleigious view, or any kind of world view for that matter. Theory of evolution is a model explaining the variety of species in existence, and nothing else. And it's a darn accurate model, at that. If it counts as a religion for going against someone's belief, then so does gravity, cellular theory, string theory, an
    Atheism is absence of religion due to disbelief in any kind of religious entity. It's as much of a religion as a turned off TV ocunts as a channel, not robbing a bank is considered a crime, and disliking Justin Bieber is considered an act of a Belieber.
  • 10"America was founded as a Christian nation"
    *any one speciffic religion. I also chekced the statement that God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independance, and guess what I found: while the Declaration does mention the word "Creator", it does not state if this creator is Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Pulsaris, or Cthulhu, so calling this "Christian proof" is dishonest to say the very least
    I'm not an American, so this argument does not concern me in the slightest, but I still took the trouble of checking it out, and it turns out the statement is baloney: USA was founded by non-Christian people, and most of the founding fathers were deists at best, and they explicitly stated that the new nation should not be organized around any one s
  • 11"You can't have morals without God"
    Besides, there's no such thing as universal morality. The concept of morals and ethics varies depending on cultures, depending of societies, depending of families, and even depending of individuals. For example, killing cows is a sin in India, but canibalism is fine in certain parts of the world.
    ... said by the supporters whose God-written manual allows infancite, rape, slavery, poligamy, genocide, murder, stoning to death and keeps contradicting itself on numerou occasions. If the Christian god is the creator of morals, why are our morals so much different from his? Same goes for all other major god figures, such as Jehova and Allah.
  • 12The First Mover argument
    *is your speciffic god in your speciffic denomination. Until you can do all of the above, and get mocked for using this argument, you have no right to complain.
    Second, this is no proof of God being the Big Banger, it only assumes it. What you really must do for this argument to make sense is: 1: proove that there WAS a cause for the Big Bang that prooves it cannot be self-causing; 2: You must prove that this cause is a sentient entity; and 3: you must prove that this sentiend entity is your speciffic god
    The argument goes something like this: if there was a Big Bang, there must've been a Big Banger, because everything that is must have a cause. Several problems with this idea, though: one, it also applies to the Big Banger, because he must have an origin too. so, who or what created God? And then, what created that which created God? Then what caus
  • 13"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
    The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, creationists must prove God exists and that he created the universe. They didn't, and they can't
    There is no proving a negative. Otherwise, the same argument would prove the existence of unicorns, dragons, vampires, leprechauns, fairies, Zeus, Thor, Superman, Cthulhu, Pulsaris, Etro, and every fictional character ever!
  • 14"The Bible is infallable and divinely inspired, and is supported by scientiffic evidence."
    What the Bible also fails to mention are some of the fundimental facts: it doesn't mention microorganisms, it doesn't mention an accurate model of the universe, it doesn't mention atoms or quarks, and it doesn't mention any other culture outside of the Middle East.
    *unicorn horns came from narwhals), we know that the Earth is round, and we have known so since the time of Ancient Greece, NASA isn't using the geocentric model because we know it's bogus, and there is no better survival rate for drinking poison nor being sick based on a person's beliefs.
    There are artifacts and structures on Earth way older than 6000 and even 10000 years, there is no archeological or geological evidence to support the flood myth (and the mentioned flood story is also filled with other loopholes), we never found any mythological creature existing exactly as the scriptures state (dinosaurs are not dragons, and unicor
    The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a global flood, that dragons, giants, and unicorns are real, that the Earth is flat and that everything revolves around it, and that people that belive can survive drinking lethal poison. See above statement for more.
  • 15"Adolf Hitler was an atheist."
    *and most importantly, he was raised a Roman Catholic. Regardlessly, creationist will point out that the entire Nazi movement and the tyranny caused by Hitler was a direct result of his atheism, and that he started the movement based on darwinian law of survival of the fittest. This is once again a false claim.
    First of all, this claim is a lie: Adolf Hitler was as much an atheist as Ken Ham is a decent person. Translation: none at all. Hitler's movement was a promotion of a Christian agenda, phrases such as God With Us were inscribed on the Nazi insignia, he makes numerous mentions of Jesus, God and Christianity in his book Mein Kampf, and most important
    The argument claims that atheism must be a bad thing because Adolf Hitler was an atheist as well. Least to say, the argument is invalid, irrelevant and incorrect. See above for reasons why.
  • 16The Drifting Moon argument
    On a sidenote, when this argument was presented on a youtube video, it also sported an epic mathematical error that blew the author's stupidity through the roof, being wrong by a factor of several thousands.
    Modern models of both the drifting Moon and the slowing down of Earth's rotation have calculated that neither event is problematic to the life on Earth seen back millions of years.
    It goes like this: "The Moon drifts a few inches away from the Earth each year. Going back 6000 years, it's no biggie, but going back millions of years would bring up a disaster." As always, this is blown out of proportions.
  • 17"Nobody has ever proven evolution."
    But do you know what nobody really never proved? An adult organism being conjured out of nothing fully formed by a supreme entity. Nobody has ever proven creation as a fact.
    Wrong. Evolution has been proven time and time again as it made predictions based on observation, and those predictions usually turn up to be true. We have proven genetic, morphological and embriological relations between living things, and there are thousands of scientiffic papers published every year that further support evolution as a fact.
  • 18God's Divine Plan
  • 19Intelligent Design
    99% of the universe is uninhabitable empty space, over 70% of Earth's surface is covered in undrinkable saltwater, oxygen makes up only 21% of the air, there's predators, pests, germs and many more deadly things roaming our planet, so whoever this intelligent designer is, he did NOT made this world hospitable for our species.
    There's also the vestigial organs, such as appendyx, wise-teeth, goosebumps, patelar reflex, as well as a failed respiratory reception system, the crossing of ways between digestive and respiratory, as well as urinary and reproductive tract, zits, Pmenstruation, PMS and plenty more imperfections on the human body alone.
    *end up the long way all the way to the back of the brain instead of the frontal lobe. An additional layer of cells, the tapetum lucidum, otherwise present in animals such as cats, racoons and owls, would allow us to see better in the dark, but it is absent in humans regardless of their "superiority".
    ... What this argument seems to do is only pick the good bits about the human body and disregards the junk parts. The eye, for example, is anything but perfect: it creates an upside down image, which must then be reverted again in the brain, the nerves of which cross each other out instead of going to their respective lobes, and they end up the lon
    Another argument is that the human body is too complex to be the result of evolution, and so must be intelligently designed. The complexity of the human eye is taken as a common example. But...
    + 2 comment(s)
  • 20Biblical Prophecies
    Pretty much any passage in the Bible is vague at best and open to misinterpretation, so any kind of prophecy mentioned can be translated in many ways, but the most notable ones, of Jesus returning within a single generation or the destruction of Tyre, for example, have turned out to be definitely false.

Similar Videos