Sunday, 30 June 2013

The Ontological Blunder

Prof. Ian Stewart, Dr. Terry Pratchett and Prof. Jack Cohen
I've previously blogged about the 'Ontological Argument' for gods (I use the plural because, idiotically, if the argument is valid - and I have seen it referred to as a conclusive proof - then it should only work for one god, yet it works for any. Make one up yourself and try it).

Briefly, the idea was thought up by Anselm, an early Anglo-Norman archbishop of Canterbury. He argued in his Proslogion that,
God [is] "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

Source: Wikipedia - Ontological argument
Apparently, this is still trotted out in all seriousness by (especially) Christian apologists, who apparently see nothing wrong with essentially claiming they can define a god into existence and that such a god is obliged to exist.

I came across this elegant illustration of the simple, intellectually dishonest, fallacy behind this apologetic in a book by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, The Science of Discworld IV - Judgement Day.

This book is the fourth in a series dealing with basic scientific principles in a very readable way using stories set in Terry Pratchett's Discworld. The science is almost all Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, two popular science writers. I can highly recommend both the Discworld series and the Science of Discworld series.

On Anselm's Ontological Argument, they have this to say, though they refer to it as Thomas Aquinas's argument from Summa Theologica which is virtually identical in form:
Logicians and mathematicians are painfully aware, however, that this argument is flawed. Before you can use a characterisation of some entity to deduce its properties, you have to provide independent proof that such an entity exists.

The classic example is a proof that the largest whole number is 1. Consider the largest whole number. Its square is at least as big, so it must equal its square. The only whole numbers like that are 0 and 1, of which 1 is the larger. QED. Except, 1 is clearly not the largest number. For instance, 2 is bigger.


What's wrong? The proof assumes that there is a largest whole number. If it exists, everything else is correct, and it has to be 1. But, since that makes no sense, the proof must be wrong, and that implies that it doesn't exist.

So, in order to use the ontological argument to infer the existence of the greatest conceivable being, we must first establish that such a being exists, without simply referring to the definition. So what the argument proves is 'if God exists, then God exists'.

So the ontological argument is nothing more than sleight of hand; a circular argument which surreptitiously assumes its conclusion and then feeds that a priori assumption into the argument in order to produce the required answer. That is why, just like the Cosmological Argument so beloved of William Lane Craig, it works with any god or any daft notion you can dream up. If you didn't spot it earlier, Anselms fallacy was in the opening sentence. He first defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" without first providing any independent proof that such an entity actually exists.

Quite obviously, had such proof been available to Anselm, or anyone else for that matter, he wouldn't have needed to invent the ontological argument in the first place, let alone perform that little bit of deception. We can be sure then that Anselm knew there was no available proof of the Christian god, just as we can be sure that those who still try to get away with it know they have no such proof.

As I've said before, substitute a peanut butter sandwich for 'God' in any theological apologetic and you can justify worshipping peanut butter sandwiches. If you are gullible enough to to fall for religious apologetics, exercise caution here or you could end up worshipping equally insane and inanimate objects. You could even start your own cult if you can find a few equally gullible idiots with thinking difficulties

submit to reddit

To A Mouse

I had a brief encounter with a mouse the other day. Not one quite so dramatic as Burns' - it's a long while now since I followed a horse-drawn plough. In fact, to be strictly accurate, it's a long while now since I saw a horse-drawn plough. They even had them-there tractor things when I was a child.

No. My encounter was a lot more mundane.

Every morning I feed my birdies - a flock of (mostly) wood-pigeons, collared doves, starlings, house sparrows and other assorted birds in season - at the bird table and various feeders we have in the back garden. I buy the mixed birdseed in 20 Kg. sacks along with bags of dried meal worms and peanuts and store it in our garden shed.

To a Mouse

(Written by Robert Burns in Gallowegian dialect supposedly after he had turned over the nest of a field mouse with his plough. This poem illustrates Burns' tolerance to all creatures and his innate humanity.)

Wee, sleekit, cowran, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
Wi' murd'ring pattle!

I'm truly sorry Man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle,
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen-icker in a thrave 'S a sma' request:
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
An' never miss't!

Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' wast,
An' weary Winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee-bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald.
To thole the Winter's sleety dribble,
An' cranreuch cauld!

But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

Robert Burns, 1785
I used to just stand the sacks of seed in the shed and fill a small container to take to the bird table until a family of mice set up home in the shed and learned to chew holes in the sacks, so I bought a plastic dustbin with a clip-on lid in which I also keep a plastic bucket to take seed, mealworms, peanuts and scoop to the garden in. Initially I felt a little bad about locking their food away and use to put a little seed and a few peanuts out for the mice but I decided it was best to wean them off their increasing welfare dependency and encourage them to earn an honest living.

A couple of days ago though, one little mouse had decided to use its entrepreneurial initiative and, when my back was turned and the lid was off, had had jumped or fallen into the deep plastic bin - with smooth sides.

My initial surprise was to discover that there were still mice in the shed. The mouse's initial surprise was to see the bottom of a large, black plastic bucket begin to descend, followed quickly by a large pair of eye and a human voice saying, "Hello! Okay! Let's see you get yourself out of there then!"

Isn't it interesting how quickly mice get over that initial panic and, after running round the perimeter of the bin three times, stop, look up, sit back on their haunches and wash their face.

So, what to do now then? In times gone by I would have thought nothing of picking it up by the tail and giving its head a quick flick against a wall then chucking it to the nearest cat or onto the compost heap. Maybe I'm getting soft or maybe I just appreciate living things a little better. Whatever, I decided to let nature take its course and do a little experiment. How would the mouse get itself out of an impossible situation?

Maybe it didn't appreciate the situation fully but my little mouse just picked up a sunflower seed and proceeded to take out the kernel and eat it. Maybe it needed some energy.

Of course, given a practically unlimited supply of food in comparison to its size, and not needing water beyond what they can get from their food, even dry seeds, the mouse wasn't actually in any real danger. It could have lived its entire life in that bin so maybe its risk assessment was a little different to what mine would have been. Never-the-less, my little mouse did try to climb up the sides a few times, then it tried jumping - as though its ability to jump about four inches was going to be enough to get to the top, about 30 inches away. But it was obviously worth a try - yer gets owt for nowt!

So I thought, let's see how intelligent you are. How quickly can you learn to climb a piece of garden string?

So I pulled out a length of string from one of those balls of green garden twine which was standing on the rack next to the food bin, and let it hang loosely down to the surface of the seed.
  1. Mouse finds string and starts to climb. String is loose and stretches out so mouse makes no progress and gives up.
  2. Mouse tries again and pulls string to make it tight then starts to climb it. Falls off.
  3. Mouse tries again and climbs string until it can reach the rim of the smooth plastic bin with its front feet. Lets go with its hind feet but loses grip and slips back into the bin.
  4. Mouse climbs up above the rim of the bin so its hind feet can stand on it. Walks round the rim of the bin a short distance then hops onto the rack, washes its face, and disappears.
In four steps the mouse had learned progressively by trial and error, and had got itself out of the bin.

What we had there was an interesting interaction in terms of genes and memes.

The mouse found itself in a predicament brought about because it exists in an environment in which I exist and in which the meme for enjoying nature and wanting to attract birds into my garden exists. The mouse genes had produced an animal which needs to feed and which actively looks for food, using a whole range of senses and abilities, not least of which is curiosity and an ability to discover by trial and error.

It survived because I have a mixture of memes and genes which make me interested in wildlife and an appreciation that they, like us, are the end-products of an incredible evolutionary process in which every one of our ancestors survived, that to end that gene-line would bring to a halt a process which started three and a half billion years ago and which has never yet failed, and an understanding that the simple fact of sharing our history and having ancestors in common with all living things gives us a connectedness and a kinship with it which is truly inspiring and deeply spiritual.

And the mouse had genes which allowed it to make an intelligent assessment of its situation, plan an escape strategy and improve its technique by trial and error whilst learning from its mistakes and keeping its objective in sight. With a little help from its friend.

And I spent a magical twenty minutes or so enjoying an interaction with a wee, sleekit, cowran, tim'rous beastie.

submit to reddit

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Is The Pope Calling For Holy War?

In an astonishingly careless tweet today, and reminiscent of a medieval Pope sending tens or hundreds of thousands of people to commit genocide or die for Jesus in the 'Holy Lands' in a 'Crusade', Pope Francis appeared to be calling the Catholic faithful to holy war and martyrdom!

Cardinal Bergoglio with
Junta leader General Videla
Pope Francis, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, Argentine-born son of Italian immigrant parents, and first Jesuit Pope, is no stranger to guerrilla warfare. During the neo-fascist military junta's 'dirty war' in Argentina between 1976 and 1983, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio was progressing through his clerical career, an estimated 30,000 Argentinians, the so-called Desaparecidos, were murdered by right-wing death squads working for the junta, as the Argentinian people tried to take their country back from the cabal of neo-fascist army officers who had stolen it, and bring it back under the democratic control of the people.

Screen capture of the tweet. These divine revelations have a tendency
to become Desaparecidos when 'clarified' later.
He is widely thought to have been complicit in, or at least equanimous with, the kidnapping and torture of two Catholic priests, Orlando Yorio and Franz Jalics, in Argentina during this period. Both were later found drugged and semi-naked, five months later. Both had been tortured. Although Franz Jalics, having initially refused to discuss the affair, from his sanctuary in a German Catholic monastery, now (two days after Bergoglio became Pope) denies Bergoglio's involvement, Yorio put on record before his death in 2000 that, "Bergoglio did nothing to free us, in fact just the opposite" (Miroff, Nick (17 March 2013). "Pope's activity in Dirty War Draws Scrutiny". Chicago Tribune (Sec. 1). Washington Post. p. 27.)

One wonders where and when Pope Francis anticipates his devoted followers pursuing this jihad holy war and seeking this martyrdom.

Maybe we'll soon see another hurried 'clarification' from the Vatican such as we saw the other day when Pope Francis went off message and forgot his Catholic dogma, telling the faithful that they didn't need to believe in Jesus any more to get to Heaven because even Atheists could get there provided they did good things. Some people saw the hand of the other Pope, Benedict XVI, who seems far from being a 'Desaparecidos', in that 'correction' 'clarification'.

I notice that he isn't offering unrestricted access to any virgins as a reward, so the Catholic Church doesn't seem to have moved that far out into the lunatic fringes under his guidance, never-the-less, his call to Catholics to be prepared to 'lose their lives for Christ' is surely sinister and extreme.

Strangely, 'His Holiness' seems to have forgotten to mention the fact that another Vatican cleric has been arrested over the Vatican banking fraud and money-laundering allegations which have been rumbling on for many years now, and which resulted in the Vatican's bank card account being frozen by Italian banking authorities last January.

The parallels between the Catholic Church and other Italian-based international criminal organizations, who also tend to have a cosy relationship with neo-fascist groups, are becoming more and more marked. Are we seeing the lead up to a new turf war between two of the world's major criminal gangs - the Christians and the Muslims - over who controls the lucrative income from protection racketeering and farming the peasantry for tithes?

The Truth Behind Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis: Breaking the Silence, the Catholic Church in Argentina and the ‘Dirty War’; Horacio Verbitsky.

submit to reddit

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Friday, 28 June 2013

Religion's Living Fossils

In my back garden in Oxfordshire, England, I have a rather dilapidated horseshoe crab shell, a souvenir of a trip to Cape Cod a few years ago which we brought back to show our grandchildren. (It was very dead and there were literally thousands of them along the high-tide line on the bay side just south of Wellfleet, I hasten to assure any wildlife conservationists!) The long spike 'tail' is a particularly good for clearing out the feeding holes in bird feeders when they get clogged.

I sometime wonder what future paleontologists would make of it if it had the great good fortune to become fossilised and then to be discovered again in a couple of million years. Horseshoe crabs in central England!

And that leads me to the main topic here - so-called 'living fossils', of which the horseshoe crabs (plural because there are four different species) are frequently cited as an example.

The rather annoying oxymoronic term 'living fossil' need not apply (and rarely does) to a species:

A living fossil is a living species (or clade) of organism which appears to be the same as a species otherwise only known from fossils and which has no close living relatives. These species have all survived major extinction events, and generally retain low taxonomic diversities. A species which successfully radiates (forming many new species after a possible genetic bottleneck) has become too successful to be considered a "living fossil".

Creationists love these, and especially love the term 'living fossil' without bothering too much about what it means. What they think it means is that some species show no signs of having evolved, which, in their desperate search for supporting evidence for their daft notion, is taken as proof that evolution doesn't happen. Never mind all the other millions of species; the 99.9% of the evidence. Lets go with the, perhaps 0.1% of things which seem to support us and, in the best Creationist tradition, ignore all the rest.

But is this comparatively tiny number of 'living fossils' actually the evidence that Creationists crave?

Of course not.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, there is not one horseshoe crab but four different species, all of which are known to have evolved from a common ancestor in the last few million years, just as humans and the other Great Apes have, just as horses, donkeys and zebras have and just as all the different birds have. (See B.Y. Kamaruzzaman, B. Akbar John, K. Zaleha and K.C.A. Jalal, 2011. Molecular Phylogeny of Horseshoe Crab. Asian Journal of Biotechnology, 3: 302-309. DOI: 10.3923/ajbkr.2011.302.309).

The mistake Creationists make is in assuming that evolution is all about morphology. Just because a living species bears a close morphological similarity to its fossil ancestors does not mean they haven't evolved. Evolution occurs in the genes and might well express in the details of proteins. It need have nothing to do with external appearances. What genetic sequencing is now allowing scientists to do is to look at the similarities and differences between living species and so map their relationship to one another and make a good estimate of the rates of diversification and how long ago they diversified. With the horseshoe crab we find evolution has been progressing exactly as we would expect it to.

Another oft-quoted example of a living fossil is the coelacanth, a lobe-finned fish which is similar to the common ancestor of the earliest land vertebrates and so is more closely related to amphibians, reptiles and mammals than to the ray-finned fish or the cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). One source of confusion here in in the ill-defined term 'fish' which is generally used for all non-mammalian, non-reptilian marine vertebrates.

Coelacanth... is a rare order of fish that includes two extant species in the genus Latimeria: West Indian Ocean coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) and the Indonesian coelacanth (Latimeria menadoensis). They follow the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods), which means they are more closely related to lungfish, reptiles and mammals than to the common ray-finned fishes. They are found along the coastlines of the Indian Ocean and Indonesia. Since there are only two species of coelacanth and both are threatened, it is the most endangered order of animals in the world. The West Indian Ocean coelacanth is a critically endangered species.

Coelacanths belong to the subclass Actinistia, a group of lobed-finned fish that are related to lungfish and certain extinct Devonian fish such as osteolepiforms, porolepiforms, rhizodonts, and Panderichthys. Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. Traditionally, the coelacanth was considered a “living fossil” due to its apparent lack of significant evolution over the past millions of years; and the coelacanth was thought to have evolved into roughly its current form approximately 400 million years ago. However, several recent studies have shown that coelacanth body shapes are much more diverse than is generally said. In addition, it was shown recently that studies concluding that a slow rate of molecular evolution is linked to morphological conservatism in coelacanths are biased on the a priori hypothesis that these species are ‘living fossils’.

Things to note here are:
  1. It was the order which was believed to have gone extinct, not a particular species. This was based solely on the circumstantial 'evidence' of a lack of discovered fossils which post-dated the Late Cretaceous era and a lack of authentically recorded living specimens known to modern science.
  2. The claimed evidence of morphological conservatism (i.e., lack of evolutionary morphological change) is false and was based on circular reasoning.
  3. Coelacanths are much more diversified than was previously thought.
  4. Any claimed lack of evolution was, as with the horseshoe crabs, based purely on morphology, not on genetic evidence.

A third example, and one which illustrates another misunderstanding, either deliberate or made through ignorance is the trapdoor spider (Bothriocyrtum) which, because it has retained some ancestral characteristics which show its relatedness to the scorpions is spoken of as a living fossil.

There is of course no requirement for an evolving species to lose all it's the features which the ancestor it shares in common with other related orders had. There is no sense in which trapdoor spiders are less evolved and other spiders are more evolved. When scientists speak of primitive features they mean features that were present in common ancestors, not features which are less adaptive. After all, we have far more similarities with our earlier proto-human and African Ape ancestors than we have differences. A decent surgeon could perform the same surgery on them as he or she can on us. A ENT specialist, an ophthalmologist or a decent proctologist could probably equally well treat an Australopithecine as a Homo sapiens. The point is that retention of earlier features is not a sign of a lack of evolution per se.

My last example is the maidenhair tree or Ginko biloba which is the sole surviving member of an entire class of plants which evolved before flowering plants. In fact, the fossil record shows not just one but at least eleven different species. Most of these seem to have gone extinct along with many ferns, horsetails and tree-ferns when flowering plants ousted them from their niches, leaving only G. biloba which seems to have occupied a highly specialised niche, growing in disturbed soil adjacent to streams. G. biloba is very long-lived and resilient. Some specimens are over 2,500 years old and two are known to have survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. They have a very slow reproductive rate.

In addition, from having once been widespread they were extinct in the wild apart from two small area of China. In one of these sites the narrow genetic diversity suggests the population may have come from a small introduced population which may have been introduced and preserved by Buddhist monks over 1000 years ago. The other site has more genetic diversity. Some specimens may be older than the surrounding habitation and may be derived from specimens which survived the last ice age in sheltered valley refuges.

This longevity, resilience and slow reproduction, coupled with a slowly contracting distribution are thought to have contributed to their morphological stability. Additionally, they seem to be fortunate survivors of a nearly extinct species having survived a bottleneck of only a few specimens, hence the narrow genetic range of the existing population. This tells us nothing about any evolved genetic diversity which preceded this near extinction.

So, again there is no sense in which G. biloba can be regarded as having failed to evolve, only that it succeeded in surviving an extinction of this entire class of plants - just - and all surviving specimens, which are now only surviving because of human protection, are derived from a handful of fortunate survivors, otherwise the Ginkgophyta would be just another extinct class of plants which evolved long ago, had their day and then were replace by more successful plants in the struggle for resources.

It is, of course, nonsense to talk of any living species as being less evolved or in any sense less well adapted than any other living species. All living species have been evolving by the same evolutionary process for exactly the same length of time.

So, when you hear a Creationist telling you that 'living fossils' are proof that evolution doesn't work you know that they either:
  1. Don't understand Evolution and are lying to you about their expertise.
  2. Do understand Evolution and are lying to you about 'living fossils'.

The more interesting and informative fossil is the primitive superstition they are foisting on you. It is an unevolved relic of a former age when humanity didn't understand the world and did their best with what little knowledge they had.

submit to reddit

Thursday, 27 June 2013

First Horse Makes An Ass Of Creationists

The Przewalski’s horse, Equus ferus przewalskii
The last remaining wild horse, recently saved from extinction in Mongolia.
First horses arose 4 million years ago : Nature News & Comment

Yesterday's Nature brings us news of yet another advance in evolutionary science in the form of a major advance in genome sequencing from ancient sources. As reported by a team led by Ludovic Orlando of the Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, scientists have been able to sequence the full genome from an ancient ancestor of the modern horse from a specimen found in Canadian permafrost. The specimen is believed to be between 780,000 and 560,000 years old.

The sequence was extracted from a foot bone of a horse that lived between 780,000 and 560,000 years ago. By sequencing the animal's genome, along with those of a 43,000-year-old horse, five modern domestic horse breeds, a wild Przewalski’s horse and a donkey, researchers were able to trace the evolutionary history of the horse family in unprecedented detail. They estimate that the ancient ancestor of the modern Equus genus, which includes horses, donkeys and zebras, branched off from other animal lineages about 4 million years ago — twice as long ago as scientists had previously thought.

“We have beaten the time barrier,” says evolutionary biologist Ludovic Orlando of the University of Copenhagen, who led the work with colleague Eske Willerslev. Noting that the oldest DNA sequenced before this came from a polar bear between 110,000 and 130,000 years old2, Orlando says: “All of a sudden, you have access to many more extinct species than you could have ever dreamed of sequencing before.”

This is great news and should spread despair and despondency amongst the loons and liars of the Discovery Institute and other frauds who make a living from Creation pseudo-science, unless they manage not to notice it, as the techniques could be adapted to other DNA samples if and when they are obtained, so giving us a clearer picture of the evolution of other species and so better able to understand the nitty-gritty of how evolution works.

As well as recognising what a powerful tool this is, what caught my attention particularly was the paragraph:

The researchers were also able to trace the size of the horse population over time by looking for genomic signatures of population size, and were thus able to show that populations grew in periods of abundant grassland, in between times of extreme cold.

Bwaaahhhaaa! Creationists say what!?
Here we see how evolutionary theory is meshing in with other disciplines like climatology with each discipline supporting the other. We can tell the relative extent of things like grasslands through analysis of pollen in permafrost, polar ice cores, bogs, etc. It is interesting, but not really surprising, that this is echoed in the DNA of a genus like Equus. The DNA is merely evolving in response to environmental change, just as we would expect.

DNA is acting like a record of a species history on this planet and so of the planet itself, and the scientific theory which integrates it with the rest of science is the Theory of Evolution - one of the most profound, powerful and far-reaching theories in the whole of science. No wonder it so terrifies those who make their living from promoting Bronze-Age superstition and who so need to spread lies and misinformation about science.

Not for them the road to discovery and enlightenment. Far too risky. There's a lot of money at stake.

First horses arose 4 million years ago; Erika Check Hayden; Nature, 26 June 2013

Recalibrating Equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early Middle Pleistocene horse; Orlando, L., et al; Nature, 26 June 2013; doi:10.1038/nature12323

'via Blog this'

submit to reddit

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Evolution In Progress - Complex Cells

Tiny Genomes May Offer Clues to First Plants and Animals | Simons Foundation

When we think of evolution in progress we almost always think of higher animals evolving by changing over time or of bacteria and viruses adapting to environmental changes like antibiotics or host resistance, more rarely of a new species having been found to have arisen by hybridization like the Italian sparrow which I described recently in Evolution In Progress - A Tale Of Three Sparrow. It's not often that we get to witness a stage in life's evolution which we think of as having happened a long time ago as

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

The Darwin Creationist Award 2013 - Nominations

Announcing the coveted Darwin Creationist Award 2013!

Stand by for another summer of glorious moronitude as creationists struggle to put a coherent thought into words or wrestle with the intricacies of basic science, logic and joined-up thinking, as they try to convince the world that their ignorant stupidity and Bronze-Age superstition trumps anything which science has to offer.

The Darwin Creationist Award, like its illustrious bigger brother, the Darwin Award, which is awarded annually to the person who, by their utter inept stupidity has contributed positively to human evolution by removing their genes from the gene-pool, is awarded to the Creationist who similarly has done most to remove the meme of creationism from the human meme-pool. Self-sacrifice is not required for this award. All it takes is a tweet, blog, Facebook or other on-line comment, illustrating the utter moronic stupidity it takes to be fooled by professional Creationist charlatans and frauds, so making people think twice before falling for it themselves.

This year I've opened it up to the whole Internet, not restricting it to Twitter tweets, though I expect them to feature still. Candidate tweet, comment, blog, etc must be from this year (2013), ideally contemporaneous. Multiple submissions are allowed (encouraged!)

The winner will be chosen by popular vote from amongst candidates submitted to this blog.

Voting will begin early in October.

Submit your candidates as a comment below or by a tweet to me at @RosaResurrected. I'll post it here in due course.

Please supply:
  • Your name, Twitter user name or on-line id
  • Name, username or id of the candidate
  • Date entry posted (if available)
  • Tweet, post or link to blog/comment
  • A sentence or two in support of your submission (optional).
  • Or as much of the above as you can.
Due to the prestigious nature of this award, self-submissions and submissions from obvious trolls will not be permitted. The closing date for entries is 30 September. Voting will take place in early October with a second round runoff in the event of a first round tie.

Last year's candidates can be seen here. Not surprisingly a number of them seem to have deleted their accounts.

If tweets in the right-hand column do not appear in all their glory it could be that you have been blocked by the candidate. Many Creationists use blocking as a strategy for avoiding the cognitive dissonance caused by seeing facts and counter-arguments which might cause them to question or doubt their unshakeable faith. The Creationist meme can only function fully in an ignorant or dysfunctional mind.


Table of candidates - so far

EntryDetailsCandidate Tweet
1Candidate: @WendyJoMason

June 6, 2013 11:16 AM

. @Yhwh_TheLord so then why do women have babies if we can just evolve fRom um whatever you think we evolved from?

— WendyJoMason (@WendyJoMason)

Submitted by: @Kaimatai
Blog: Kaimatai
2Candidate: @elizalovepink

June 27, 2013 7:43 AM

It says your ancestors was once a monkey, so everybod... — That's part of the Big Bang theory in which I don't a...

— Liez (@elizalovepink)

Full quote:
It says your ancestors was once a monkey, so everybody came monkeys, not Jesus or God. There's more evidence to prove that than some guy spawning two people with a magic tree. That's part of the Big Bang theory in which I don't agree with because I don't believe that I evolved from a huge explosion with particles of space and magically appeared as a human

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The sheer ignorance of the science, which, with so much information now freely available must be either willful or feigned, and which is never-the-less rejected out of hand, is sadly typical of a Creationist but still makes this an outstanding candidate.
3Candidate: @ErrolSmythe777

June 28, 2013 8:52 AM

@RosaRubicondior @notanotherlamb @hpolak_es @Grim_Atheist Your Atheist Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Figment of Atheist Hallucinations....

— ErrolSmythe777 (@ErrolSmythe777)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected
4Candidate: @ErrolSmythe777

June 28, 2013 9:31 AM

@RosaRubicondior With due respect , I decline such an award since I do not agree with Charles Darwin's Quack Science Theory of #Evolution

— ErrolSmythe777 (@ErrolSmythe777)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Errol seems to be under the impression that his beliefs determine reality and can change the effect his stupidity has on the human meme-pool.
5Candidate: @wimberlyOneTIME

June 27, 2013 3:13 AM

Stop believing stupid shit that people tell you with a straight face

June 27, 2013 3:15 AM

You to old to believe in evolution. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. are they the stupid that couldn't evolve?

— Deezus (@wimberlyOneTIME)
Submitted by: @WillChrisHughes

Citation: The stupidity of these two tweets next to each other is hilarious (thanks to @BobbyOven for pointing it out):
6Candidate: @loadsofducks

June 28, 2013 10:27 PM

#evolution #atheism #fail #CREATION #God #YEC

— Mr Duck (@loadsofducks)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: An entry from last year's worthy winner whose tweets are often so infantile that several people assume it must be a troll. If so, it has maintained the same low standard for over a year during which it seems to have learned nothing at all.
7Candidate: @AtThyWord777
(Also posts as @ErrolSmythe777

April 18, 2013 7:15 AM

@chriswalsh709 You are RIGHT. Evolution is a FAIRY TALE. -- Charles Perrault wrote about MICE turning into HORSES ; LIZARDS to Humans etc

— BrotherErrolSmythe (@AtThyWord777)

Submitted by: @chriswalsh709

Citation: Errol Smythe has apparently mistaken Cinderella, a fantasy fairy-tale written by Charles Perrault some 200 years before Darwin, and the theme of a popular children's pantomime, for a textbook on evolution.
8Candidate: @Mikexxxx1

June 27, 2013 6:08 PM

@thenotimer Put 2 canines on an Island and come back after a few centuries U'll find all kinds of canines, but no cats

— Mikexxxx (@Mikexxxx1)

Submitted by: @thenotimer

Citation: @Mikexxxx1 was so pleased with the brilliance of this insight that he RT'ed it himself a few minutes later.
9Candidate: @TroubledMan28

June 28, 2013 11:41 PM

They try telling me im black cuz my ancestors been out in the sun for too long....I dont thnk so. #creation #evolution

— Bugz (@TroubledMan28)

Submitted by: Andrew Wilson
10Candidate: @StirringTrouble

June 29, 2013 11:04 AM

How f..king boring, insecure and lacking any imagination you need to be to believe that man evolved from animals? #atheism

— Alexander Nekrassov (@StirringTrouble)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The ease with which an entire body of science, together with the huge amount of supporting data, can be dismissed by someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject, other than that it doesn't meet his requirement for how humans came to be here, makes this a worthy candidate, in my humble opinion. A classic example of the argument from arrogant ignorance and personal incredulity.
11Candidate: @ShabirMukthar

June 29, 2013 4:47 PM

@RosaRubicondior Plants Can do Arithmetic calculate exactly how much starch a plant will need each night #Science

— Shabir Mukthar (@ShabirMukthar)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The candidate clearly knows nothing of plant physiology and simple bio-feedback systems which are integral parts of biochemical pathways, yet feels able to draw conclusions from half-understood ideas, so is prey to any charlatan who feeds him what he wants to read. A classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome where ignorance is not felt to be a barrier to understanding and learning and fact-checking are deemed to be unnecessary.
12Candidate: @TheSunriseMusic

June 29, 2013 8:01 AM

@OfficialKBunton @RobzGalaxy So you got your conscience from salamanders and slime?

— The Sunrise (@TheSunriseMusic)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Again the classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome - confident dismissal of an entire body of science from a position of complete ignorance and no need to bother with any learning or fact-checking.
13Candidate: @JoeCienkowski

June 30, 2013 01:05 PM

Evolution is atheism. It's not science, but an impossible, unrealistic, unbiological, invented process in order to remove God from equation.

— Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I believe this is Dopey Joe Cienkowski's first nomination for this coveted award. For those who haven't met Joe, he is a great admirer of Kent Hovind's persuasive arguments, especially the size of his bank balance, and the fact that, like Joe, he has done time in a state penitentiary for criminal activities.
14Candidate: @xCoveredInGoldx

June 30, 2013

I've never seen an animal or a micro organism become a human. So that evolution shit is out the window for me.

— ⚡Kid Flash⚡ (@xCoveredInGoldx)

@AgAthUK does everything have to be proven? Why do we think and have cognitive perception? Because we evolved? I doubt it.

— ⚡Kid Flash⚡ (@xCoveredInGoldx)

@AgAthUK where did animals come from? Where did insects come from? You mean to tell me a bug started the same way I did? No

— ⚡Kid Flash⚡ (@xCoveredInGoldx)

@AgAthUK you mean to tell me some species still lay eggs and produce offspring and one day they will give birth like humans? I think not

— ⚡Kid Flash⚡ (@xCoveredInGoldx)

@theoyouknow smh, I mean it's dumb to think evolution is possible. Certain species lay eggs and have healthy offspring.

— ⚡Kid Flash⚡ (@xCoveredInGoldx)

Submitted by: @WillChrisHughes

Citation: Difficult to pick the best from a veritable blizzard of pure gold Dunning-Kruger arrogant stupidity from this excellent candidate. Once again we see the traditional disregard for factuality and the assumption that the Universe has no option but to be exactly as they think it should be. No point in learning anything or checking any facts when knowledge can be plucked out of thin air or declared by fiat as and when the need arises - and how dare anyone be so impertinent as to disagree.

When their pastors see the product of the superstition and pride in ignorance that they have inculcated these poor people with, they must be so proud of their achievements - and their income stream.
15Candidate: @AgapeDoule

July 1, 2013 1:31 AM

@kaimatai its a 'theory' there is no evidence .. ..hence 'missing' link but each to their own!

— Mrs H (@AgapeDoule)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Absolute certainty in the presence to complete ignorance again.

16Candidate: @roberickson3

July 2, 2013 4:31 AM

@danarel @dhiggins63 @secularbloke @francosoup dear anti-theists; then use your secular science and create a replica of the earth right now!

— rob erickson (@roberickson3)

Submitted by: @ChrisWalsh709
17Candidate: @TrueStriver

July 2, 2013 8:56 PM

@NitinKapoor2020 @RichardDawkins @octotus @TakeThatDarwin Charles Darwin was tutored by satan

— Jihadi™ (@TrueStriver)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Remember when assessing the merits of this candidate; he actually went to the trouble of copying this picture and posted it proudly on line for the world to see, even copying Richard Dawkins in, presumably believing it would convince him. That takes a very special type of Dunning-Kruger moronitude.
18Candidate: @LandenCammack

July 2, 2013

@mike_fife @TakeThatDarwin soon as you explain how nothing creates something via a Big Bang... Let me know.

— Landen Cammack (@LandenCammack)

@AtomicDaytona @TakeThatDarwin Ahh... You still believe that nothing banged together with some more nothing and created something?

— Landen Cammack (@LandenCammack)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
19Candidate: @Hunter_2732

July 1, 2013

@numbdave yes but human change from monkey to man would be large changes adding up to huge changes, and that hasnt happned to anything else

— Hunter (@Hunter_2732)

@numbdave because the believed times that it happened between where short in terms of evolution speed of everything else.

— Hunter (@Hunter_2732)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Witness the Creationist mind trying to cope with the complex idea of lots of small changes adding up to one large one in contrast to the idea of magic. Presumably, the idea of walking from one place to another one step at a time would be equally difficult to grasp.
20Candidate: @Cody_Crilley25

July 3, 2013

@MeltregerMatt lol...I can point out one key thing that basically proves we didn't come from monkeys. We're two different species.

— Cody. (@Cody_Crilley25)

@MeltregerMatt humans are the only species that have the gene that gives us language. A body can't just grow a gene.

— Cody. (@Cody_Crilley25)

@MeltregerMatt I researched it! It's called like fox something. I don't remember. Plus think about it, what other species can talk? None lol

— Cody. (@Cody_Crilley25)

Submitted By: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Wow! This is fully researched and everything. It's called like fox something! Where would science be without such inspired guidance? I wonder if Richard Dawkins should be informed.
21Candidate: @Amir_SDMG

July 3, 2013 6:33 PM

@fmacanadadude @TakeThatDarwin using the logic of the super continent pangea there should logically be a second species of humans by now.

— Amir. (@Amir_SDMG)

Submitted By: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Astonishing depth of understanding of geology there - if depth is a measure of its absence.
21Candidate: @GiveMeMyRights

June 30, 2013

@treypole @JohnAlbora @Allocutus Species adapt within the limits of their DNA. Pigs don't fly. Fish don't become insects.

— Sheep Dog (@GiveMeMyRights)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Absolute certainty from a position of complete ignorance. Does the universe have any choice in what it should be like? What a silly idea! Of course not! It's there to do as it's told. Facts should sit up straight, take careful note, and behave.
23Candidate: @justinn_way

July 2, 2013 8:31 AM

@GodfreyATheist @MatthiasBradfor @KelsTheSecular I'm supposed to believe because Darwin found some ape skull that dinosaurs "evolved" into

— Justin. (@justinn_way)

Submitted by: @AtomicDaytona

Citation: Don't believe something? Not sure why? Just make something up! Isn't that what normal people do? Who needs education?
24Candidate: @Garrettitties

July 4, 2013

@LAAtheist evolution entails evolving from a species not sufficient for an environment. It's natural selection and apes would be weeded out.

— Garrett Lee (@Garrettitties)

@LAAtheist if we evolved because we r more suited, what environment were apes evolving from to be suited for? I can't tell you lol

— Garrett Lee (@Garrettitties)

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: A little knowledge is er... a little knowledge. But then that normally makes a Creationist an expert. Not as much an expert as a Creationist who hasn't learned anything at all, mind you.
25Candidate: @nobigotry

July 4, 2013 11:43 PM

@GreatApeAtheist - Yes we have Billions of fossils and by coincidence, there are No intermediate ones. lol Where are they???

— NO BIGOTRY (@nobigotry)

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The evidence is only there if I choose to look at it! Don't bother me with facts! La la la la laaa! Can't hear you!
26Candidate: @VesselAnaw

July 4, 2013 11:52 PM

@KariHummel since darwin academia has been controlled by exclusive naturalism /atheism - you need to accept it to get your degree, funding

— vesselanaw (@VesselAnaw)

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me! Check under the beds and behind the filing cabinet!
27Candidate: @riverEu

July 5, 2013 5:22 AM

@RosaRubicondior the stupidity of atheism demonstrated: - therefore no one invented or played the game.

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu)

July 5, 2013 3:27 AM

@mhibrahimksa @RosaRubicondior a very intellectual view point and from one who beliefs are equally fucking ridiculous. darwin bear2whale lol

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu)

Submitted by: @TomCinmidlife

Citation: Personal incredulity is such a convincing argument for a Creationist. If an uneducated idiot can't understand how it works then no-one can - so it must have been my imaginary friend.

Link is to an article about the basic physics of hitting a baseball, by the way. Apparently, @riverEu found it too hard to understand and concluded no one could understand it therefore it proves his imaginary friend makes it work. Gods are, of course, mentioned nowhere in the explanation, which is complete without any, as are all scientific explanations of anything.

Naturally, @riverEu ignored the question put to him.

In second tweet claims Darwin said bears became whales. Illustrates how he's attacking something about which he has only the vaguest of notions. No point in wasting a whole lot of honesty and integrity when you have an imaginary thug in the sky waiting to be placated.
28Candidate: @GiveMeMyRights

July 4, 2013 10:18 PM

@treypole The evolution theories all require organisms to upgrade or reimagine themselves. I cannot imagine anything in nature that fosters.

— Sheep Dog (@GiveMeMyRights)

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: A second entry by this outstanding example of the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. He doesn't have a clue what evolution is or how the Theory of Evolution explains it, but he knows it's all wrong, and tries to convince us by making up infantile notions left, right and center and throwing stones at them. The idea that his ignorance might be the problem is just too preposterous to even consider.
29Candidate: Clay_T_Nate

July 5, 2013

It makes me laugh so hard that atheists refuse to believe in Christ yet they believe Lincoln was a real person. Lol

— נתנאל ✌

@John_of_Atheism you do realize there are 4 different Gettysburg address' written, all by different people and all with completely different

— נתנאל ✌

@John_of_Atheism writings on them? Lol Abraham Lincoln is just a fairy tale created by the government. Shame on you for believing in it.

— נתנאל ✌

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: He really did say that. No, honestly!
30Candidate: @nobigotry

July 5, 2013

@dogboots77 - but a Mutated gene is a "Fluke of nature". How can a Fluke of Nature produce such Intricate symmetrical functioning design

— NO BIGOTRY (@nobigotry)

@dogboots77 explain how genes know how to do this and how can this Fluke Gene be an enhancement when the 'arm' isnt an arm yet?

— NO BIGOTRY (@nobigotry)

Submitted by: Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Ever wondered what scientists think evolution is? Should all be clear now. Genes just know things!
31Candidate: @P0lymathic

July 5, 2013 11:26 PM

@RosaRubicondior @ThinkingBeauty_ #Atheist are you aware the very thought "God does not exist" quantifies his eternal existence..

— iDream-Awake (@P0lymathic)

@RosaRubicondior @ThinkingBeauty_ @JohnBrownbill Bring me your King #atheist your archaic logic of "denouncing" has become your religion..

— iDream-Awake (@P0lymathic)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Non-sequitur? Something about gardening? Gibbering for Jesus.
32Candidate: @Joekobel765

July 6, 2013 6:00 AM

@tastypaper @BieberAer @andilinks so half say we came from apes another half thinks we all used to be fish ..? That evolved .! What say you?

— Joe Kobel (@Joekobel765)
July 6, 2013 6:13 AM

@tastypaper @BieberAer @andilinks yeah I'll believe in my god Jesus Christ over what a couple humans think happened good bye and god bless.!

— Joe Kobel (@Joekobel765)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Yeah! Obviously a magic man magicked it all by magic! Why oh why can't scientists see that?
33Candidate: @LydiaApel

July 6, 2013 5:56 AM

It's time to stop believing in evolution. With yo stupid motha fuckin ass. Evolution says people came from monkeys. And the question is...

— lydia apel (@LydiaApel)
July 6, 2013 5:58 AM

Why is there still monkeys, you dumb mother fucker you. Is these the retarded monkeys? They didn't turn into people yet? #kattwilliams

— lydia apel (@LydiaApel)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Well that's convinced me! We need more of these foul-mouthed, semi-literate Christians to tell us how the world works, I say. Who needs books and science and all that stuff when we have people who just know things? Thank God for Dunning & Kruger, I say!
34Candidate: @StrawHats247

July 4, 2013 4:41 AM

@MaximumAtheist @mrozatheist Why havent penguins created electric heaters?

— Monkey D. Luffy (@StrawHats247)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: These are the sorts of questions scientists find impossible to answer. See? Flawed theory! Obviously a magic man magicked everything by magic!
35Candidate: @ImSoKentucky

July 6, 2013 4:48 AM

@JoeUnseen how do u think nature works perfectly together? The birds & trees? The flowers & bees? Your anatomy!? #GOD

— God's son (@ImSoKentucky)
July 6, 2013 4:53 AM

@GodFreeWorld @JoeUnseen yes perfect, and if u think we evolved from apes, all I can do is laugh.

— God's son (@ImSoKentucky)
July 6, 2013 4:42 AM

If we "think" too much, we make up excuses not to do God's will.

— God's son (@ImSoKentucky)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Obvious the "son of God's" personal incredulity is a far more reliable way to assess reality than all that hard science stuff. And just stop all that thinking! Okay!
36Candidate: @CaitlinMillerxo

July 7, 2013 3:32 PM

Do you really believe people evolved from apes? — Doesn't evolved mean like it goes away in water or whatever?

— Caitlin:) (@CaitlinMillerxo)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: This surely rates as a strong contender. To remain so ignorant in the face of so much freely-available information these days takes real dedication, which deserves some sort of recognition.
37Candidate: @jimmythejew1

July 7, 2013 4:34 AM

@RFrangie @k8ynal @idebunkforme @AgnostAtheist @firehawk18. Do you atheists accept Darwins THEORIES? If so that makes you a racist. Sorry!

— theKungFu-Jew (@jimmythejew1)
July 7, 2013 4:57 AM

@ShadeNox @AmdAndrew. The theory of evolution is making shit up. That's why its called a theory.

— theKungFu-Jew (@jimmythejew1)
July 7, 2013 5:15 AM

@AmdAndrew. Hahahahahahahahaha lol lol. So 800,000 papers proves what exactly? We evolved from monkeys! You prove nothing.

— theKungFu-Jew (@jimmythejew1)
July 7, 2013 5:25 AM

@ShadeNox @AmdAndrew. Im always under the impression "evolutionists" love the ape, monkey,primate theory. Without God its all you have right

— theKungFu-Jew (@jimmythejew1)
July 7, 2013 5:32

@ShadeNox @AmdAndrew. In my opinion that's called making shit up. Once again its a weak theory derived from imagination.

— theKungFu-Jew (@jimmythejew1)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: A long series but well worth the read as this genius shows off his depth of understanding and the elegantly argued logic of his case. Chuck those 800,000 scientific papers away. Don't even bother to read them. They're all written by lesser people and idiots who just make things up.
38Candidate: @ChEesEWilLZ

July 7, 2013 8:33 PM

@Peter301164 @TakeThatDarwin You eat from the tree of ignorance sex/death doesn't play part in "evolution" so does your way of thinking

— 仍然是黑色 (@ChEesEWilLZ)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Brilliantly insightful analysis based on a thorough understanding of the subject. Exactly what this isn't.
39Candidate: @OfficialCincoo5
July 8, 2013 5:41 PM

@TheSkeptichead @TakeThatDarwin Yes I do know what evolution is, an idiot would believe that we were apes, and grew into humans

July 8, 2013 5:45 PM

@TheSkeptichead @TakeThatDarwin Their wouldn't be no more pregnancy due to females, and we will still be evolved as apes to this day

— M.A.B™ (@OfficialCincoo5)
July 8, 2013 5:45 PM

@TheSkeptichead @TakeThatDarwin it's all myth, other god knows, but I'm just telling you what I think

— M.A.B™ (@OfficialCincoo5)

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Obvious when you think about it! Evolution prevents pregnancy so pregnancy proves evolution doesn't happen. Why can't these scientists see that?
40Candidate: @ADIOCHAIN

@blcinsd Gravity is demonstrable as we can test its effect. However, we cannot describe a material exchange as we are in the dark...

— Jason Mann (@ADIOCHAIN) July 8, 2013 5:27 AM

@blcinsd the same manner, we can show a variation in species, but cannot show that speciation causes new species to occur...

— Jason Mann (@ADIOCHAIN) July 8, 2013 5:29 AM

@blcinsd when you lay all your eggs in the Evolution basket, they had all better fit or it is a worthless theory, you're left trying to...

— Jason Mann (@ADIOCHAIN) July 8, 2013 5:32 AM

@blcinsd prove at all cost, just to save face. Even long after it's fallen apart.

— Jason Mann (@ADIOCHAIN) July 8, 2013 5:33 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: How on Earth did anyone ever think that speciation causes a new species? I mean, it doesn't even sound as though one has anything to do with the other. How can scientists be so dumb!
41Candidate: @chrispyosh

I have always had trouble believing I evolved from an ape or baboon. I'm much too smart for that. Fake Liberals beliefs do not apply to me.

— Chris O'Shaughnessy (@chrispyosh) July 8, 2013 3:36 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Apparently, we can pick and choose whether we evolved or not. Great! I choose to be the product of a 3.5 billion year process where those good at surviving won the contest. Some may prefer to have been made of dirt.
42Candidate: @King_Don_315

1st thing scientists made us believe is that through evolution our ancestors were first apes. God made man and woman not evolution.

— woodsdon316 (@King_Don_315) July 8, 2013

@grenangle While 100% of me believes in God creation that still beats 98% of Science.

— woodsdon316 (@King_Don_315) July 8, 2013

Does this look like your baby? Science is meant to put the fear of dying rather than hope of living in our life.

— woodsdon316 (@King_Don_315) July 8, 2013

Images painted of evolution only create room for racism and injustice. God would never entitle man to…

— woodsdon316 (@King_Don_315) July 8, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So, if you believe something 100%, even though you know nothing about it, that trumps the opinions of 98% of people who spend their lives studying and researching something! This Creationism seems so much easier that all that reading and learning, and you get to make facts up and feel good doing it!
43Candidate: @JoeCienkowski

@AtrumAtheist @TomEcho6 evolution- a cell came to life; magically grows arms, legs, brain, blood, penis and vagina through 'natural' process

— Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski) July 9, 2013 2:07 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The second entry for this outstanding candidate. Many people have assumed that Joe, the 'conviction' Christian whose idol is the millionaire Creationist fraudster Kent Hovind, must be a parody or an fraud trying to imitate his idol, but it seems he really does believe he is attacking the scientific Theory of Evolution, which is whatever he says it is. He proudly boasts of having never read a science book so his inerrant knowledge doesn't get contaminated.
44Candidate: @omgitscaitmarie

@GreatApeAtheist The theory is exactly what you claim to be a fact. A theory has to be proved for it to become a fact. It was never proved.

— Caitlin Cook (@omgitscaitmarie) July 10, 2013 3:05 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Not having bothered to even open a dictionary and check on a few basic scientific terms makes this an exceptionally strong candidate.
45Candidate: @HJSoldier

@_witty_n_wise_ read about what happened to the people of the time of Moses. Something about how they started worshipping cows & how God--

— Superman (@HJSoldier) July 10, 2013 10:26 AM

@_witty_n_wise_ --Gods punishment to them was turning them into apes.-- which I think is where scientists got their idea of evolution

— Superman (@HJSoldier) July 10, 2013 10:27 AM

Atheists are gonna go to hell lol

— Superman (@HJSoldier) July 10, 2013 10:29 AM

Silly atheists 😛 I wanna stand at the gates of hell just to wave at the atheists when they're walking in lol

— Superman (@HJSoldier) July 10, 2013 10:30 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: It's amazing what morbidly paranoid theophobia can do to a human mind. To think, it took 3.5 billion years to evolve and yet it still can be subverted by a psychiatric disorder caused by childhood mental abuse which itself relies on the evolved human characteristic of childhood gullibility.
46Candidate: @Memento_mory_

@HempStar84 @AnarchyArachnid @ASH_auldshaman @CaptnAtheist I'm not against science, I'm against the theories people try to prove with it

— Kev (@Memento_mory_) July 10, 2013 5:44 PM

@David_McEntee evolution, the big bang. I mean, evolution can be true to an extant, but not from like, monkeys to people or whatever.

— Kev (@Memento_mory_) July 10, 2013 6:09 PM

@Liberty_2112 @David_McEntee Funny how they still teach it in schools.

— Kev (@Memento_mory_) July 10, 2013 6:22 PM

@iHeigo Knowing what happened "billions" of years ago isn't fact. It's fiction too, because we don't know what happened.

— Kev (@Memento_mory_) July 10, 2013 6:23 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: It's not science, it what science proves which is the problem? And why are they teaching that stuff in schools that they don't teach? Why can't everyone understand that if a Creationist doesn't know something, no one does - after all what's the point of having a short-cut to knowledge and understanding which saves all that reading and learning and big words, if people are just going to tell you you're wrong?
47Candidate: @FinesseWho

@ryanhoover faggot ass fuck I don't believe evolution n since u so smart where did modern day man come from

— Mr Perfect (@FinesseWho) July 11, 2013 5:22 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: What? Evolution explains where modern man came from huh? I thought it was something to do with gay sex - which doesn't bother me at all, I hardly ever think about it, really! I prefer women! Honestly! I'm not sweating right!
48Candidate: @DrMartyFox

So how can you say Creationism isn't real?@TOToole7NY

— Dr. Marty Fox (@DrMartyFox) July 11, 2013 10:59 PM

Evolution is a THEORY: @rmw8_robynw @silence_dogood8

— Dr. Marty Fox (@DrMartyFox) July 11, 2013 11:31 PM

Why do atheists melt down when reminded: Evolution is THEORY, propositions to argue for unproven conclusion?@silence_dogood8 @rmw8_robynw

— Dr. Marty Fox (@DrMartyFox) July 11, 2013 11:40 PM

Gravity is a law. What is the law of evolution? @AtheistBoy_ @MrOzAtheist

— Dr. Marty Fox (@DrMartyFox) July 12, 2013 12:59 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: This science stuff is really, really simple! You just decide what you want to be true then you go onto the Internet and type it out in CAPITALS and it becomes true! You don't need to read books or anything and you can just ignore evidence and stuff because you've just said it's all wrong, so it must be! Isn't that great!
49Candidate: @JeffJanssen

Mutations and natural selection are not advantageous as intermediate stages are not beneficial but harmful to all organisms @TakeThatDarwin

— Jeff Janssen (@JeffJanssen) July 12, 2013 2:43 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Since this candidate hasn't even understood the false information he's been fed, and clearly has no idea about the subject he's assuring the world is all wrong, I feel this makes him an exceptional candidate for this award, and maybe for a Dunning-Kruger Outstanding Services to Psychology Medal too, if there is such a thing.
50Candidate: @riverEu

@Perth_Atheist1 the words are well understood. trying to fool people into believing undemonstrative theory is fact. narcissistic arrogance

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 4:21 PM

@weakSquare @Perth_Atheist1 the ridiculousness of attempting to call theory fact is stupidity in itself. conjecture is conjecture.

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 4:34 PM

@BP_Smith @ChristiAnne67 the theory states we shared common ancestors, however, genetics does not support the theory.

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 5:15 PM

@ChristiAnne67 @weakSquare @Perth_Atheist1 completely understand but do not believe darwin's theory should be included.

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 5:18 PM

@Perth_Atheist1 please cite an article that shows mutation ever produces 'fitter' in anything but bacteria.

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 5:39 PM

@Perth_Atheist1 @ChristiAnne67 fascinating ppl like u, u know nothing about the science, can't argue it and think you can call others stupid

— jodi lauphlyn (@riverEu) July 12, 2013 5:53 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Second long entry from this worthy candidate. Worth the read never-the-less.

She's irritated by people who know nothing about science, can't argue it and yet think they can call people stupid. She calls these people stupid. Obviously, this doesn't apply to her because she is about to explain to all those geneticists and evolutionists how genetics doesn't support the theory of evolution and how they've all been labouring under a misapprehension all these years, so she obviously knows more than they do, poor fools.

Dunning & Kruger would be so proud.
51Candidate: @Guns_N_Rozez

Atheists kill me when they talk though....they always talking about evolution and universal distraught

— ιℓℓєѕтℓσνє (@Guns_N_Rozez) July 13, 2013 4:21 AM

My thing is, monkeys could no where possibly have came here from the meteors they claim started the how did monkeys arrive?

— ιℓℓєѕтℓσνє (@Guns_N_Rozez) July 13, 2013 4:22 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I guess the game's up for science then, unless we can show how monkeys came from meteors. Why on Earth didn't we think of that before? I blame Darwin - and the lack of uneducated religious fundamentalists with imaginary friends in his immediate social circle to keep him on track.

Who needs all that silly evidence evidence and stuff when facts can just be popped into existence as and when required?
52Candidate: @HaliZee59

@lldragonheartll @Atheist_cat @bboyblue @EDLUnplugged so how did the universe come about? Out of random thin air?

— Halimah (Rudy Fyah) (@HaliZee59) July 12, 2013 3:20 PM

@GodFreeWorld @Atheist_cat if its true why is it still just a 'theory'?

— Halimah (Rudy Fyah) (@HaliZee59) July 12, 2013 3:27 PM

@Atheist_cat @lldragonheartll @bboyblue @EDLUnplugged there aren't aliens. They're Jinn. And they're the unseen. Aliens is a story to

— Halimah (Rudy Fyah) (@HaliZee59) July 12, 2013 3:55 PM

@Atheist_cat @bboyblue @EDLUnplugged make ppl disbelieve and ridicule the idea of the Jinn living alongside us. To move us from the truth

— Halimah (Rudy Fyah) (@HaliZee59) July 12, 2013 3:55 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Oh dear! Maybe a little more tonic with the Jinn?
53Candidate: @Godfearing1234

@TheBlasphemer1 No I meant, if we exist by accident we could have eyes at back or anywhere.@lifeorgod

— Truth (@Godfearing1234) July 13, 2013 9:43 AM

@atheist_badger The more I study evolution, the more I am convinced that its magical. Nothing evolved from nothing. Everything is created.

— Truth (@Godfearing1234) July 13, 2013 10:10 AM

@TheBlasphemer1 Well, in that case..accidents could not be always good from the evolution of universe to the evolution of

— Truth (@Godfearing1234) July 13, 2013 1:05 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Well obviously (s)he must be right having studied evolution so extensively - unless (s)he's using a creationist definition of the word 'study', as in, 'ignore all the information completely and never accept an answer', of course.
54Candidate: @sanmiadenaiye

If the theory of evolution is true- why is every girl still born a virgin? #justloudthoughts

— The African Child (@sanmiadenaiye) July 12, 2013 12:53 AM

Nominated by: @WillChrisHughes

Citation:Just when you think you've seen them all, another Creationist comes by and restores your faith in Creationist moronitudes ability to have no lower boundary.
55Candidate: Adnan Oktar

Credit for discovery: @TakeThatDarwin

Citation: Our first Turkish candidate and with video support. The Google Translate version from Turkish into English probably doesn't do justice to the full majesty of the argument he puts up against Evolution. Basically, it's the devastating argument that Evolution can't be true because Allah created everything. How can science compete with that, eh?

No prizes for not giggling as you watch the video. Thankfully, it's not too long.


To that end, Adnan Oktar, primarily under the influence of over a hundred years time, people living away from religious moral values ​​to them and concentrated on proving the invalidity of this deception. Oktar has revealed the true face of the so-called science of Darwinism in the name of science itself is still believed that the most effective means. With this understanding, which is a summary of extensive research and studies had a booklet entitled The Theory of Evolution. All costs of this booklet by selling property inherited from his family. Then, as it began distributing free booklet university students.

This booklet is not any scientific value and the theory of evolution is a lie that shows a comprehensive work. Mr. Adnan Oktar who reads this work and many people speak clearly understood that the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. As a result, there is no creature can not be the result of chance, Almighty Allah created the universe and all living things in science, was to prove a clear and understandable manner. Still, some students blindly devoted to materialist thought, to see a clear denial, despite the fact that clearly stated that determination.

Moreover, some of the militant students at the university, if not stop the activities of Mr. Oktar, saying openly threatened his life would be in danger. All of these pressures and threats, Mr. Oktar has increased even more determination and devotion to God. The harsh reactions and concerns of the materialist and atheist circles, the most important part of the evidence that Mr. Adnan Oktar on the right track.
56Candidate: @BrotherMuadh

Nah do people still we came from monkeys.

— Mu'ādh (@BrotherMuadh) July 16, 2013 10:19 AM

Imagine if your knees could never bend. Think of the blessings of just those two joints?

— Mu'ādh (@BrotherMuadh) July 16, 2013 12:27 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Knees! Of course! I bet Darwin and all those biologists never noticed knees! How could they have been so stupid?

(To be fair, an engineer called Stuart Burgess from Bristol, UK tried to rectify a pension defficit disorder by writing a book about knees for Creationists. How we all laughed.)
57Candidate: @AhmedTalaat93

athiests are stupid .. they admit they are monkeys

— The Don (@AhmedTalaat93) July 15, 2013 3:19 AM

They worship demons and they know the devil hate the fuck outta human kind , fools!

— The Don (@AhmedTalaat93) July 16, 2013 8:18 AM

I call them limited minds #athiests

— The Don (@AhmedTalaat93) July 16, 2013 8:20 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The inability to spell 'atheists' whilst calling them stupid makes this an exquisite candidate. The phrase 'limited mind' is so perfect!

Again, a worthy candidate for the Dunning-Kruger Gold Medal, if only there were such a thing.
58Candidate: @T_the_name_41

If you think we came from monkeys than your a idiot #Evolution smh

— Travis selle (@T_the_name_41) July 15, 2013 11:55 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Well, if you need me to explain why this is such an outstanding candidate, 'than your a idiot'.
59Candidate: @iHateShigady

at this point in your life if you still believe the evolution theory that we came from monkeys your stupid

— Shigady (@iHateShigady) July 15, 2013 6:25 PM

personally id rather experience life shit and have common sense than to have book smart and ultimately not kno enough about life.

— Shigady (@iHateShigady) July 15, 2013 6:28 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: What did anyone ever learn from a book, eh? I mean, all those words and you have to work out what they mean! Waste of time! Just guess and pretend you 'kno' things! No-one will ever kno and no-one will ever think your(sic) stupid!
60Candidate: @Aliaa_Adi

@btweetd I am educated very well and I only need logic to know that it was impossible for us to have evolved from apes

— Aliaa Adi (@Aliaa_Adi) July 16, 2013 12:27 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Obviously, logic says we all came from a grain of sand! How could it be anything else?
61Candidate: @ToddKincannon

Still waiting for "evolutionary biologist" @GodFreeWorld to tell us about what weird and fancy cretestures he done invented.

— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) July 16, 2013

Submitted by: @2h_2n

Citation: How can someone who apparently believes evolution means evolutionary biologists invent 'cretestures' fail to be a major contender?
62Candidate: @JoeCienkowski

@numbdave you say NOTHING. You explain NOTHING. YES, YOU DO SUGGEST SINGLE CELLS HUMAN ANCESTRY, which is not possible, except to dolts.

— Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski) July 17, 2013 1:25 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: A second entry from Dopey Joe. Joe often shouts aggressively when he feels threatened by a fact. He seems to believe that's scientific debate.
63Candidate: @quietpreacher

@Hotdesigner @DebunkEvolution read what I said. Micro evolution is indeed true. A frog adapts but remains a frog. It doesn't become a prince

— A Better Britain (@quietpreacher) July 17, 2013 12:11 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: This new kid on the block, xenophobe and Nazi supporter is proudly showing off his ignorance by hysterically attacking the Creationist parody of evolution, presumably having been fooled into believing it's the scientific one. Enjoy! He's silly.

I should point out to non-Brits that he isn't typical but, unfortunately, we still throw up the occasional loony from the lower tail-end of the bell curve.
64Candidate: @Cboone65

@GentleAtheist your evolution theory matter plus heat will make new life but they tried it on peanut butter and it didn't work !

— Cole Boone (@Cboone65) July 17, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: This science thing is simpler than I thought! Apparently, you just try it on peanut butter. If it doesn't work, your theory is wrong and you can just ignore all the evidence! Easy-peasy! Whichever scientist who came up with the idea that matter plus heat produces life obviously hadn't heard about the peanut butter test.

Meanwhile, in the world outside the asylum....
65Candidate: @DmaloneSean

@Moq72 @TakeThatDarwin @grenangle im not ignorant im asking questions cos im 14 you guys are complete ignorant closed minded pigs

— The Real Slim Shady (@DmaloneSean) July 18, 2013 11:26 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: How can science compete with devastating arguments of this calibre?
66Candidate: @Mariahimthebest

Full Quote: Do you really believe people evolved from apes? That's the most stupidest thing I've heard yet half of the world believes it. smhhh idiots

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I don't see why science is wasting all this money on research and stuff when they can just take a random, semi-literate Creationist off any street corner and ask them what the facts are. What could be simpler? Smhhh idiots.
67Candidate: @iam_dupre

Evolution ain't shit, they said we came from monkeys, quick question,"why are there still monkeys??" Won't them like †̥o evolve too???

— Iyke~duprε̲̣® (@iam_dupre) July 18, 2013 7:08 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I know this is just another copy of the Creationist 'killer' monkey question but I feel the inclusion of the assumption that species evolve because they like to makes this an especially strong candidate, displaying as it does how this is an argument from ignorant incredulity.
68Candidate: @OktarBabuna

@jgbullseye @Stooshie corpus callosum which has connective function of the 2 halves of our brains. Disruption generates disease of one soul

— Oktar Babuna (@OktarBabuna) July 17, 2013 10:23 PM

Nominated by: @Stooshie

Citation: Dr. Babuna says he is a neurosurgeon in his Bio and in this tweet is talking about the surgical procedure "corpus callosotomy" (splitting the corpus callosum which connects the two halves of the brain). This is done in severe cases of epilepsy and seems to be quite effective. He says it causes a disease of the soul. He's a neurosurgeon!!!
69Candidate: @pink_n_DOPE

Full quote: Do you really believe people evolved from apes? that whole theory was aimed towards black people but there's no fucking way I evolved from an ape or I'd still be evolving.....

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The curious belief that black people can have different scientific truths to, presumably, white people, and the fact that she thinks truth must conform to her requirements, makes this an especially strong candidate.

Of course there is the standard assumption that complete ignorance of a subject is no barrier to understanding every aspect of it and that this level of understanding trumps that of scientists and negates any evidence, but that is common to all Dunning-Kruger Syndrome Creationists.
70Candidate: @FallibleMind

Do you really believe people evolved from apes? — Absolutely not.... apes would still be revolving

— J. Jizzy (@FallibleMind) July 20, 2013 8:51 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Evolving, revolving... what's the difference? You don't even need to understand the meaning of words to know more than scientists - if you're a Creationist! Understanding words is for people who read books and stuff. What's the use of that when you were born with complete knowledge of everything?
71Candidate: @BlackDreez

@RosaRubicondior God is a Man & a Spirit which is invisible to human eye sight. Same as Wind is Invisible to eyesight, yet u see its Effect!

— Black Dreez (@BlackDreez) July 20, 2013 8:36 PM

@RosaRubicondior I'ma leave you to the devil & let you "Think" I'm fooled. We'll see at the end of our life WHO was fooled...? #IAintMadAtU

— Black Dreez (@BlackDreez) July 20, 2013 8:38 PM

@RosaRubicondior God spoke EVERYTHING (Water, Sun, Moon, Water, Fish) into Existence being ALL MIGHTY/KNOWING/POWERFUL! Life didn't Evolve!

— Black Dreez (@BlackDreez) July 20, 2013 8:44 PM

@anarchic_teapot @oddsocket @RosaRubicondior Evolution does NOT explain WHERE FISH COME COME? u atheist ALWAYS "Act" like ur soo Intelligent

— Black Dreez (@BlackDreez) July 20, 2013 10:58 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I think this one speaks eloquently enough for himself. Clearly afraid he'll burn in Hell for eternity if he touches a science book and believes ignorant incredulity trumps anything that might be in them anyway. How dare a mere scientist say otherwise! Note the skilled use of the irrefutable magic caps lock, by the way, and how on Earth can science explain where fish came from? It's not like they could have evolved or anything!
72Candidate: @Roberto_Maxwell

@jonrotten31 @RosaRubicondior it called Science, yours truely Richard Dawkins believes Aliens had to have Catalyzed life on earth.

— Dr. Robert Maxwell (@Roberto_Maxwell) July 20, 2013 10:43 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Probably an infantile troll but it's so hard to tell.
73Candidate: @KETrey5

So evolution is basically the theory that nothing & nothing all came together & exploded into everything causing earth to form. SMDH

— Keaton (@KETrey5) July 20, 2013 3:59 AM

What do you want to be when your an adult? :P — I'm gonna go to college at UCO & become a forensic scientist.

— Keaton (@KETrey5) July 20, 2013 7:25 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The combination of complete ignorance, which is not normally considered a problem in Creationist circles, and the stupid arrogance of thinking we're going to be impressed by it and take his word for it that science has got it all wrong, makes this an especially strong candidate. I wonder if he realises that to qualify as a forensic scientists he's going to have to read science books, and be tested on his knowledge of science? "God did it!" will most likely earn an 'F', unless it's a Baptist Bible college, then he could get a PhD.
74Candidate: @YouAintShitBitt

Do you really believe people evolved from apes? — Fuck No. . If We Did. . There Would Be NO Apes Of Any Kind .....

— I Fuck THOTS (@YouAintShitBitt) July 21, 2013 7:44 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: It's not so much the standard display of proud ignorance and breathtakingly unjustified arrogance as the foul mouth through which this one is defending her imaginary creator, which gives this a special caché. It takes a special form of stupidity to display the fact that she obviously doesn't believe in the creator she thinks must have created everything because she doesn't know enough to imagine how it could be anything else. Personally, I blame the pastors.
75Candidate: @TheSunriseMusic

@grenangle @Brew_BBQ Did the failure of natural selection, PROVED by the continuation of the black race, prove that Darwin was wrong? YES!

— The Sunrise (@TheSunriseMusic) July 17, 2013 9:03 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I wonder who fed this unfortunate candidate the idea that black people are failures of evolution. A nice example there of how ignorance is exploited for political gain by unscrupulous frauds. The irony is that it was the same Christian fascist right who perverted and misrepresented Darwinian evolution to claim it prove the slave races were inferior, and therefore slavery was justified biologically as well as biblically, who now using that lie to tell the American underclass that Darwinian evolution is wrong because it's racist, so they should vote for the fundy Christian white guy who would support the KKK if he could get away with it and still be elected. Strange how truth can change for the political convenience of the white supremacist Christian right, eh?
76Candidate: @AtThyWord777

@chriswalsh709 The Fallacy of Evolution & the Cinderella Fallacy-Read carefully &DoNot MisQuote Me out of CONTEXT !

— BrotherErrolSmythe (@AtThyWord777) July 21, 2013 4:10 PM

Submitted by: @chriswalsh709

Citation: Worth the long read to appreciate the sheer idiocy of this worthy candidate who also posts on Twitter as @ErrolSmythe777. For some reason Errol, like several other fundamentalists, seems to believe saying the same thing with more than one account makes it more true. Once again Errol has apparently confused the Children's fairy story of Cinderella for a textbook on biology and has written a long essay about it complete with a 'bibliography' consisting of er... the Bible and Cinderella. A very strong contender amongst many, I feel.
77Candidate: @C0ltharted

@Bye_Dogma I was raised southern baptist, I'm not a southern baptist, Jewish, catholic, whatever. But while atheism is based on scientific

— Shane (@C0ltharted) July 21, 2013 11:39 PM

@Bye_Dogma theories based on fact, there are many people and scientists who would argue otherwise towards these "facts"

— Shane (@C0ltharted) July 21, 2013 11:39 PM

@Bye_Dogma there's no way to tell if evolution really happened, or if there is a god, but what you believe in can take you farther

— Shane (@C0ltharted) July 21, 2013 11:40 PM

Submitted by: @GodFreeWorld

Citation: Well obviously, if atheism is based on scientific facts that's no reason to think it's factual! So, how can facts be used to prove the theory of evolution? Where did these mad scientists ever get the idea you can use facts to prove things? I mean, it's as stupid as measuring the height of a mountain and then using that to say how high the mountain is! Much better to look it up in a book written by Bronze-Age goat-herders who obviously knew everything.
78Candidate: @Gara_Dizaey

@RosaRubicondior go fuck a monkey or something I'll bet you love those apes!

— Gara Dizaey (@Gara_Dizaey) July 22, 2013 1:16 AM

@RosaRubicondior do apes and pictures of monkeys get you horny you old fucker?

— Gara Dizaey (@Gara_Dizaey) July 22, 2013 1:17 AM

@RosaRubicondior your mums pussy is full of puss you old fuck #lmaoAtYourStupidity

— Gara Dizaey (@Gara_Dizaey) July 22, 2013 1:20 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: After boasting that he could prove his god existed and that evolution was false, this is the best he could come up with when asked to produce it, apparently. A very worthy candidate.
79Candidate: @SWE_61

@mckinnleystokes how did science make the ocean? If we evolved from monkeys then all the monkeys should be gone

— Zacn (@SWE_61) July 22, 2013 6:32 AM

Submitted by: @neiljhenry

Citation: It's not so much the routine ignorance and misinformation about monkeys and evolution which makes this an outstanding candidate as the belief that evolution has something to do with ocean formation. Guaranteed to have Creationists nodding in agreement and normal people laughing out loud.
80Candidate: @JoeCienkowski

@tony_oliver @RosaRubicondior @TakeThatDarwin atheism teaches a cell grew legs, arms, penises and vaginas. In what way is this inaccurate?

— Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski) July 18, 2013

@UC_george @tony_oliver @RosaRubicondior @TakeThatDarwin we observe fertilized eggs becoming organisms, but ONLY with human counterparts

— Joe Cienkowski (@JoeCienkowski) July 18, 2013

Submitted by: @UC_george

Citation: Another very worthy entry from 'conviction' Creationist, Joe Cienkowski. It's typical of Dopey Joe's invented gibberish, of course. He is still trying to push his brilliant new lie about what atheists claim - that cells sprout genitalia and limbs - and refuting it with his own invention that only humans develop from fertilized eggs.

Joe tries to earn a living emulating his hero, the convicted fraudster Kent Hovind. Having dabbled in drug dealing, he now spends a great deal of his time making up things like this and claiming they're what science or evolution or Atheism say, and writing 'books' about it which he tries to hawk to anyone ignorant and credulous enough to give him money. When challenged he normally just repeats his claim, eventually becoming abusive and blocking his opponent.

He also likes tweeting things about vaginas and penises, has a 'Levitican' approach to marriage, disciplining women and a husband's rights in a marriage, and feels exempt from the biblical laws concerning adultery, false witnessing and hypocrisy, which he tells everyone else they should observe. His tweets have become increasingly bizarre over the last year or so.
81Candidate: @jossylove

@_NoGodKnowPeace Does Not How It Works Fool - If Humans Evolved From Apes - Then Why hasn't a 3rd hand and a 4th leg - why stop at us?! Kmt

— GymBoy (@jossylove) July 22, 2013 6:49 PM

@_NoGodKnowPeace Some Atheist Dnt Believe Out Of Lost Hope, Some From Disbelieve, Some confusion, Some from being well-off, your just stupid

— GymBoy (@jossylove) July 22, 2013 6:52 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Dunning & Kruger gold medalist if ever there was one and if only there was such a thing. Love the 'your just stupid' tagline. It adds a certain superfluous je ne sais quoi which sets this aside from the usual run-of-the-mill Creationist.
82Candidate: @flakmatters

@biIlion explain to me why monkeys and all other apes didn't evolve to the point of humanism. The way that natural selection works, if there

— Shane (@flakmatters) July 22, 2013 7:40 PM

@biIlion was a natural restriction that resulted in evolution of our ancestors then the less adapt species would die out or evolve as well

— Shane (@flakmatters) July 22, 2013 7:41 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: What makes this candidate rather special is that, having been advised to learn before making himself look stupid, he retaliates by making himself look even more stupid, as though that somehow neutralises the first piece of stupidity. It takes a Creationist to think that's how these things work.
83Candidate: @itsjoethejust

@Capeheritjamie @AtomicD_ gravity is NOT a theory YOU STUPID FOOL!!

— itsjoethejust (@itsjoethejust) July 23, 2013

Submitted by: @AtomicD_

Citation: The standard complete ignorance of a basic scientific term together with the use of the magic caps lock and abuse to force reality to conform, earns this candidate particularly consideration.
84Candidate: @kittensbaby

@NeillShenton y would I read I book that I don't even believe in evolution

— prettyinpink (@kittensbaby) July 25, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Quite! Why would any self-respecting Creationist read a book when they are born with an in-depth understanding of everything? If they don't know it, it doesn't exist. End of!
85Candidate: @genelingerfelt

The violence we r witnessing is the result of teaching children they r descended from monkeys and that there is no absolute right or wrong.

— Gene Lingerfelt (@genelingerfelt) July 25, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Why can't these scientists just see that we never had any violence before 1859 and that evolution just can't be true because Creationists who need a hand-book to look up right and wrong in would have to develop empathy and see things from other people's point of view?

I bet it was evolutionists who did away with slavery, daughter sales, killing rape victims and stoning naughty children to death too.
86Candidate: @GJ_Wilson

@rickygervais evolution of what is a fact? Humans? It's not a fact, there are gaps on the timeline.....oh when dolphins were monkeys, ok

— Gary Wilson (@GJ_Wilson) July 26, 2013 11:39 PM

@rickygervais I hope you go to America and some Jesus freak pops a few caps in you far ass...........

— Gary Wilson (@GJ_Wilson) July 26, 2013 11:42 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So that's how proper science should be done - the way it is by people who feel qualified to dismiss an entire body of it. First you show you know nothing about it and are not even sure what it is, but you just know it's all wrong. Then you say you hope someone kills anyone who disagrees.

Obviously that saves all that bother of meticulous observation to discover facts, reading around the subject to see what other experts have found, doing experiments, analysing your results, submitting your finding for peer-review and arguing your case in the court of informed scientific opinion like those mad people in white coats with propellers on their heads do.
87Candidate: @PreciousVJ_PH


— happybdayGEORGEY (@PreciousVJ_PH) July 27, 2013 2:58 PM

@biIlion I'm not an uneducated fuck because I base my opinions because of the bible so fuck off

— happybdayGEORGEY (@PreciousVJ_PH) July 27, 2013 2:58

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I stand to be corrected on this point but I rather thought the biblical phrase was "Go forth and multiply", but obviously interpretations vary.
88Candidate: @Teaziii

No atheist in existence, None, can successfully answer the chicken-and-egg question

— ᵀᴴᴱ ᴼᴿᴵᴳᴵᴻᴬᴸ McCoy (@Teaziii) July 27, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: For a Creationist, this argument is especially true if you avoid reading what Atheists have to say on the subject. (See Of Chickens And Eggs)
89Candidate: @thsmiley_

When people regard the Quran and Islam as stupid well your no better believing in apes, monkeys and god knows what.

— T.H.Smiley (@thsmiley_) July 28, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I mean, whoever came up with the stupid theory that monkeys and apes exist? Are they mentioned in the Qur'an? Well, are they? Case closed, I think! Take that science!
90Candidate: @allymasson

@ThinkingDutchmn @bugsymol there may be loads of evidence but I don't give a shit about scientist. If they must know look it up in the bible

— 1D (@allymasson) July 29, 2013 11:24 PM

IDIOTS EVERYWHERE. Fucking scientists I swear If they need to know anything about evolution LOOK IT UP IN THE BIBLE God created man Not apes

— 1D (@allymasson) July 29, 2013 11:26 PM

@Gervaitheist @IRaiseUFacts I'm older than twelve asswhole

— 1D (@allymasson) July 29, 2013 11:41 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: I can't for the life of me understand why scientists don't realise that all they have to do is look in the Bible and type things with the magic caps lock on so it all becomes true. Maybe they don't just have a whole ass and can count up to 12.
91Candidate: @Pug116

@AtomicD_ @KyleZet. Bbuuttt seeing as how the majority of you are pretty thick headed, let me explain. Worthless. Dumb. Irrelevant.

— Paul White (@Pug116) August 3, 2013 4:05 PM

@Irish_Atheist @testprophet @TakeThatDarwin but youre good at pretending to know things, right? Its what you guys do.

— Paul White (@Pug116) August 3, 2013 4:09 AM

@AtomicD_ @KyleZet who varified the science? Who varified the facts?

— Paul White (@Pug116) August 3, 2013 4:14 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: If only scientists had been educated by illiterate people who know nothing about science and believe pre-wheel Bronze-Age goat-herders knew everything there is to know about everything! Think of the mistakes that could have been avoided!
92Candidate: @LouVuitton_Don


— Supreme King (@LouVuitton_Don) August 3, 2013 02:06 AM


— Supreme King (@LouVuitton_Don) August 3, 2013 2:08 AM


— Supreme King (@LouVuitton_Don) August 3, 2013 2:46 AM


— Supreme King (@LouVuitton_Don) August 3, 2013 2:48 AM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: You see scientists? All you need do is put on your magic caps lock so everything you say becomes true, then you shout abuse at people and type the last character about 100 times! Can't see why you bother with all that book learning and reasoning and stuff. Just because you think learning means you know more than ignorant people you think you're so clever...
93Candidate: @ashton4_460

@Atheistican and you can go stick your finger in someones butt cuz all this stupid science goves me a head ache

— Ashton (@ashton4_460) August 3, 2013 5:01 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: The headaches must be why those loopy scientists keep coming up with such daft ideas.
93Candidate: @starstarstar24

Science just made shit up & make us think it makes sense which doesn't make any to me

— Mowgli (@starstarstar24) August 3, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So stop just making shit up scientists, then more people would understand it without having to learn anything! Better still, just ask them what they already understand and write that down!
94Candidate: @ThibaultLloyd

@MyOpenMind101 I deny secular science because its not science, but a faith. you strive on it

— Thibault Jean Lloyd (@ThibaultLloyd) July 31, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So that's the answer scientists! If you want to be taken seriously, you have to ask Thibault Jean Lloyd what's true and what isn't. No need for all the peer-review nonsense, and research and stuff when we have the font of all knowledge in our midst.
95Candidate: @joshua582

From an ancestor of the ape, which is now extinct. We evolved, apes didn't. Evolution raises more questions than answers. It's phoney.

— Joshua (@joshua582) August 9, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: That's where scientists went wrong! They thought apes evolved from their ancestor! How stupid is that?
96Candidate: @fernpoyser

I've discovered yet another hole in the theory of evolution. If man evolved from the ape, what did woman evolve...

— Fern Yvette (@fernpoyser) August 11, 2013

Full quote:
I've discovered yet another hole in the theory of evolution. If man evolved from the ape, what did woman evolve from? Or is it the male ape that produced a female ape and vice versa? HUH??? See how confusing this is ??????

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: It's probably difficult to add anything to this. The fact that she proudly posted it on Facebook for the world to see then boasted about it on Twitter is testament enough to the worthiness of this candidate. I really think there should be a Dunning & Kruger Gold Medal.
97Candidate: @MEAN_MARINE

Evolutionist use blind faith for their belief; like playing Russian Roulette when each chamber has a deadly bullet!

— IRA (@MEAN_MARINE) August 15, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So remember scientists: it takes blind faith to draw conclusions from evidence unlike religion where you draw conclusions from no evidence at all, and evolution must be wrong because it's a faith and all faiths are wrong er... except religion, obviously.

Anyway, you should be too afraid of that imaginary magic sky boogeyman to believe that stuff. He'll come and get you if you do so it must be wrong... are you watching me nice sky boogeyman?

What could be saner than that, eh?
98Candidate: @shemararae

The supposed evidence used2get evolution taught in school-debunked,falsified tooth from a pig!Evolutionists lie or grasp straws! @mcknick85

— Republican Mom (@shemararae) August 14, 2013

Submitted by: @AtomicD_

Citation: That's it scientists. Unless you can come up with something better than a pig's tooth as your evidence for evolution, it must have been a magic man in the sky magicking everything up out of nothing. You have that on the authority of someone who hasn't a clue about evolution. What more do you need?
99Candidate: @HerculesHandy

@cyclopean Shut your mouth your an atheist that already proves your ignorance bitch

— Ryan Händy™ (@HerculesHandy) August 16, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: Got to hand it to him. Hard to see how science is going to refute that devastating argument!
100Candidate: @StFerdinandIII

Evolutionists cannot explain 'evolution' of the eye & usually state that laws governing such complexity will eventually be 'found'

— Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) August 17, 2013 2:02 PM

@mattlandis1 re the eye how did a lower life form choose dna info for an eye + why do many species have such different sets of eyes?

— Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) August 17, 2013 2:29 PM

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: If only biologists could see (no pun intended) that the best way to learn is to ignore everything that's ever been published and just make up whatever you want to be true from a position of total ignorance and hope no one will notice.

No wonder creationism has made such enormous strides while science has remained exactly where it was in the Bronze Age.

101Candidate: @shemararae

Wrong...not even a professor or scientist can show visible proof! Moron! Watch : evolution Vs The bible @ALAtheist

— Republican Mom (@shemararae) August 14, 2013

Submitted by: @ALAtheist

Citation: The secret of good science is to ignore the evidence and keep on asserting there isn't any. Easy-peasy.

Second nomination for this very worthy candidate who specialises in ignoring the evidence and calling people names for not doing the same.
102Candidate: @StFerdinandIII

Only a moron who studies biochemistry believes in evolution.Or perhaps a human hating fascist. Darwinism negates morality,science, free-will

— Ferdinand (@StFerdinandIII) September 2, 2013

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: So be careful not to study biochemistry or it'll turn you into a Darwinist!
103Candidate: @EmilyRBieber13

Do you really believe people evolved from apes? — no i dnt lik a ape niether does any one else like i never seen...

— Purple Ninja (@EmilyRBieber13) September 7, 2013

Full quote: Do you really believe people evolved from apes? no i dnt lik a ape niether does any one else like i never seen some who looked lik one or see a ape talk soo.

Submitted by: @RosaResurrected

Citation: How can science hope to compete with such a well-researched, logical and elegantly argued refutation such as this? Might as well give up now, I say.
104Candidate: @TrueBibleAnswer (Errol Smythe wth a new ID)

The flesh of humans is different to the flesh of fish & different to the flesh of reptiles & different to the flesh of birds. NO #Evolution

— BrotherErrolSmythe (@TrueBibleAnswer) September 17, 2013

Submitted by: @Stooshie (Andrew Wilson)

Citation: Well, obviously, diversity can only prove one thing - diversification doesn't happen. Why can biologists never see the obvious? Why does it take a scientifically illiterate creationist to point it out?

submit to reddit

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics