Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Anti-Evolution Test Answers by Cataclyptic Anti-Evolution Test Answers by Cataclyptic
Edit: wow, everybody wants this in thier groups. Maybe I really am teh populerz...

Pretty much did this just for fun. However, I also got mad at creationists again when they told me Homo naledi was a hoax created by who else but Satan to test the faith of believers. Yeah, they took an amazing discovery and brushed it off with their usual anti evolution claims, because to the true believer, transitional fossils aren't. Well guess what? I can do this crap too. I'm making fun of them for a change!

I found this online about a month ago and thought it was funny enough to answer. They said that if I couldn't answer it I'd have to give up my belief in evolution. They never what would happen if I got all the answers right. A million dollars? Anyway, for your enjoyment, my awesome answers to a creationists test. Suck it, Ben Carson. 

Additional commentary below. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Additional commentary for the questions:
1: Lol n00b arugument

2: Lolol

3: I know what they were getting at, but because I actually know how radiometric dating works (and because I'm a smartass) I answered appropriately. 

4: Seriously? This was one of their questions? The fact that dead creatures are dead means evolution is false? 

5: Again, this question is very hard to answer without specific agreements of which species displayed which novel traits, so I had to make do with what I had. Although knowing them and their traditional stance of "Transitional Fossils Aren't" I doubt we would have had an agreement anyway. 

6: Same as question 5. 

7: I literally cannot believe they couldn't find the answer to this question on their own. This question is just sad. 

8: It's a word salad, possibly in order to make it unanswerable by even the smartest minds, but I THINK I answered it. Give me my millions of dollars now. 

9: Seriously, THE INTERNET IS A THING. YOU CAN LOOK UP ANYTHING ON IT. EFFING DO IT BEFORE ASKING ME STUPID ASS QUESTIONS. 

10: Oh we atheists love this argument. It gets thrown into our faces every other second, but it's so easy to answer. Basically everything is constrained by physical laws, making their so called 'chance' argument utterly unviable. Worse, when evolution actually starts, there almost is no chance involved. Also, 'show your math'? We don't know the exact odds for the creation of life, how many planets there are in the universe, how much water there is, etc, etc. I had to guess these numbers since the question required it though. And panspermia throws ALL OF THAT out the window if it turns out to be true. I will say this though: those numbers I made up because the question required me to?

I low-balled all of them. Think that over. 

I completely ignored the second half because I ran out of room showing my math. So sue me. I could go on and on about how stupid this argument is, but I've already taken up too much time and I doubt anyone wants a 2 hour lecture. 

11: Seriously, everyone hates gradualism for some reason. Psychologists, figure it out to make my job easier. 

12: lol. Seriously, why 50? Where the fric did they get that number? I also love how they confuse vestigial with useless- classic creationism!

13: Yeah there's been lots. 

14: I have no idea what this question has to do with the Theory of Evolution. Not a single clue.
 
15: See, if they knew anything about evolution, they'd know the answer to this question. Evolution explains why not every creature is fund everywhere, not the other way around. 
Add a Comment:
 
:iconquick-5:
Quick-5 Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016
How freaking stupid are Creationists?
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Student Digital Artist
They think dead creatures can evolve. I don't know what that is on the scale but I assume it's on the lower end. 
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016
Not stupid per se (although some undoubtedly are) but definitely brainwashed.
Reply
:icontouch-not-this-cat:
Touch-Not-This-Cat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2015
H evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about."
Chesterton

I like to plug the basics of Chestertonian philosophy into the remarkable evidence that our universe is a hologram, and that there may be a Programer, which is just a modern paraphrase of Gallilo's great statement "Mathmatics is the Language in which God has written the Universe." The idea that we are sentient programs, living numbers, is a very elegant notion, and gives us a basis upon which to think about things, so long as we avoid the peculiar trap of Misothiestic attitude. Why would anyone be apposed to there being a Programer? My dad is skeptical, but has no pride or shame in his knowledge. Whatever will be will be is the healthiest attitude for a skeptic to have, and my dad sees no reason to rebel against God if He were to ever present Himself to his satisfaction. The problem with Mrs. Eddie and her followers is that they have largely confused philosophy and faith, and outsiders looking in see that confusion as crackpots. This is unfair, Eddie was someone who belived Protestant tradition was essential to the survival of America, but she was not an educated woman, falling into the typical "Burned over Fallicy" of thinking that God will provide the Knowledge to anyone who asked, thus negating the need for philosophy to guide interpretation. If one thing about the reformation has been utterly disproved, it is that notion. And it should never have arisen in the first place. God shows approval of the philosophical life in the Books of Macabees, so the problom with Protestant culture becomes obvious: they removed those books!
Chesterton followed the Scopes Monkey trial very closely, and even had opportunity to later debate the Defense attorney himself. A recreation of the debate has been made for anyone who wants to get a sense of it. Chesterton was not opposed to the simple scientific idea of evolution, so much as any bad ideas it was giving certain psudoscientists and corrupt philosophers. Eugenics was the absolute worst; if I were a skeptic, I would even go so far to say that evolution had, ironically, hard wired us in such a social manner, that we are incapable of ever agreeing on how to implement such a programe of "self improvement" without it blowing up in our faces. And we don't need to, technology is going in a direction in which each of us will be able to choose our own individual improvements without any imposition from outside parties. If someone has a genetic defect, instead of forbidding them from breeding, or even manipulating their embryos "GATTAKA" style, we will reach a point where that person can have their own peronal DNA fixed throughout their body. Since they will have done this to no one but themselves, regardless of how it benefits the species, it cannot be called eugenics, as no individuals will have been sacrificed in any way against their free choice.
I think there is an instinct, be it Divine, or merely genes, that chafes against ideas that threaten family survival. Evolution, being neither good or bad in itself, is a fulcrum on which eugenics philosophy is applied, and in so doing threatens family survival. The problem with Adventists and similar denominations is that they think they do not need sophisticated philosophy to help them tell the difference between a simple scientific theory and really bad social engineering. The important thing about a man like Dr.Carson is that he knows in his heart that eugenics is evil, even if his theological philosophy fails to distinguish that from a neutral idea, such as evolution, but so what? Evolution is one of the greatest curiosities of all time, and micro evolution is useful in figuring out mutations and heredity. But Macro Evolution? As distant from affecting my life as a quasar; interesting in many ways, but does nothing to affect me, or anyone else. You might argue that we learn about mass extinction, and how to avoid it, as an example of how it might effect us, but it really does not. Extinction is the end of evolution and potentially the beginning of others, but what niches may open up are as unpredictable as the placement of next years dandelions. We must look ahead, and only micro evolution is of any real use there. Technology, if it is not quite there yet, is on the verge of making us extinction proof.
Anyway, that is why I will not let his religious eccentricities cloud my overall judgement of his character and ability to lead; I wouldn't even if I was a skeptic, after all, it has not my father, who is one, and we both support Dr. Carson for president.
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I'm going to be honest because that's the kind of person I am. Most of what you just said is a word salad (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_sal…) to me. Perhaps to you it was clear, but I cannot make heads or tails of about 75% of what you just said. Case in point: you introduce a character called "Mrs. Eddie" halfway through the comment but do not explain who she is, why she is important or what she has to do with evolution. 

As such, I am only going to reply to the parts I am... more confident I know what you are talking about. At least, I hope so. 

The first paragraph you posted appears to be arguing against the concept of "thinginess", which is unsurprising, philosophers have debated the concept for aeons and I don't see it slowing down soon. I would like to point out that thinginess can exist within the mind as well, "things" are not limited to that which is physical. 

Just take numbers as a great example. No number exists in physical reality. We can count two chairs, one sun, etc but we can never see just "one". One is a descriptive factor about an object, not an object itself. Yet, despite numbers being non-physical, we use them all the time because they are useful. 

The universe is a hologram hypothesis is an interesting idea, and indeed there have been some experiments done to confirm it, but nothing has confirmed it yet. As with all things I take, I need evidence for something before I can believe it. You *seem* to imply you have evidence for this idea but then never give it, if indeed you do don't hesitate to show me. 

For the last half, you appear to be confusing the idea of eugenics as an absolute certainty when evolution is presented as fact. This is only the case when incredibly ignorant people (see: the makers of the American eugenics program) try to apply evolution. These people do not understand at all what evolution is, so they take the basic idea of it in order to preserve themselves while ridding anyone they don't like. 

Let me tell you what the ultimate human evolution strategy is, according to evolution itself, and see if you agree with it or not.


For each creature, evolutionary strategy is different, what's good for a human is not good for a chimpanzee, etc. Thus, the greatest evolutionary strategy for humans is NOT the same as the greatest evolutionary strategy for lions. Humans you see, are social creatures. We form hierarchies, distinct niches ("jobs") for ourselves, relate ourselves in context of the society, make decisions based upon it and more. Society as a whole has been a universally good thing for our species, as it allows us to interact with each other and produce ideas, tools and forms of communication that would normally be lost to us. 

Now yes, sometimes these interactions lead to undesirable results like war. However, as you can see from the fact that we took a pipe dream of our ancestors like flying and turned it into a commercialized business, overall society has had a positive effect on our species. Thus, for human evolutionary strategy, that which benefits the societal structure would in turn benefit the entire human race. 

In order to, therefore, maximize societal influence we must take every human on the planet and make them the greatest at their particular job that they could ever be within the context of that time. Due to the fact that we are a society, by improving the quality of every individual, we improve society as a whole. Essentially the greatest human strategy is this: improve every human on the planet to the maximum capability of that time period at whatever they do. 

Sounds awful, right?

Now see, here's where the eugenics people mess up: they think that if they weed out the "bad genes" and leave only the "good gene" people to reproduce, this will replicate the effect I have just described. It DOES NOT work that way. Intelligence is compartmentalized and niches are nigh infinite in practice, meaning they are essentially getting rid of potential candidates to do good: which overall does NOT benefit the human race. For more information on why this doesn't work, look at the criticisms of eugenics for more details. 

In conclusion, eugenics as we know it is not the optimal strategy for humans. Many scientists have known this for years, but no one really listens to them when wealthy people want to make another quick buck. You appear to have realized this in a later sentence, but again, I cannot be sure so I have posted all of that anyway. 

Finally, you address the fact that macro evolution does not affect your life. First of all get rid of the words "macro and micro" when talking about evolution, those don't exist. It is simply evolution- allele frequency changes over generations. Second of all, you would likely be right in that it doesn't affect you. However if you are a biologist like I am, or you are in a related biology field, then it most certainly does affect you.

We use evolution as an explanatory factor within our work. If for instance, we have a newly discovered ecosystem and are wondering how it got there and how it functions, then evolution is highly important to explain this. Additionally, experiments done using evolution grant us extraordinary knowledge that we didn't have before. I give you the Cit+ mutation as a fine example of this:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_… .

This is the microbial equivalent of evolving a way to eat your own chair and gain nourishment from it, after tens of thousands of generations. This was thought impossible until they actually saw it happen before their eyes. Further studies have identified how it works, and as a result we have gained a new perspective on how things evolve. 

Remember: evolution is a prediction science. If we understand evolution, then we will understand where any creature of this planet is evolving, what into, and what its new niche will be. This is critical for many types of biology related fields. So yes, it is important that we understand it. 

If on the other hand you are a car repairman? Then no, understanding it does you no good for what you do. 

Finally I'll do Dr. Carson solely because he's a thing now. His entire campaign is basically to appeal to the Christian base. That's it. You will notice that he has proposed essentially nothing new to solve current world problems and there are not a lot of people who agree with his positions on various issues. I greatly question his ability to lead an entire country to greatness. 

Recall that intelligence is compartmentalized. Just because he's a neurosurgeon does not mean he is good at politics. Thos are two completely different things, both in real life and in the brain. 

And let's not forget the Pyramids of Giza hypothesis. 

Tl;Dr, I can't be bothered to elect a leader who doesn't believe in basic fact checking. 
Reply
:iconlashdragon:
lashdragon Featured By Owner Oct 27, 2015  Hobbyist
You are awesome! Creationists can suck my homo balls. Homo sapien that is!
Reply
:iconoviedomedina:
oviedomedina Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015
I..I...I....what the hell?
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Yes.
Reply
:iconoviedomedina:
oviedomedina Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015
:iconfacepalmplz:
Reply
:iconpyrrhusivictoria:
PyrrhusiVictoria Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Apparently, evolution hasn't progressed to the point where my brain can sustain prolonged exposure to the kind of stupidity exhibited by that exam. I tried to find a good "facepalm" emoji, but there wasn't one big enough.

Anyway, I love how anti-evolutionists talk about evolution without having the faintest clue what it actually is. The answer to all 15 questions is to just point and laugh. You'll get the same reaction either way :)
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Yeah, but I wanted to be a smartass about it. Plus, I was bored one day a month ago. 
Reply
:iconspartans300:
Spartans300 Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
This is great. I just love watching creationists fail by their own stupidity. Where do these people go to learn? A real university or did they go to a seminary or religious school? Furthermore, the internet has been around for how long? And how long have libraries been around? 

P.S. I'm also debunking a creationist article that someone had posted on this site (not in any of the groups that this is in, although I do suggest sharing this to more groups). It's called "How Evolution Failed the Science Test" and a good majority of the what the writer focuses on come from quote-mining scientists back in the 50s - 70s. Not even up to date on present science. It's been fun and I think I may have lost a several brain cells reading the piece (although I did regain them and more as I did my research). It's taken me all summer and I'm almost done. Just a couple of paragraphs left and maybe going over the quotes. 
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Don't forget about the cit+ Mutation!! Literally one of the most important experiments of the decade at least. Good luck with the paper, if you provide a link to me I'd be happy to read it, it sounds interesting. 

As for the group sharing thing, I did this just because I was bored and a smartass. People can put it in whatever group they want, but I won't promote it myself. 
Reply
:iconspartans300:
Spartans300 Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Thank you. I'll certainly post it on here. But also I'll allow readers to share it to other groups if they wish. 
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
... Lol.
This is the most useless test I have ever seen in my life. Evolution isn't real. Pokemon evolution is real. And as a typical Christian teenager, I reject this test. No offense. You may say I am just being lazy... and you are right.^.^ I am so happy we do not do these silly things lol.
The Big Bang through my POV,
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 23, 2015  Student Digital Artist
My curiosity got the better of me. Hypothetically, what would it take to convince you that evolution was true? 

(It would also be nice if you could limit your responses to ones logically/theoretically possible)
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Wut? Bro. I am "theoretically" not that smart. So I am unable to, "logically" answer with ANY type of logic at all. Nor am I able conjur up any theories to, scientific 'proportions' of any logical value! And I must confess that I had trouble spelling more than half of these, scientific terms and depend wholly on the auto correct!
But if you insist. That I try to at least "sound smart", than forgive me if I offend you with my audacity.
I think, you know, theoretically, it will probaly take you, about, around a decade, to actually get me to, even understand science, another decade to get to understand the, logical and theoretical and scientific terms. Then another decade to tell me about Evolution. Because, logically, it is onlylogical to say, that I am logicless.
...
Now I bet you are outraged by my mocking of science. Well, that is how theory less I am. So... yeah... I just find these words funny i dont even know wut any of these words mean. Lol.
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2015  Student Digital Artist
...well that's an answer 0_O

Okay then...
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
And now, your mind is dynamically blown.
Reply
:iconsinisternumber13:
SinisterNumber13 Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
i cried in pain when i read question 4, 12 and 13. are they f**king serious? they are realling wondering why dead creatures cannot reproduce themselves? and this is a proof that evolution isn't a thing? what did they think would happen? that due to an "evolutionary" magical force the dinosaures resurrect and start running around again???

...

i got it: THIS must be the reason why extraterrestrial intelligence ignores our planet!
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 6, 2015  Student Digital Artist
It's a classic strawman creationists use all the time. Step one: redefine evolution to whatever you want in order to more easily take it down. Step two: using your now redefined definition, proceed to challenge any evolutionist to show proof. They cannot because you have defined it to be unable to show proof. Step three: profit???

I just find it hilarious how they cannot use normal logic. They have to twist it in order to win.
Reply
:iconsinisternumber13:
SinisterNumber13 Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
maybe it's because somewhere deep in their hearts they know they're wrong...
Reply
:iconbatmanrules256:
BatmanRules256 Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015
yeah.  I don't believe in evolution either, but i will say creationists sure make pretty stupid arguments for it.  I believe in God and Jesus, but i don't automatically use them for my answer.  I would try to use at least some science.  The truth is sometimes neither side knows enough science to back themselves up.  And it's kind of hilarious sometimes to see the answers they give.
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015  Student Digital Artist
You're allowed to question evolution- or anything for that matter, freedom of thought is a given. But don't do it so stupidly like these guys...
Reply
:iconbatmanrules256:
BatmanRules256 Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015
yeah.  Also, when people say "it's my way or the highway" when it comes to belief in creation or evolution in a classroom setting.  Truth be told, in the long run, i don't care.  I believe in creation, but then again, some some Christians believe in evolution.  Do i believe they're going to burn?  No.  I do say, however, be smart about it.  There is some stuff that neither side can answer.  A lot of those questions i can answer with an "i don't give a f@#$ and i know you don't either".  Nobody knows all the answers, but most people think they do on both sides.
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Edited Oct 4, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
I might be Christian, but... damn.
These questions are beyond stupid.
The irony is that even by Christian beliefs, these questions violate teachings of Christianity and don't even make sense from a Christian perspective.
You know... what these questions are supposed to be based on.
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Dude. I'm proud to be Christian. These are not Christians. These are... pshh. Idk. Idc.
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Even so, I still have some of my own beliefs about evolution. While I think the idea we came from monkeys is stupid, I do believe in the idea of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest'.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016
We didn't "come from monkeys". That's a stupid, idiotic misconception that creationists keep repeating.

We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee. They are our closest cousins. That from which humans and chimpanzees evolved was neither human nor chimpanzee, although certainly more chim-like than human-like. We evolved from an ape ancestor and we are still apes; this is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

Also, I'm not sure you know what "survival of the fittest" means, because it's one of the most misunderstood concepts about evolution.
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Hobbyist Writer
...You're replying to a 5-month old comment that I really don't care about now.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016
:shrug:
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Oh well. I believe in Adaptation and Pokemon Amie.
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Pokemon Amie is adorable.
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
^.^ I know right?
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah.
Reply
:iconforerunnerdreamer:
ForerunnerDreamer Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Last say.
Reply
:iconcataclyptic:
Cataclyptic Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Wait really? Wow. 
Reply
:iconaurawielder:
AuraWielder Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Yeah. The things that stick out like a sore thumb are the:
Which came first? Questions and the Who evolved first? Questions
In Christian teachings, Eve was created after Adam, using Adam's rib. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, it still contradicts their 'who evolved first' question. Even so, Eve was created shortly after Adam, so the answer 'at the same time' would be correct regardless.
In which came first... it just flat out doesn't make sense! In Christian teachings, the human being was created from the dust of the earth all at once, so there'd be no 'eye', 'eyelid', 'tear duct', etc. for which came first.
This is intended to 'fail' evolution, but it ironically fails from the Christian perspective as well.
Reply
:iconbatmanrules256:
BatmanRules256 Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2015
i'm with you on that one.  Sometimes the stupidity some Christians use in their arguments and way of thinking almost makes me embarrassed to call myself one.  Not to agree with evolutionists on this one, but if some Christians (and for that matter some evolutionists) used science, their arguments would be much smoother.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
October 3, 2015
Image Size
2.6 MB
Resolution
1269×6000
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
762 (1 today)
Favourites
16 (who?)
Comments
39
Downloads
0
×