This page examines some of the more common mistakes that are often stated by creationists. The statements turn out to be surprisingly easy to disprove.

The number of mistakes made by the various religions is extraordinary. For some reason the mistakes are never admitted and are always hand-waved away. The mistakes in the religious texts also force the true believers into having to support more and more ridiculous positions.

This page provides links to the many mistakes that are made by the various religions (and their supporters) so that you can ask questions and push back against the fundamentally flawed “teachings”.

The fact that these mistakes are still present in religions after decades, hundreds, and even thousands of years speaks volumes to the methodology that must be adopted by religion. Namely, to never admit fault and to suppress critics.

Everything to do with religion can be considered to be a mistake and most pages on this site are involved (in one way or another) with religious mistakes, however this page deals with the most serious types of mistakes, e.g. those which are commonly used by the religious to support their religion.

As has been observed throughout this site, the bible is a product of its time – an iron-age work, and nowhere is that more evident than when it comes to biblical descriptions of science, and science that we now take for granted. No one can realistically expect men who wrote 1,910 to 1,970 years ago (the new testament) and 2,400 to 2,800 years ago (the old testament) to have much of a clue about scientific matters, however the religious keep reminding us that the bible is the inerrant word of the omniscient creator of the universe, so it is natural to wonder how the writings of such a being could be at a level that is below the average school student’s level of understanding today? Did such an omniscient being not realise that mankind would one day invent the Internet and be able to fact-check the stuff written in the bible?

It’s claimed that god knows everything, so he had two choices: either he could have caused confusion in iron-age mankind by writing out the science in a way that we respect today (or into the future), or he could have made iron-age men comfortable by describing things in a way that we find laughable today. It seems that he chose the latter. It’s revealing that his “choice” is indistinguishable from the act of iron-age men simply making up stories as they went along – using the level of understanding available to them at the time.

Some of the following mistakes are statements that are, in themselves, factually accurate, for example “We didn’t come from a rock”. In those cases, it’s not the statement that is the mistake, it’s the implications that are drawn from the statement by the religious that are the mistake.

The mistakes are introduced here in sections, however there is a button link for most topics (to another page on this site) that goes into the details of each mistake in greater detail.

Mistake: The Earth is young

Because religious texts were generally written by ignorant iron-age men, they tend to accumulate mistakes when those men tried to guess what happened before and after the events they described. To be sure, there were also mistakes in other periods they wrote about, but the further away from their own times they ventured, the more mistakes they introduced.

Because those authors had zero scientific training, they were bound to fail when they described events and processes about which they knew nothing. The problem is that they felt compelled to have a go at describing those events, and the reason for that is because they believed that they were writing from the point of view of an omniscient creator of the universe. Such a creator would, by definition, know everything and therefore be fully aware of everything in the past, present and future.

Of course, we know a great deal more about scientific topics these days, and therefore it comes as a jolt to realize that the authors of the original texts made numerous mistakes when it came to dates. Because the fundies can’t tolerate the suggestion that there are mistakes in their religious texts, they go to extraordinary lengths to dismiss and discredit the evidence that demonstrates them to be wrong.

That’s obvious to a great extent when it comes to dates and dating of objects and events in our world. The following link goes into depth about scientific dating and how what we know today is devastating for the religious.

Mistake: The Earth is flat

A more subtle problem (than dating) is the consequence of the ignorant iron-age men believing that the body upon which they lived (the Earth) was flat.

To be sure, there are many archaic and disproved theories from the past (both religious and non-religious), however it may surprise the reader that there are still people today who follow the notion that the Earth is flat. The reason they have to do that is because they are religious and they know that the texts underpinning their belief systems were written by men who believed that the Earth was flat. The reason they remain flat-Earthers (or flerfers) is because to not do so would mean that they have to start defending the indefensible in their texts, and ultimately they would have to explain why their god’s word contained so many mistakes.

The following links to a description of the flat-Earth issues and why they stem from mistakes in religion.

Mistake: Human ancestors were human

A bottomless pit of problems open for creationists when the topic of human evolution is considered. There is insurmountable evidence that demonstrates that we evolved from species that have characteristics upon which we are based. The further back in time those species are considered, the more distantly-recognizable those characteristics are (compared to ours).

When considering human ancestors, creationists have to eventually make a choice: they have to place a line, before which they claim the species are “monkeys” (or similar), and after which they claim the species are human. That satisfies their black-and-white view of the world, however it fails miserably when actual evidence is considered. That evidence includes fossils and DNA analysis.

Actual human evolution causes a lot of problems for the religious and the following links to a page detailing those problems.

Mistake: Morals come from religion

This is an important one to most fundies, but unfortunately they are wrong to state that morals come from religion. That mistake is one that they need to (try and) believe is true, however it falls apart pretty quickly when the facts are examine. The following link examines those facts.

Mistake: Something can’t come from nothing

“Something can’t come from nothing” is the primary gotcha phrase for many religious people. They believe that it is the statement that keeps them in the game because it somehow leads to the collapse (or at least diminishment) of a host of other scientific evidence and theories.

In short: no scientist believes, or has ever stated that something came from nothing. In that sense the statement “something can’t come from nothing” is likely true, however it’s the use of the phrase (by the religious) that is the mistake. In short, “something can’t come from nothing” is a strawman argument and the following link examines the reasons for that.

Mistake: We didn’t come from a rock

“We didn’t come from a rock” is a favorite for many religious people as they believe that there is a barrier before which life could not have existed, and that barrier might as well be the lifeless piece of rock that the non-religious state must have happened in the past (e.g. whent he Earth was first formed). Obviously (according to them), if there once was only rocks and now we have life, then rocks must have “evolved” into life, right?

Wrong.

In short: no scientist believes, or has ever stated that life did come from a rock. In that sense the statement “we didn’t come from a rock” is true, however it’s the use of the phrase (by the religious) that is the mistake. In short, “we didn’t come from a rock” is a strawman argument and the following link examines the reasons for that, as well as a bit of evolutionary biology and abiogenesis.

Mistake: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” is the most basic “gotcha” question by the religious and is designed to defeat those who don’t believe in a deity.

In reality, the question is easy to answer and the concepts involved in the answer provide a valuable insight into why the existence of a deity is unnecessary.

Mistake: The eye could not have evolved

Another favorite argument from creationists is that the eye is so complex that it could not have evolved, thus proving the need for a creator (i.e. intelligent design).

That is an argument based on the concept of irreducible complexity, which states that a complex system cannot have a single component removed because the entire system would fail to function properly. Creationists take that to mean that such a system could not have evolved because the individual (final) pieces of the system could not have found a way to evolve in isolation to the other pieces.

The eye is a candidate for the topic of irreducible complexity because it certainly is the construction of many individual complex pieces. However if the topic of the evolution of the eye is considered thoughtfully, it becomes clear that a creator is not needed. On the contrary, the eye is an exceptional example that demonstrates the principles involved in evolution.

The following link investigates the aspects of irreducible complexity and why it is concept that is not applicable to evolved systems.

Mistake: The moon can’t be where it is

This argument is favored by the “scientific” religious person because it purports to demonstrate that they are educated and have really thought things through. (Cough, cough.)

The thought process is that since the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth (which is a measurable fact) at 3.8 centimetres (1.5 inches) per year, then there’s no way it can be where it is now after 4.5 billion years.

Currently, the Moon is 384,400 km away from the Earth, which is 384,400,000 meters, which is 38,440,000,000 centimeters. That many centimeters divided by 3.8 centimeters/year is about 10.1 billion years (and not the currently-accepted 4.5 billion years), hence all of science is wrong and hence (their) god must exist! Right?

Wrong.

Ridiculous as the argument might seem, examining the faulty thinking behind the argument is intuitive when it comes to understanding the desperate attempts made by some people to try to discredit science. The fundamental mistake made is to look at one set of numbers (3.8 centimeters/year in this case) and assume that that’s how it has been for all time. The pseudo-intellectual religious debater makes that “mistake” over and over when they try to figure out science for themselves, or when they simply trust what other intellectually-dishonest people have told them.

It is well known that the Moon’s progression away from the Earth has been variable over time, and 3.8 cm/year is just its current value. The Moon started moving away from the Earth at 20.8 centimeters (8.2 inches) per year and its speed has fluctuated between 0.13 centimeters (0.05 inches) per year and 27.8 centimeters (10.9 inches) per year.

The change in speed has been due to major geological changes on Earth, such as tidal forces, continental drift, Earth’s rotational speed, and the formation and melting of glaciers which affect the oceans and tides. The gravitational pull of Earth’s tidal bulges weakens as the Moon gets farther away. Consequently, if all other factors remain equal, this gradual increase in distance results in a proportionally slower retreat over billions of years.

This sort of argument from the religious is sinister because the intellectually-dishonest agenda-driven hopeless cases who propagate such nonsense do so knowing that their authoritative words will likely affect the more gullible of their audience. This sort of simplification and misrepresentation of science is par for the course from those who are willing to cherry-pick and bend facts to suit the argument that they are always going to promote, regardless of the evidence.

Mistake: The Cambrian explosion proves … something

The history of life on Earth has been divided into: eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages. Those divisions make up the Chronostratigraphic Chart (a link to a Google Docs spreadsheet).

Thanks to a certain movie, one of the periods has become well known (the Jurassic period), however one of the earliest periods is called the Cambrian. The Cambrian period has become infamous because creationists have hijacked it in an attempt to prove that evolution doesn’t work.

The following link is to a page on this site that demonstrates why they are wrong.

Mistake: Information is not added by evolution

Due to the principles of logic, a blanket statement such as “information is not added by evolution” needs only one counterexample to be proven false. Well…

RNASE1 is a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, and following its duplication in langur monkeys, one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur (Zhang et al. 2002 – a link to an article on the National Library of Medicine site).

Given one counterexample, the assertion that “information is not added by evolution” is therefore false. QED. Thanks for playing creationists.

Replication and mutation are key aspects of evolution.

Further discussion shouldn’t be needed, but it’s worth pointing out that mutation (e.g. of a gene sequence) and its reverse-mutation are common. For example a mutation that hinders insulin binding in a human is known to be reversible in a subsequent generation. That means that the initial removal of the trait was considered to be a loss to the human and therefore the reversal must be considered to be a gain. Hence evolution can add information.

For a more relatable example: it is well studied that ancient European farmers who made cheese thousands of years ago had a lactose intolerance problem. It is also known that most babies can digest lactose however the ability to do so turns off once a person grows to adulthood. Today however, about 35 percent of the global population can digest lactose in adulthood without a problem. Genetic information (and benefit) has certainly been added to the human organism by evolution because now a wider variety of food sources are available (without discomfort).

It is intellectual dishonesty to make blanket statements such as “information is not added by evolution”.

Mistake: I didn’t come from a monkey

The claim “I didn’t come from a monkey” is a favorite by creationists because they believe that it both defeats all claims that evolution makes and also somehow elevates them above all the other members of the animal kingdom.

Once again, the interesting thing about the statement is that it is actually true, however even that fluke by creationists betrays the lack of understanding by them in making the statement (the mistaken belief that scientists state that we did come from monkeys).

What scientists actually say is that humans share a common ancestor with monkeys (and of course with all other lifeforms). The following link is to a page on this site that investigates the issues and details the mistakes that creationists make when they make such statements.

Mistake: If we came from apes, why are there still apes?

The (rhetorical) question “If we came from apes, why are there still apes” is another “gotcha” point that is favored by the thinking religious person. It purports to expose a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution, but what it actually does is strengthen the theory. The following link is to a page on this site that explains why.

Mistake: A dog can only give birth to a dog

This is another one of those “gotcha”-type statements that creationists hope will instantly shut down any discussion about evolution. It is actually a strawman argument from incredulity.

The statement is intended to counter facts such as humans are descendant from fish. That sort of fact enrages the average creationist, so they attempt to silence the debate by stating the obvious “dogs only come from dog” and then assume that their reduction of genetic change to a zero state will apply when millions of generations are considered over billions of years.

The following link explains the mistake inherent in the statement. As a bonus, the page at the link has a wonderful table that shows the gradual evolution of humans from single-cell organisms – over 38 steps.

Mistake: A watch must have had a creator, therefore…

More fully, this one is often stated as: “If you’re walking along the beach and find a watch, you just know that such a complex object must have had a creator”. The implication being that something as complex as a human must have had a designer.

This is yet another one of those “gotcha”-type statements that creationists hope will instantly shut down any discussion about creationism and evolution. In fact, it is another straw man argument from incredulity.

Once again, the statement itself is correct, it’s the “gotcha” part of the statement that is a mistake. The following link explains the mistake inherent in the statement.

Mistake: You want to be an atheist so that you can sin

The basis of this mistake is the assumption by the religious that religion (and only their religion) is the only way to arrive at an acceptable moral framework. The implication is that people without religion (e.g. atheists) cannot really live moral lives.

There is also the pesky issue of how “sin” is defined, but the religious tend to skip over that problem by just lumping everything (they consider to be) bad into those three little letters.

The mistake in the statement is that the exact opposite is true. The page at the following link demonstrates why.

Mistake: A missing link disproves evolution

The concept of a missing link has been around since Darwin sent something to his publisher. The argument (from creationists) is that because scientists are unable to produce every single intermediary creature (e.g. via the fossil record) on the evolutionary path between proto-cells (billions of years ago) and humans (today), the theory of evolution must be suspect, and for some reason, dismissed.

This argument is a mistake because there will always be some missing pieces to the evolutionary puzzle. Scientists accept that and are still able to strengthen the theory evolution despite the missing pieces.

The page at the following link examines why the “missing link” argument is a mistake.

Mistake: Trees through rock layers prove a young Earth

This is another gotcha type statement from the thinking creationist because they believe that it is an indisputable proof that the Earth is young. Exactly how the claim proves a 6,000 year old Earth is never explained, but they believe that the phenomenon discredits everything geologists have to say about the Earth being billions of years old.

The creationists are wrong.

There are examples of (vertical) trees poking through (horizontal) rock layers, however the circumstances have been investigated by scientists and there is a well-documented explanation. The page at the following link explains the phenomenon and shows why it provides zero support for a young Earth.

Mistake: Dinosaur soft tissue proves a young Earth

This is another one of those gotcha type points because young-Earth creationists (YEC) believe that it gives them the knockout punch when debating those pesky guys who believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years. The YEC seem to believe that, with dinosaur soft tissue, they’ve found the counter to the observation that dinosaurs are at least 65 million years old, and therefore that all other parts of the old-Earth theory magically fall apart.

The issue is that, quite rightly, it would be impossible for soft tissue (e.g. something like bloody flesh or marrow from bones) to survive 65 million years, and therefore dinosaurs couldn’t be that old. The problem is that no scientist has ever claimed that such “soft” tissue has been recovered from dinosaur bones. Ooops.

The page at the following link explains where the problem in understanding has occurred and gives an insight into how the mistake has gained traction. The issue is quite illuminating, not only for the science involved but also to demonstrate the lengths of dishonesty that some creationists will go to hang onto their fantasies.

Mistake: Entropy and the 2nd law prove a young Earth

This is another one of those “smoking gun” arguments that creationists believe prove that the Earth is young. Because they believe that entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics state that things run down with time, it’s therefore impossible for the universe to be billions of years old.

Wrong!

Not a single creationist who uses the concept of entropy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics for this type of argument has the slightest clue about what they really means. They are merely parroting dumbed-down versions of the concepts in a intellectually-dishonest way. The page at the following link explains the concepts as well as how they have been misused by creationists.

Mistake: The cell flagellum is a machine that must have a designer

The flagellum is a long, hair-like appendage that is used by cells and microorganisms for movement. The argument by creationists is that such a device is an obvious machine that could not have achieved such a sophisticated form by accident, and therefore it must have had a designer.

Again … wrong.

This one is actually insidious by those who are feeding disinformation to the average creationists because the “evidence” used has been highly manipulated before dissemination. Unfortunately, that’s intellectual dishonesty.

The page at the following link explains why it is not correct to think about the flagellum as a machine that must have had a designer.

Mistake: Archaeology proves the bible

Archaeology is a big growth area for the religious as they try to support the stuff that ignorant and superstitious iron-age men managed to write in the various religious texts.

Of course, what the religious consider to be archaeology and what scientists consider to be archaeology are very different things.

In fact, real archaeology has been devastating for the religious because it has had the opposite effect to the one that was desired.

The page at the following link investigates the problems with “religious archaeology” and interpretation, as well as examining some of the more infamous examples of archaeology that the religious have adopted as “proof”.

(More – coming soon …)