Humanity is Doomed, DOOMED I Tell You: Fourth-Grade Science Quiz from a Creationist School [Pic]


Here is a picture of a fourth-grade “science quiz” that comes from a school that teaches young earth creationism principles, and believe it or not, it’s apparently NOT a hoax. Someone wrote to reporting that this quiz belonged to his 10-year-old daughter.

I didn’t know that this was being taught to her until we heard a radio commercial together about the Discover the Dinosaurs exhibit was coming to the TD Convention Center.

The Commercial starts out, “After 65 million years, the dinosaurs have returned …” She commented immediately that it was only four thousand years ago. When I corrected her, she snapped back, “Were you there?”

I have since taught my daughter differently, but I am sure she is confused now and plan to make sure she understands that teachers are people too and can be factually wrong.

The test showed up [at] home a day later to my disgust.


[Via IFLC | Snopes]

91 Responses to Humanity is Doomed, DOOMED I Tell You: Fourth-Grade Science Quiz from a Creationist School [Pic]

  1. So that is a science quiz? Looks more like a religion quiz to me…:P

    Can’t believe there are places where creation is actually taught in science class. It is incredible…

    • Yes, there are factual issues with the quiz; that I agree with. However, I am amazed a completely unproven theory such as Evolution would be taught in a science class, either. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe that garbage -especially the total mathematical possibility of it- than to believe in a God who created everything.

      That being said, yes there are extremists in all sorts of communities, whether they be religious or secular, and there is no way around the rampant stupidity that emerges from any.

      • You’re kidding right? It is obvious that you have absolutely zero understand of evolution, which is a fact by the way. Change over time is a fact.

        Before you say that ToE is an “unproven theory” how about you learn what the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the everyday use of the word is.

        Now if you can explain exactly what parts of the theory of evolution that you disagree with and are able to offer another explanation other than “god did it” than kindly shut up and go read a book or visit a web site that is real science and not creationist propaganda.

        • The real bait and switch is lumping evolution and science together. Evolution has nothing to do with science, it flies in the face of science and how science is done.
          Science is to be observable and repeatable. Evolution is neither. It doesn’t make or benefit mankind it’s only purpose is to remove God from the worlds minds.

          Name one lab that uses evolution to develope technology.

          Would the lab just be empty rooms with labels saying what they hope will appear therein?
          We are hoping for an Apple. The computer or the fruit we don’t care which one appears but ”
          we have supplied the room with nothing but a vacuum and space so it is ripe for anything”!

          Ludicris! Yet we try to call it scientific and non thinkers by in to it!

          Evolution the great scam of history!
          It is the Emporers new clothes for today.

        • Understanding Evolution able us to create, or recreate new things, new purpose.
          Evolution is observable (evolution of man from Homo abilis to Homo Sapiens (and everything in between, or maybe before, I am no scientist, but have a “normal” education. Just wasn’t that good at it).

      • Actually, the father said specifically that he did not know that she was being taught this. I’m sure he has since removed her from the school.

  2. I don’t know american system, but can she transfer her girl to another school ? Without that school being private if money is an issue.

  3. And somehow, humans were supposed to have crawled up out of stone soup and learned to walk. Yup, because I truly believe that…….

    • Don’t you know? “Once upon a time everything was the size of a dot and it exploded and made the universe” is MUCH more scientific than “In the beginning God created”.

      Not to mentioned the current “scientific” point of view doesn’t explain how elements heavier than iron, meaning those elements that can’t be formed by fusion, got here.

      • Supernova form all heavier elements we see today, it is in the intense heat and pressure from the explosion that fuses the heavier elements. And the size of a dot thing is not true either… The Big Bang is what we call in the Science world, the moment of creation. Being both a scientific person and religious person myself, as one who takes the bible figuratively not literally (only a somebody with no self will could ever take it that way), have I found that both worlds can coexist quite nicely

    • But Adam poofed into existence from the “dust of the earth” and Eve was a rib-woman. So your soup is stupid but the bible accounts make sense to you?

      And nobody, other than creationists, has claimed the stupidity of your statement.

  4. First of all, jokes aside, this seems like extremely simplistic work for a 4th grader. Secondly, many Bible scholars agree that the behemoth mentioned in the book of Job was a hippopotamus.

  5. Neither billions of years nor 6 thousand years has “proof” because no one alive now was there to see it start. The evidence and its interpretation is how we decide which is the more likely correct. If you ignore the arguments and denigrate the others “sides” statements without your own investigation, than you are simply a mouthpiece of someone else (this is called religious faith, that is, belief without evidence). To see the other sides evidence (assuming you have faith in the conclusions from most evolutionists), try searching www creation com.

    • 1. faith is belief without evidence.
      2. Creationism doesn’t have any correlation with any scientific principles that can be proven.

      4. To ignore cold hard facts in order to give more perceivable credit to your insane religious dogma is in itself mad, and worse yet dangerous to the progression of humanity. But when has that ever stopped religious fundamentalists black bagging and silencing their critics?

      • This isn’t religion vs science, it’s the religion of the Bible vs the religion of evolution. There’s plenty of evidence that goes both ways, but the established belief system doesn’t tolerate dissent.

        People look at the grand canyon as say “see all those rock layers, laid down over millions of years” and I say “they must have been laid down all at once, for them to be so perfectly parallel. What I find hard to believe is that there was no seismic activity in this area for millions of years resulting in a shift of the ground’s angle before the next layer was laid down.”

        For example.

        • Nope, you’re just really wrong here. Just because YOU don’t understand geology doesn’t mean that no one does.

          Science is not a belief system, and it THRIVES on dissent. You just have to provide evidence, not just belief.

        • Multiple layers of rock, all bent in a geological fold without any cracking. It would seem the fold was made when the layers were still soft and freshly laid down. Which would indicate that the multiple layers of rock were not laid down over millions of years but in fact laid down very quickly together.

          What part of this geology don’t I understand?

          Or maybe that when I look at the layers of rock shown in the grand canyon, I see evidence that they were not all laid down over millions of years because they’re all parallel, and i refuse to believe that the area of the grand canyon, or any place on this tectonic earth, could go for millions of years without any significant seismic activity that would have changed the angle of the ground during the period where those layers were laid down. in fact, in other places you see plenty of evidence that rock layers were laid down and then the entire thing up-ended, showing that the layers were laid down BETWEEN periods of seismic activity.

      • Carbon dating, from wikipedia: “Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.”

        So, carbon dating can only date things less than 70,000 years and is, from an evolutionary point of view, unrelated to dating dinosaur fossils. I think before insulting someone you should check your own knowledge on a subject.

        Furthermore, radiocarbon and other radioactive dating depend on three things. I’ll use radiocarbon dating for the example.

        You have to know:
        1. Starting amount of Carbon-14 in a life form at the time of its death.
        2. Rate of decay of Carbon-14 (i.e. it’s half-life)
        3. Current amount of Carbon-14 in the remains of the life form.

        Numbers 2 and 3 are quantifiable, but number one is a guess. Most people assume the amount of Carbon-14 in, say, a wooly mammoth was the same at its time of death as the amounts of Carbon-14 in living creatures today.

        However, there is no way to prove this so scientists have to make best guesses.

        Carbon-14 is produced when cosmic rays strike the earth’s atmosphere and the high energy neutrons convert free Nitrogen molecules into Carbon-14. Some of this is later formed into Carbon-Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which is used by plants for photosynthesis. Some of the Carbon-14 is incorporated into the material of the plants (and later into the bodies of herbivores and carnivores as the Carbon-14 travels up the food chain).

        The input and output of Carbon-14 reach a balance and the life form has that certain amount of Carbon-14 in it at any time. When it dies the input stops and the Carbon-14 in it slowly decays into regular Carbon-12.

        But, that balance can be affected by many things, plus there’s no way to know the ancient atmosphere’s Carbon-14 content, so there’s no way to KNOW for sure what the starting amount was.

        • We’re talking radioactivity here. Good, I know that part quite well. The only thing you need to know (besides how much carbon 14 there is) is the amount of carbon 12. We know the numbers well enough to need just that.
          As for the “carbon dating can only date things less than 70,000 years”, it is true. But it is also a pointlessly stupid remark. Had you actually followed a few links on wikipedia, you would’ve known that carbon 14 is not the only isotope we can use to date things. And we basically never use it in geology, because 68 000 years is nothing for the earth.

        • actually you can tell how much carbon-14 was in the atmosphere at any time, you take a ice sample from either the North or South Pole… the deeper the core the older it is and you can measure it.

        • So, you can cite Wikipedia on C-14 Dating and did nothing but copy/paste. Good for you.

          First C-14 is only a tool and a tool is only as good as the person using it. It also has to be calibrated correctly. Next, real scientists understand the limits of this dating method so they don’t use it to date things older than ~60,000 years.

          Fortunately there are other dating methods that are used to date rocks and fossils.

          – Potassium40 / Argon40: 100,000-4.5B years
          – Rubidium87 / Strontium87: 10M-4.5B
          – Uranium238 (235) / Lead206 (207) – 10M – 4.6B

          You really need to get an education at someplace that does not require a tithe.

  6. Mom says she didn’t know her daughter was in a ‘creationist’ school? Um…there is no public school teaching this type of creationism.

    • Sadly, I believe you are wrong. I have friends who are professors & they indicate that they are getting students who have been taught this rather than evolution.

      • And that is where I am confused because they have removed prayer and god from schools so they don’t offend people, but yet they feel it is OK to teach crap like this.

        • Actually, prayer and “god” violate the First Amendment. Besides, which god do you pray to? All of them? And do you then say it’s all crap to satisfy non-believers? Easier to keep it out. .

    • Well the last i read about it Creationism is illegal to teach as a scientific theory in american schools. But when that happened they suddenly started teaching the Science of Creation and then you had an entirely new thing to ban. ;) Or it was something like this. It was a long time ago i saw a documentary about it.

  7. One of the reasons I like GeeksAreSexy is because it’s just a nerd site. It’s not pushing agendas. Here’s a new funny video or a great t-shirt you should buy. It’s safe.

    I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the post by any means. I just expect this sort of thing from Reddit, not you.

    If you want to become like 99% of the rest of the internet and spread agendas and hate….feel free. I just won’t be around to be a part of it.

    • They are not pushing an agenda, geeks are by nature fascinated by science, technology, history etc. To call creationism a science is ridiculous as its a theory that is not based on any test results or other scientific work. Personally this sort of thing stengthens my beleif that a lot of christians (i know science folk can be aswell) are ignorant but the picture doesn’t push this agenda. The pic just highlights a very important fact that these theorys aren’t science, it does not in anyway attack the validity of the christian argument or diagree with peoples beliefs.

      • I agree with you except for one thing. Creationism is not a theory. It’s not even a hypothesis. It’s barely a coherent idea.

  8. you know…the whole “were you there?” argument can even work on those creationists as well :) Sadly that whole test smacks of brainwashing :(

    • Actually, I’m French and I had my first chat with a creationist nutcase the day before yesterday. She was 19, she went to the same highschool I went to, she graduated and everything. And still, she told me (that I was going to burn in hell because I’m gay) that Darwin was evil and that the earth was created in seven days. She also believes witches should be burnt. Hum…
      How can someone who recieved the same education (with a bit more economics and a bit less physics) be so brain(less)washed ?

      But you’re right, I studied geology, evolution and nuclear physics in highschool, and I had no idea you could actually be taught creasionism in the US. It makes me sad. I simply do not understand how a country can be both so advanced on some levels and so terribly retarded on others.

  9. The world and America are going to be fine. This is a dwindling minority view among Christians. Those who push new earth creationism are guilty of being poor scientists just as some scientists who overstate claims of a total refutation of creationism are guilty of being poor philosophers.

  10. Those Bible scholars are wrong, they’re trying to find a modern animal instead of looking at ones that may have since died out. The behemoth is described as having a tail like a cedar.

    • Kris — can you tell me how, exactly, only the marsupials ended up in Australia?

      I mean, so of course, like all other land animals, they walked over to Noah’s house and boarded his ark. That’s how they were saved. Then the flood happened and the continents emerged, with Australia being way out in the middle of the ocean. After that, the ark came to rest in what is now Turkey, I think?

      So, how is it that all — and only — the koalas, kangaroos, wombats, tasmanian tigers and other marsupials ended up in Australia? Did they all march and swim the 9,000 miles it takes to cross that distance? Are we supposed to believe that, not a single one stopped in southeast Asia, India, or the Middle East — all of them crossed that water or died trying?

      I’m very interested to know how God caused this to happen. Please shed any light you can

      • Well, first you have to understand that the fromation of fossils is a very rare occurance. Most dead life forms decompose and leave little to no trace. Fossils typically only form in scenarios where creatures are buried before decomposition is complete, because even bones will dry out and erode away on the surface.

        So, lack of fossils of certain things in certain areas is not very reliable evidence against their existence in certain areas.

        Also, during the Ice Age the sea levels were much lower than they are now which may have allowed animals and people to walk/hop/run/slither to places via land bridges that are cut off today. In fact I think this is how the scientific establishment says people got to the new world and to Australia.

        I would say that something in the Australian environment selected for the marsupial type of mammal, allowing them to become dominant. At least one marsupial type of animal, the opossum, thrived outside of that isolation, whereas its fellows died out.

        • I think you have to be much more specific than “I would say” — what in Australia selected for marsupials? What could possibly have given placentals a disadvantage, if they all had an equal chance to migrate across this land bridge. And also, where is the evidence that such a bridge existed? The modern theory of how humans arrived on Australia is that they navigate the waters.

          Lack of fossils outside of Australia, alongside a wealth of fossils within Australia — during the period in question — certainly suggests something. If the creation of a fossil is a probabilistic event, it definitely suggests that the opportunities for the creation of such fossils were much more abundant on Australia.

          In addition to all this, we’re still saying that the entire distribution of marsupial life as we see it today is due to 200-1000 marsupial pairs collectively, safely wandering together from Turkey to Australia. I’m not really sure what definition of science you’re using that allows for this fairy tale to take precedence over the collective work of geologists, biologists, geneticists, and scientists from many other disciplines across at least two centuries.

          But your position is quite laughable, I wish you could see that.

        • Kris – You just made a rather big slip there if you truly believe in creationsim. The last ice age occured more than 11.000 years ago.

  11. The majority of Christians do not believe this. I hate how people try to paint a whole grope of people as ignorant because a few believe in something totally idiotic.

    • The ones who really believe the Bible do. If Genesis is not literally correct, the New Testament has no foundation. If there was no first Adam there would be no point of the second Adam (Christ).

      • I’ve never heard him referred to as the “second Adam” before, but I guess people could say so. I thought the point of him was because everyone is naturally at some point unavoidably douchey, and that needed to be accounted for.

        Secondly, Genesis was written thousands of years before the New Testament. By completely different people. With different ways, beliefs, and lives.
        You can’t say that if Genesis is not literally correct that the New Testament is also definitely the same. However I don’t think it has much bearing either way, I always thought that the minimum guaranteed reason for the bible was not to definitely document history perfectly, but to tell people not to be so douchey. And then it all went wrong and now we have thousands of religious nutjobs who think they’re doing right by taking everything written thousands of years ago word for word, and saying that anything modern cannot possibly be correct if it contradicts their book written thousands of years ago by people with almost no scientific and entirely faith-based views on the way the world works.

        Yes, maybe both sides feel they cannot be definitely be proved wrong… but I at least wish religious crazies and super-atheist angry guys would take into account that there will probably never be a way to show that your side is, without any doubt, 100% right and the other side can stop now. I mean, while one side has the argument “God built it that way to look like it has been there for millions of years”… what can you do?

        I know it’s hard to admit anything they say could be right, but try and compare it to a movie – when you start a movie, it’s got background, it’s got characters who are acting as if they’ve known each other for years. Logically they’ve been around and known each other for years. But it didn’t, did it, the movie was observable for a few hours, and either side of it was nothingness. I’ve always been interested in if the way I am now is just a being implanted with memories and knowledge of a false lifetime, and only just this very moment is the “universal play button” being pressed. Except I’d like to think that in the context of us being some super high-tech alien movie or video game. We’d make some pretty damn unpredictable NPCs.

        • As someone raised by catholics in western europe, I can tell you that most christian don’t see the bible as “The History Book of the Universe”, but more like a set of stories and metaphor to teach people lessons.
          In my immediate entourage, like my grandmother who’s go to the chuch every sunday, no one believe that Noah’s Ark actually happenned for example. And they would be horrified to see that some people teach THIS to children.
          They’re is no question that evolution happen for them. They know it happened. They’ll say that their God help it along at some point or another (none of the people I know can agree about when), But they would never ever dream of denied science like that.

    • The Bible describes the Earth as round. Hebrew doesn’t have different words to differentiate round like a pancake and round like a ball, but it doesn’t say flat. One may say it implies flat, but our “sunrise” and “sunset” imply that the sun moves around the earth even though we know it doesn’t, that’s just a simple way to describe it from our point of view.

        • The passage in Daniel is quoting Nebuchadnezzar who is talking about a dream he had.

          The passage in Luke refers to a confrontation between Jesus and Satan, in which they look on all the nations from a mountain top. I think what you can take from that is not “the earth was flat so they could see all the world” so much as “supernatural beings can see supernaturally.”

  12. Whether the earth was created in 6 days or 4 billion years really doesn’t matter to any of us on it. I’m not going to change my life in any significant way based on the answer to this question. It’s a dead-end debate that just wastes people’s time. Who really cares? Not worth my time.

  13. Look, 23 responses to a an obviously heavily debated topic.
    ::eye roll::

    I always hate how non-believers criticize believers. They treat us like peasants because we believe differently. Almost to the point of we feel unwelcome in public. Last I heard america is about freedom. And while its your freedom to post you basically think christian suck online, it does not mean its a good opinion to have or that it must always be brought up. I never post anything about non-believers on my facebook page because I its more mature to not cause trouble.

    Just for sake of argument I will say I don’t understand how people say christians are false in their believes when science has yet to prove God isn’t real. Until they explored every inch of the universe, every planet, inside every sun…etc. Then you can’t say God is not real. This is going by sciences view that you can only prove something when you’ve tried everything and get results or you don’t.

    And technically because some would call GOd supernatural. Theres no real way to say with 100% accuracy that God doesn’t exist. Its like saying there are no rainbow colored planets in the universe. Or that there isn’t a moon made up a giant butt that farts. Sounds ridiculous but just saying. On a side note I don’t want to visit that moon. >.>

    • No, not because you believe differently. Because when given facts you don’t pay any attention to them whatsoever.

      And yes, you can say with near 100% certainty God doesn’t exist. god as a concept? No, you can’t. Any god that gives specifics? Dead and gone. The god of Abraham is a very specific god that would’ve left undeniable evidence if he existed. That evidence does not exist.

  14. Real Christians believe this because it is what the Bible says. God was there so He can tell us what happened.

    Religion is taught in the public schools everyday. They spreading their faith with our tax dollars.
    A dot smaller than a period exploded and made everything? Things get more complex on their own?
    We all came from a rock that got rained on for millions of years?
    Zero transitional fossils.
    We have observed something change into something else completely. (Frog become a man)
    Time is the answer. It is to slow to see. Give it a million or a billion years and then change happens.

    Hmmm? When a girl kisses a frog and it becomes a man it is a fairytale but give it a million years and it is a scientific fact!

    Open your eyes and truly look at the creation.

  15. Re: Question 4 : Dinosaurs lived with people. There are actually many secular references which show this is more than likely true. Southwest USA cave paintings, French history, Marco Polo’s explorations, Alexander the Great’s war diaries, 19th century dictionary, etc. etc.

    Re: Question 5 : What did animals and humans eat? Am I the only one unable to picture a tiger with a salad with oil and vinegar and shredded carrot that gets stuck in its fangs? Seriously, even Cain and Abel were omnivorous. Hell, one blind man gave his inheritance to the wrong son because he liked his meat stew! (Bonus points for knowing who). This just seems an example of taking one portion of the Bible out of context of the rest of it.

    Re: Question 6 : Leviathan. Feeds on grass, strong muscular legs, strong “belly”, tail swaying like cedar, thick bones, lies under the lotus plants and hidden among the marsh’s reeds, yeah, I’m thinking this isn’t a hippo. But it’s no brachiosaurus either. I’d say maybe an anklosaurus, but that likely wasn’t aquatic, since it’s implied it could swim against the current. Who knows. Honestly, it doesn’t matter. The Bible wasn’t written TO us, not even FOR us, it’s just recorded and passed down through the generations for our benefit. People need to learn that. Both religious and nonreligious… Sorry, rant topic…

    Re: Question 15 : The size of dinosaurs, false, as we’ve seen from fossils and other evidences (see Re: Question 4). Over the centuries they’ve likely become smaller and smaller as the species entropied, but that’s normal degradation and seen in many species.

    Re: Question 16 : The global flood. I do find it interesting how many people scoff at the idea of there being a global flood when every archaic religion and culture has its own version of a global flood in their history accounts, cultures which evolved outside the clasp of Judaism/Christianity (which didn’t spread outside the Middle East until the AD years). If multiple sources describe the same or similar events happening at the sameish time… why is it so hard to believe it may have actually happened? Whether it’s a flood or dinosaurs (which then evolve to tales of dragons in damn near every culture across the globe. Ireland, England, China, Japan, Norse, India, etc. etc.)

    There is a lot of science which can suggest dinosaurs existed, existed with humans, and existed relatively recently… why religious organizations insist of cutting all that out to believe in a book is beyond me.

    [[ For the record, I do believe in that book, but at least I have the common sense to be able to back up much of it with logic and without religious dogma that holds as much water as a piece of paper found inside a fortune cookie. ]]

  16. ok, i actually believe both. “how can you possibly believe both, they are against each other.” no they are not, the earth can in fact be billions of years old and still have been created by god. who says we know ANYTHING about what really happened. think about it. god created man in his image(the cave man). the dinosaurs were to big to fit on the arc so it makes since that they were nearly wiped out by the flood. crocs and other sort of animal evolving from the water inhabitant dino’s. modern man evolving from cave man. who is to say how long a day is for god. one day for god could actually be 10 billion years to us.

    • I normally like when people can be happy with both sides, but I have to pick a bit on your agreement with science and Noah’s Ark – biblically, I’m pretty sure he was told to take ALL animals, which if there were dinosaurs, would have included dinosaurs, would it not. If it was because dinosaurs were too big, then why not small dinosaurs? He didn’t have a pair of compsognathus or raptors, which considering he had elephants and giraffes, you’d think he would (except then everybody would have been dead and eaten, but what about a nice, safe little hypsilophodon? Why did nobody save the hypsilophodon :( )
      And, scientifically, crocodiles did NOT evolve from dinosaurs. Crocodiles have been around at least as long as dinosaurs. I quote; “Evolving around 200 million years in the Mesozoic epoch, crocodiles have far outlived the dinosaurs.”, crocodiles may have come from some more dinosaur-ish relative arguably, but they did not evolve from the remaining dinosaurs after the dinosaurs all died out for whatever reason.

      To presume God’s days and Earth days are the same is silly, I totally agree with. If some huge omnipresent being was to create a world in “days” (am also I right in thinking the word was more like “age” or “era” than day? As in in the first “era”?) then I’d guess they were probably quite long, seeing as there was nothing going on at the start, so it wasn’t like there needed to be any hurry.

  17. Religion and science are not incompatible. They deal in separate realms.

    A literal interpretation of the Bible and science are.

    In the words of Augustine,
    “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

    • I agree.
      First, there are some smart christians. They usually just take the book for what it is, though. A book.
      More importantly, it’s not they’re ignorant, they just will not accept the facts. There are people out there who were taught the scientific facts but still believe the world was created in seven days by an absolute being.

      • i’m a christian and i study physics, anyway i don’t desagree with all. I don’t have the need to desagree with everyone, i just keep on my faith without harrassing anyone. (sorry for bad english, not my native language)

  18. “God was there so He can tell us what happened.”
    God didn’t write the Bible, men did. And men are fallible.

  19. I find it sad and disturbing this is being taught as science. What I find hilarious is that the last question/answer basically tells the child to use snark to contradict their elders. Funny because sassing your parents used to be kind of frowned on by the church. WTG school “educators”

  20. I’m sorry, I know I’m being serious here, but as a teacher, there is no way in the world I can support this. (I mean the test itself I cannot approve.) As teachers, our first and foremost dedication should be to the facts. This test demonstrates just how subjective this certain teacher has been. The last question sadly supports it more than any of the questions before it. Never at any point should we make children antagonise others for any reason. I’m sorry, this teacher has violated every teaching code, both explicit and implied. Can someone please revoke their accreditation?


  21. What is cool with religious people is that if they are true about god, well fuck I AM A JEDI and yoda exist !! (Asuming the same theory as them, assuming that somewhere at somepoint the infinity of the universe there some JEDI !!

    That soo cool, love them!

  22. It was a PRIVATE school. The parents sent their child to a Christian school and are upset about this being taught? I think we are more doomed based on the parents’ behaviors than this test. If I sent my kid to a school based on Scientology, Buddhism, atheism, or even Pokemon then I would believe the religion would be involved in the classes too.

    • I agree, fault lies with the parent, if your kid believes that stuff you’ve failed as a parent. I have a 5 year old nephew that would call B.S. on that quiz. The adults who are lying to the kids with this info have some responsibility also, but ultimately its the parents.

  23. The troll level of these comments is exceeding critical levels, lol. Seriously no one believes this stuff I have trouble believing a 10 year old could be duped into believing that garbage, and that’s not a public school it might be a church masquerading as a school but you have to know you sent your kid to “church school.”

  24. That examination had to have been given in the Bible Belt of the US. Or at least a school somewhere in the US that isn’t in the Bible Belt… The cretinism that is Creationism seems to be everywhere, I’m afraid…

  25. The grand canyon wasn’t “laid down”

    It was eroded from the existing underlaying rock formation by millions of years of water erosion.

  26. You might not know it.. but I created the world 20 seconds ago, and implanted all of your memory in your heads – Now try and prove me wrong – you cant just like you cant prove the people who believe in another god (and I will make sure they burn when i hold my judgment day – ohh wait i implanted that memory— hmm ok they get a chance to change their mind…) – Neither should you try to prove them wrong.

    The theory off evolution, is well documented, and coherent – and if you see what Gregor Mendel and others have done it seems pretty plausible. – But dont start an argument, untill you agree on the rules, its like trying to win a chess contest against someone using MMA rules ;)

  27. I still don’t understand how the creationist can compare creation and evolution as two therories. On one side there’s just absolutely nothing, just the same answer over the years, “god created it”. And on the other side, scientists who over the century tried to determine how all of that happened. Building theories, making some research, trying to explain by facts.

    Using the creationist “theory” is just like saying scientist are just a bunch of ignorant and useless people. And excuse me but the “there was nothing and something happened” answer is definitely not a theory.

    There is a funny pics who perfectly fit to this :

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.