(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); This is something that honestly bothers me because, of all the things to choose to fight against, this makes so little sense.

Naturally, I'm talking about the anti-evolution movement which is being mocked and ridiculed by everyone with at least a high school education. It's been bothering me for a while but I wanted to put it in text because really I'd love an answer to some questions from at least one Creationist (and I know NGU has at least a couple of crazies so don't be shy). My question is simply this...

Why Evolution?

Of all the scientific theories to decide your religion is incompatible with, why this one? It makes so little sense. There are literally thousands of scientific theories, some of them, particularly when it comes to areas like quantum physics, that have little supporting evidence, or are entirely theoretical, supported by mathematical models only as they're effectively untestable with current technology. So why pick Evolution, one of the most studied, most well understood, most important modern scientific theory of the last 200 years. Evolution is the basis behind agriculture, animal breading, all forms of medical research, and modern sanitation. Without understanding the mechanisms of Evolution, our species would still have life expectancies in the 40's.

Now, I've come to a conclusion, but I don't understand the reasoning.

Creationists are arguing against Evolution when they actively know Evolution is a fact. Why? I'm honestly not sure...

Creationist tend towards the following actions:

First they will describe Evolution in an incorrect manner or completely change the subject all together. Asking how life began or asking for "evolution" to explain why the planets formed. This is obviously stupid, that's like asking me to tell you how Gravity explains the flavour of cheddar cheese. Gravity has sod all to do with cheese, just as Evolution has sod all to do with the planets forming or the beginning of life. The thing is, every time a Creationist makes this argument we tell them what Evolution actually is, so they already know their error. We don't need to tell them again. They're ACTIVELY ignoring our arguments and making up completely fake ones because they already know the memorised retorts for them.

Secondly, when asked to explain Creationism, or Intelligent Design, whichever name you want to use, they will always resort to the same bullshit reasoning. Usually using the universal constants, of some version of irreducible complexity as a justification for believing in this shit. Again, these arguments where refuted years ago, I can even take you to 5 year old YouTube videos of people refuting them. Even more insulting is the false dichotomy given. The implication is that, either they're right or everything "randomly got that way", which is bullshit. Creationists know that Evolution is not a mechanism based on chance, we've told them time and time again.

Thirdly the Creationist will argue that our evidence is faulty, asking for the "missing link", even though there hasn't been a "missing link" in the human ancestry for over 2 decades. They'll try to argue that carbon dating is faulty, that archaeology is flawed, or even try to claim certain fossils are fake. Again, once a Creationist makes these arguments, the reasonable person arguing with said Creationist will naturally show them reams of evidence, which the Creationist insists on ignoring.

Lastly the Creationist will usually argue against "morality" which is basically insinuating that I am a raving monster ready to be set free. It's sick emotional pleading and a desperate attempt the scapegote this issue.

So... what the hell is it about Evolution that pisses off the Creationists so much? What possible reason do they have to purposely and continuously lie? I just don't understand... what possible benefit could Creationists have for a world filled by idiots, no medical research and no tech advancement? It just seems so counter-intuitive.

Anyone who can give me an answer, please do... oh and don't try to disprove Evolution, you're not good enough for that, any of you. So...

Why???

Which part do you believe is untrue? The part where evolution is a genetic change to a species through generations? Or the part where evolution is a genetic change to a species through generations?

Seriously, you can't partially discredit a straight-forward and one-pieced concept, because if you do, then it isn't even a concept anymore.

EDIT: One-pieced seems a bit off. I mean a concept made of many concepts, that if even one is broken it's basically rendered to a thought.

Whether I agree with it or not Tornado, it's called faith!

They have faith in their religion, be it the Bible or the Quran, and they believe it to be an exact documentation of the beginning of the world. If the Bible says God made the world in 7 days, God made the world in 7 days. Obviously that would conflict with Evolution, so they express their disbelief in the theory of Evolution.

But it's fair at this point to call Evolution fact, and once you're willing to disregard pure facts just for your beliefs you know there's something wrong. They may as-well just believe in the flying spaghetti monster and an army of meatballs, logic defeats it, but according to these believers that's irrelevant :dumb:

P.S. 10,000th post!!

Calling someone dumb because of there beliefs is incredibly ignorant.

I wouldn't really call evolution a given, because until last month we were sure nothing could travel faster than the speed of light; but it would appear muons have achieved this. Science is forever being proven, only to be disproven years down the line.

Definition of ignorant, as you appear to be ignorant of it: "Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated".

It's a positive thing that stuff can be disproved and replaced with better theories Dave, it's how we come closer to the truth as opposed to being stubborn and sitting in one place in terms of beliefs like religion. And it's not rude or whatever else to call someone's beliefs dumb when their beliefs revolve around nothing more than faith. It's incredibly stupid. Especially when most of these people only believe what they believe because they just so happened to have been born into a certain continent or family.

I could go on all day, it would probably save us both some time though if you just watch some videos of Richard Dawkins on YouTube. Some misconstrue him as rude but I think he's actually just being honest, which not many people are about other belief systems, unfortunately.

People who believe in God are both 'stupid' and 'dumb'. I see. What about the likes of Galilei, Newton, Faraday, Einstein?!

There are various theories which point to the existence of a God or an external being. For example, you have the Causation Argument, what caused the Big Bang? And if you know that, what caused the cause of the Big Bang? An external, ever-present being, possibly? i.e. God.

Then there's the watchmaker argument, which argues that the world has such a specific design that it must have been had a designer, this refutes the Evolution theory, yes. Paley stated that if you were to find a watch, you would assume it had a designer because of the complexities of its mechanics. Surely, in the same light, the complexities of the universe and everything inside it (the human body, for example) indicate that there must have been a designer.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm against disproving ideas, my point was simply that you cannot rely on so-called 'facts'. To state that the Evolution is a fact (which it isn't, hence why they call it a theory) is silly; because it was a fact two weeks ago that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Facts are forever being disproven, therefore rendering them beliefs.

I'll leave you with this famous quote:

I can't be arsed about this one because science was rather limited for a while(and guess why, because of religion), but for the record Einstein was no Theist, according to Google. Apparently people misconstrue a certain quote of his but it turns out he was supposedly Agnostic. (You must login or register to view this content.)



None of which can be proven, how convenient. I'd class them under philosophical theories as opposed to scientific ones.



Firstly, there are already multiple theories on how this happened which are based around logic and fact. Secondly, just because science can't explain something it doesn't mean you can rather randomly label it as God's work. There's no link between absolutely anything and a deity whatsoever.



How big is the universe? And how big is the chance of a race we would call intelligent(e.g. human) evolving? It was inevitable. And even if the odds were stacked against us, it does not indicate that there "must" have been a designer. It's called luck. It's also called not assuming everything you can't yet explain was done by God who so conveniently also can't be explained.



Although I disagree about calling them beliefs I'll leave that alone as we'd be discussing the technicalities of the definition of it all day, so lets just jump ahead and assume you're right and all modern facts are just beliefs. They're beliefs supported by testing, other facts(or as you call them beliefs) and everything else that would lead a scientist to class something as a fact. Oh, and science being able to accept newer and better theories is a positive thing. Religion is stubborn and sits in one place, blocking out its ears when someone explains how they're wrong. Also, science is the cause of so much good in this world, and yet religion is the cause of so much evil. Go figure.



Science without religion would be perfect, we wouldn't have to put up with religious opinions on scientific matters and we'd have more intelligent scientists working on life's problems that need solving. Religion without science is indeed blind, but even with science religion chooses to be blindfolded.

Simple. Life had to come from somewhere. Not from dust. Creationism happened. We didn't just grow from ****ing rocks.

Edit: I should explain myself as I will get Knuckle-heads calling me ignorant.

I just want to know where life came from in your eyes. Where did life start for you? How on earth did life end up to be? That is the major loophole that is never answered and is constantly avoided. You constantly call people who believe in creationism ignorant and daydreamers, when your theories DON'T HAVE A BEGINNING! THEY JUST TAKE OFF FROM A RANDOM POINT IN TIME!
If you could at least explain to me how you think that life came to be on this planet then I would at least accept your thoughts as facts.


But let me be clear:


I believe in evolution in the fact that God put life on this planet in the most primitive form and let it to evolve. That's what I believe and will always believe. And the biggest 2 flaws that make your theories non-believable for me are two things:

1) How has this universe came to be? Were the particles that collided made from nothing? Is that scientifically correct for you? This to me alone suggests that they had to come from something else like God.

2) Life on our planet. See note one above. Something from nothing is not possible. It also suggests God in my eyes.

Funnily enough ignorant was the word I was gonna use, although clearly you're not too happy about that. How about I just redirect you to the nearest science book? Or even a Google search? C'mon, seriously. Grow from rocks? When have scientists ever said we grew from rocks?



Again, this is the point that you should stop typing and try Google. Anyway...



I'm pretty sure your 'theory' of God's existence starts at a random point in time, does it not? And if so then science is considerably more credible, as scientific theories can explain with logic and facts how the universe began, whereas you're just looking at anything you don't understand and gormlessly saying "God did it".



Google. Just... Google. Save us the time typing.



You believe in the 'fact' that God did this? That your personal God out of infinite possible Gods in an infinite number of potential scenarios did this? And that's even assuming there is a God? Oh dear.



To be fair science does have flaws but it's always revising old theories and drawing us closer to the truth, science accepts when it is wrong. Religion(and Theism in general) just sits in one place, blindfolded and ignorant of what's really going on. Actually a better term would be "willingly blindfolded".



Ignoring the scientific part of your question(primarily because yet again you could just try Google), you seem to think that whilst the universe logically had to have a creator your deity did not. That's quite a leap.



So God created himself? Or he didn't need creating? Or he was always there? Whatever excuse you try to use for God's existence would fit perfectly well with how the universe came to be without him, so carry right on, don't let me stop you. Also, nothing in this universe was created from nothing? Is this the fourth time now I've tried to redirect you to Google?

Frankly you shouldn't be attempting to debate a subject like this if you have no idea about any of the scientific principles, theories and facts that go into making evolution and/or the big bang etc etc the way they are. You seem to ignorantly think that we Atheists believe we just popped out of nowhere, whereas this is in-fact much closer to what you Theists believe. Go take a science class, come back, start over. /rant