(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???

Dude wtf?

Science is so great right? can't cure any diseases but know how we were created LOL.

No need to offend more then half the world.

I can't tell who that sarcasm is intended towards, please reiterate.

No it's not. Pretending someone isn't clearly stupid as indicated by their beliefs is simply dishonest. Only idiots would actively not accept evolution at this point. Now, I don't mean intellectually excepting the slim and increasingly slimmer chance that our current theory of evolution could be disproved and replaced by something more refined in the future. No, I mean people who actively belief it's simply wrong. These people are STUPID, and to call it ignorant to make this call is extremely ignorant. It's nothing more than pandering respect for religion that religion does not deserve and it needs to stop.



Einstein was an atheist, if you start quote mining him in an attempt to insult this mans intelligence I will intellectually rape you on this forum in front of everyone, and that goes for everyone else to. The desire to prove Einstein was a theist because of his penchant to theistic poetry is pathetic. Almost as pathetic as when people try to make out that the devoutly Catholic Hitler was an atheist (and yes he was Catholic, we have video recordings of him conducting mass prayer for fúck sake and the nazi's motto was "Gott Mit Ans" or "God With Us"). This pointless argument from authority will not work on me. If Einstein was a theist, then yes, he was a delusional idiot like everyone else... luckily for him, he wasn't, but time hasn't recorded that yet.

As for all the others, they're ALL over 100 years old, some are multiple centuries old... give allowances for cultural norms will you.


No there are not.


Are you seriously going to insult us with the causation argument and the "watchmaker" argument? Really Dave, I thought you where a smart guy. Why don't you go all out and just post "Look at the trees, aren't they so beautiful, therefore God".

I'm serious Dave. I am going to relentlessly mock you now until you either graciously and with dignity admit that you posted complete shite just then, or provide an argument that you couldn't find refuted on YouTube by a twelve year old with a simple fúcking google search.

YOU HAVE THE INTERNET. USE THE GOOGLE!


Yes it is a fact. Theory in science means "collections of facts and models that collectively explain an area of nature or scientific study". If you don't know what the word theory means, please stop fúcking using it.


No it was not a fact that things cannot travel faster than the speed of light. That was a conclusion. It was a fact that nothing had ever been observed to travel faster than the speed of light.

This idea that facts do not exist is pathetic and only goes to show a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. With evolution we know that it is a fact that mutations happen and these mutations lead to speciation due to adaptive natural selection. THIS IS A FACT! We know it is a fact, we have seen it happen. It has been documented to happen. Using this fact, and hundreds of other facts we assemble the evidence in the most logical fashion and draw conclusions from it. These conclusions can be in reference to things that we believe given the evidence didn't, can't or wont happen or exist. This is called reductive reasoning, and by it's very nature cannot be factual but simply surmised because of supporting evidence. This is why science is always changing, we can by constant experimentation add additional information to the theory and reduce the logic down further, further refining the theory.

A theory is the overall conclusion and summery of the field of study. ie. The Theory Of Gravity, Germ Theory, The Big Bang Theory, The Theory Of Evolution, Heliocentrism Theory and more. These are fields of study not simple statements of fact and to treat them as such only serves to indicate a painful lack of intellectual integrity in anyone who does it.

Do not respond again unless you can argue with me as an intellectual equal with a full understanding of the arguments you put forward and the definitions of the words you're using. It is deeply insulting to me, yourself and every other user here when you post what is quite clearly a lazy and pointless antagonising post by someone who can't be arsed to inform themselves.


I'll leave you with the following retort. "If you think science needs fairytale thinking powerful enough to fool the senses and compromise the mind in order to be able to function you're either profoundly stupid, wilfully ignorant or both. Which are you?" - TornadoCreator.

---------- Post added at 02:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 AM ----------



Christmas came early and Santa brought me a Creationist to pwn... YAY!
I'm going to assume as you're Canadian, that you're a Christian. You realise that your religion specifically states that humans where made from "dirt". So do you disagree with the Bible now? Controversy in paradise.

I'll point out now, I'm not actually going to be arguing against your points in an attempt to refute them. Evolution is a fact, if you disagree you're just wrong. Simple as that really. This debate was intended as a "Why do ignorant theists challenge Evolution when it's one of the most proven theories in modern science. Are they really that stupid?", I wasn't actually expecting said theists to then come in an parade their stupidity around the forum.

No, for the sake of this post I shall be mocking and ridiculing you for my own amusement and the amusement of other forum users. I realise this is like beating a quadruple amputee at swingball, but what the hell.



Dammit... I was all set to be all mocking, I even had my pointing finger ready so I can point and laugh, and then you go and be all reasonable. Fair enough, I'll answer your post seriously. Let's just read the rest of your post first...


"...and will always believe" - this is ignorance, change this now or you will become a target for my mockery. You are not a perfect all powerful creature. You do not know everything, so deciding what your always going to believe is basically saying, "I don't care if you prove me wrong, I just pretend it never happened", and that's pathetic. If you're not prepared to change your mind, you're not worth my time. This is the very definition of closed-minded.



I will now explain in brief the points you brought up. I will only be prepared to go into proper detail if you reply stating you're prepared to actually consider what I'm saying properly. If you "will always believe" your stupid little delusions, I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why their stupid. You have to be willing to learn and improve your own understanding of the world before I can teach you anything and I'm not well know for my patience.

1. We don't know how the universe came to exist. Current theories have explained how the universe in it's current state has come to exist from the random expansion of a single extremely hot, super-dense particle. This was the Big Bang. There was no actual explosion, and nothing collided, it was a sudden rapid expansion and cooling. Currently we don't know why it happened or what existed before this expansion. It's currently accepted that as time is altered by gravity that before the Big Bang (although before is probably the wrong word) there was no "time" as gravity was too intense that time would have effectively froze. Really, this is an area of science still very much under analysis and experimentation, however throwing in "God did it" is one of the most intellectually bankrupt things you can do. To just randomly decide "God did it" when you have no answer is pathetic and only raises the question of where the fúck in this reality comprised of a super-heated, super-charged, super-dense singular particle frozen in time, did this transcendental human-like being with unparalleled intelligence exist... what? was he riding the particle like a horse or something. Oh, and when he was in this very different universe, before the Big Bang, did God still hate bum-sex? Just because we don't know how something formed doesn't mean God did it, and surely any intelligent person can see how bloody ludicrous throwing "God" into this is.

2. Something from nothing is entirely possible and happens all the time. It's called Sub-Atomic Chaos Theory and we have watched it happen. Within the outer shells of electrically charged particles the electrons do not in fact orbit atoms as we originally thought but seem to vanish from existence and then reappear in a different location. They do this thousands of times every millisecond. Strangely while these particles don't technically move, forces acting upon them indicate that they are moving in a set direction and at a set speed. This is one of the fundamentals of Quantum Theory, one of the more confusing and cutting edge areas of science....

That said, life didn't come from no-where. Life started because energy from acidic solutions in seas and the ocean, combined with the charged energy of a young earth atmosphere caused the right conditions for amino acids to form. These acids will react together to form proteins, and if formed into a long chain, with an RNA sequence they become self replicating. (which does granted take random chance... but then, there where a lot of amino acids in early Earth seas and oceans). RNA reacts with nearby substances in order to replicate basic amino acids, and then proteins, eventually though flaws in the reproduction of the amino acids variations start to occur. The variations that produce larger RNA strains that are better suited to harnessing the required substances to make more RNA become more prevalent because they're more efficient. Eventually these simple proteins develop an outer coating, and the RNA becomes gradually more complex with each replication until it becomes DNA and starts to exhibit what we consider the fundamental properties of life, becoming the most simple single cell life form. Where the line between self-replicating proteins that are just complex chemicals reacting and "life" is drawn is still debated by many scientists, viruses for example are by most scientists not considered alive, they're considered self-replicating proteins with an advanced protein coat, but they lack all the characteristics of life (ie. they don't grow, excrete etc.). This is called the Theory of Abiogenesis and has a lot of scientific literature to back it.

Hopefully this has explained the points you had issue with and I hope your next post is humble and accepting of these facts. I'd like to think the closed-minded nature of your previous comments was simply because no-one had taken the time to explain. I hope I've now rectified this.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13467[/ATTACH]

Enough said really....

Sorry, but what the **** are you talking about? Quantum Mechanics is the single most refined and experimentally confirmed theory OF ALL TIME. There is data which is orders of magnitude more accurate than anything in evolutionary theory. General Relativity is more math rather than evidence based in comparison. Hell, EVERY physical scientific theory is more math than evidence based in comparison. Literally the only of "science" right now that is purely theoretical and math based is String Theory, and technically it doesn't qualify as a science because it isn't backed by experiment.

Actually no. I'm not sure where you're getting this from and I'm glad it's someone actually discussing science with me rather than another short-sighted moron saying "evolution is only a theory", but no you're simply wrong.

Quantum Mechanics, while it may be the most mathematically elegant scientific theory, so much so that the it shows accuracy in predictions previously only dreamed about, it's still largely misunderstood. We don't have scientific explanations for Quantum Strangeness, Gravimetric Source or even the true nature of the electron. Quantum Physics is still to this date one of the least understood areas of modern science while String Theory has been further refined to M Theory (which interestingly does have experimental evidence thanks to Quantum testing which I can go into if you want).

The simple fact is, nothing, and I really do mean nothing, not even areas of science we've been studying for centuries like Germ Theory or the Theory of Harmonics; have the same amount of evidence and research as Evolution. Now I'm not saying Evolution is the most accurate theory as you said, but it is the most evidentially supported theory by a long way, and that's the important thing.

Evolutionary Theory has had more published scientific papers, more theses and dissertations, and more experimentation than any other area of science in history. In the last 100 years Evolutionary Theory has more scientific material published than all areas of Chemistry COMBINED!!! Yes, it's that damn big. Pretty much every medical advance we've made in since Darwin has had a direct experimental connection to Evolution for a start.

Now while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, as you don't seem like a pathetic raging theist screaming "MY IMAGINARY FRIEND DID IT!", you really should look up the figures before being so aggressively forward in future. I realise the irony of saying this having quoted no figures or sources myself, but we're not here to score points against each other and we can all use Google. I'm sure with only minor effort you could confirm what I'm saying. Perhaps it was simply a misunderstanding as to what status I was trying to lay upon Evolution.

Now as to my statement on Quantum Physics having little supporting evidence, which seems to have bothered you. Well, I'm sorry but it's true. Now, I'm a forensic biochemist, so I'm quite literally a scientist out of my field. My formal studying of Physics ends at college level, so I have no formal tutoring beyond this point and everything I understand of Quantum Physics is from personal study and the following of published journals. I just wanted to make it clear where I was coming from and what my level of understanding is. Still, I've passionately followed the advancements, and recently familiarised myself with String Theory as well which I find extremely intriguing. Now, if you understand the basics of Quantum Physics you'd know we currently have no unified explanation for many things, the apparent connection between sub-atomic particles which display spins in balance with each other when the particles have no direct connection to each other for example, the experimental problem of measuring electrons, which literally disappear and re-appear for unknown reasons, the lack of explanation for how some forms of radioactive decay give off anti-matter for unknown reasons. These are all things we can't yet explain, or have no currently widely accepted explanation. On top of that, most areas of Quantum Physics can't be tested as we simply don't have measuring devices that small.

I hope now, you understand how I came to make that statement.

No it's not - not by a long shot. If you want mathematical elegance then you'll find GR and Superstring Theory more to your liking. In fact, most people find the SM to be quite ugly. It was developed empirically with constants that are not determinable by theory alone: they had to be measured.



Yes we do: it's called Quantum Mechanics. We may not be able to conceptually understand the theory, but all of the "strangeness" falls directly out of the equations of QM.

Also, how would the inability to explain "quantum strangeness" detract from the stockpile of QM's supporting evidence? It wouldn't.



Because we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity. At macroscopic scales we have a very good idea of what causes gravity: (classical) particles follow geodesics in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with a metric tensor determined by the stress-energy tensor.

And I'll ask you again: how does this detract from QM's success?



I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "true nature." Could you elaborate?

And one more time for emphasis: how does this detract from QM's success.



It is a mathematical model that yields predictions that have been measured correct sometimes up to ten significant figures. Just because we can't, as humans, understand it intuitively does not mean it is wrong, bad, and certainly not inaccurate.



A direct test of the axioms of string theory is not and will not be possible within ours, our children's, and our grandchildren's lifetimes. Even supersymmetry (an integral part of M-Theory) is likely not true of our universe.



But that wasn't what I was arguing.



You may not have been around at the time, but for a few years I was the most prominent atheist on this site. Thank you though, for your condescending tone.



Alright, let me do that: You must login or register to view this content. . Perhaps you'd like to try your luck arguing with the University of Maryland.



Your level of understanding is sub-par if you are making the claim that QM has little supporting evidence. Perhaps you could point me to a source that seems to share your point of view.



I hate to do it again, but: how does this detract from QM's success?



The phenomenon of quantum entanglement falls directly out of QM's equations. It was actually predicted in theory before it was confirmed experimentally.



The location of an electron is determined with a probability wave-function. It is experimentally IMPOSSIBLE to determine the exact location of an electron - that's just the way our universe works.



The explanation is mathematical in nature, but it exists.



Actually, everything you listed has a current accepted theory behind it.



False. You're thinking of String Theory again.



Actually, I still don't. All you did was say, "QM doesn't explain this, this, or this!" What you did was akin to claiming that Germ Theory has little supporting evidence because it hasn't given us a way of predicting winning lottery numbers. Your entire post consisted of a fallacy argument.

I'm with you on this one, but I can understand, and I'm sure you can, how some find it incredibly hard to get their head round the theory that we have evolved from a single cell organism.

Don't you find that mind-boggling?

I find it amazing, I find it interesting... mind-boggling? No, not at all.

If you actually understand evolution, which all the detractors clearly don't, you see that it makes elegant sense and it shows an interconnection between the natural biosphere of our planet way beyond anything our silly little myths had considered so far. The only thing evolution really does emotionally speaking, that I don't enjoy, is that it shows emphatically that nature is completely uncaring. There is no compassion, there is no emotion. It's all mechanics, with a great elegance, but with nothing else.

Every single animal with the exception of SOME humans and the rare few animals that we choose to keep as pets, live an unhappy, frightened, terrible life. Every single one of them. Because of the mechanisms of evolution, the way in which life chooses the "winners", we have every animal in direct competition. They're always hungry, they're always being hunted or fighting to the death, they're always struggling against pain and hardship because every time they evolve an advantage their competition or worse still their predator evolves right along side them to make it barely enough. Nature is entirely cruel and uncaring if you see it on an emotional level and that make evolution a hard thing to take. It also however proves to me, pretty conclusively, that anyone claiming there's a caring god is either blinded to reality or a total idiot.

If I take a step back, the mathematical beauty of evolution is one of the most interesting, self regulating and truly unique natural mechanisms in the world, capable of creating things beyond our imagination. It's an interesting and amazing feat of nature that explains things from the molecular level right up to the social level. The study of anthropology is one of the most genuinely interesting fields of modern science, and what is anthropology? it's the study of humanity, and it is almost entirely embedded in evolutionary theory.

In short, no, I can't understand why there are people who actively attack evolution. I can understand why some laypeople with a limited understanding of science would find evolution difficult to grasp, (which is no bad thing, I have a limited understanding of Russian Literature for example ie. none, we all have our own passions and no one person can know everything). The thing is, I'm not discussing people who simply don't understand the science who doubt the theory in there everyday life. I'm talking about the activists.

Why would people like Bill O'Reilly, Kirk Cameron, Ben Stein, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind etc. openly oppose and argue against evolution. THEY KNOW THEY'RE WRONG! These aren't just random people either, and they're not stupid (debatable). Ben Stein has two degrees in Law and Economics, Bill O'Reilly has two degrees in History and Journalism. These are not stupid people, they can grasp basic concepts. All of these people have interviewed evolutionary biologists and had the basic principals of evolution explained to them. These same people have had the more common arguments like the 'Argument From Design', 'Blind Watchmaker Argument', the 'Crocoduck Argument', the 'Argument From Complexity', the 'Missing Link Argument', the constant misuse of the phrase "random chance" and more explained to them in depth by scientists so they know why these arguments are not reasonable. THEY KNOW THEY'RE WRONG, THEY'RE FÚCKING LIARS!

The thing I don't understand, and this was the point of the thread, is this; why argue against evolution? Why do they oppose it. They know it's right. It doesn't do them any good to argue against a scientific theory that has more support for it than entire FIELDS of science have. I just don't understand the political gain in convincing an entire generation of YOUR countries children that evolution doesn't work by "teaching the controversy", are they trying to destroy the pharmaceutical industry? It's not a religious thing either because 50 years ago most Christians would have happily have accepted evolution and the last two POPES! openly and publicly supported evolution.

I just don't get it. Why do so many Republican (and it is almost exclusively Republican) spokesmen, political commentators, and right wing public speakers and low end celebrities all speak out against an inconsequential scientific theory? Oh and do they always argue against evolution or only when it suits them, ie. are they OK with accepting antibiotics in hospital? Evolution bitches; it works. Just... why? Why do so many people actively and purposely LIE and claim they don't accept evolution to the point of repeating flawed arguments that they know have been addressed, claiming evolution states things they outright KNOW it doesn't, yet they continue to do it anyway? Why do they all insist on calling it "Darwinism" as though it's some kind of new religion when that word literally has NO MEANING! We're not fúcking "darwinists", and they know that. So come on... can someone please tell me why?

Why do people oppose evolution it doesn't make sense.

PS: If anyone responds to this thread with pointless arguments against evolution I will -rep you and ignore your points. If I'm feeling particularly cruel I'll troll you for sport. If you're a creationist you ARE wrong, you ARE a fúcking idiot. I don't care any more about being civil to you people, don't like what I'm saying... tuff, go eat a dick and choke. Natural selection.