(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???

Couldn't agree with you more. Screw the like button, I wish there was a love button on this post.

I agree with the Creationist but not in the sense of human being. I think evolution is part of the creation anyways.
Creationist should not argue about who/what create human beings but they should prove or convince that god create the first particle(or substance) in the universe.

Most of the them they are wrong and stubborn because they have to follow the rules or the "book" which is amended by people.

Glad you liked the post.

Really my big problem with the Creationism movement is I know it's big names, Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ben Stein and so called news personalities who support it, like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reily (notice, Fox News)... they ALL know Creationism is bullshit. They've had it explained to them multiple times as part of their careers peddling this bullshit. Every time they've questioned Evolution, an evolutionary biologist crawls out from behind the nearest rock and hands them a damn truckload of information and evidence to explain to them how and why evolution works. For fúck sake, half the people on this list have interviewed Richard Dawkins. They have had evolution explained to them, and their obvious lies and "misunderstandings" have been corrected on multiple occasions, yet, the next time they're on a stage, on camera, or able to spout their shit they're back saying the exact same arguments that where debunked by scientists and intellectuals only days before.

So this is why I'm confused. The KNOW Creationism is WRONG! They know it is and you can tell because they argue in underhanded deceitful ways which shows that they're not honestly believing the stuff they're backing, they have a different motive. They know they're on the wrong side of the debate, and you can tell by the purposeful subterfuge in their debates. So, I have to wonder, Why?

Do these people just hate medical research? Do they want to see agriculture revert 200 years? Do they honestly want people to believe evolution is bullshit? Of course not. If they had an illness, they sure as hell wouldn't be questioning the drugs the doctors giving them would that. Would they fúck.

The only possible reason I can find for pushing something you know is a lie, is personal greed, personal reward... what are they getting out of it? How are they benefiting? Not as individuals but as a group. After all, we know that individuals are being paid to make such stupid claims and arguments, we know this as they're on TV and sell book and all the crap that goes with that. But as a movement it makes no sense...

It's honestly quite baffling to me. These people actively rehearse "rebuttals" and ways to "catch out" scientists on their website (all of which are laughable by the way). They have carefully crafted fallacy filled bullshit prepared to the masses to memorise and spew at reasonable normal people who dare to mention a fully understood scientific principal. It's orchestrated and designed to waste as much time as possible while parading the Creationists stupidity. It's in fact the only movement where they less you know about your opponents arguments, the better. Creationists seem to revel in the fact that they know less about Evolution than someone who's read the first paragraph of the fúcking wikipedia page. Why?

This is my only real sticking point. Why would you knowingly and purposefully lie about scientific principals, to scientists who know you're lying, and actively try to stop teaching evolution to children thereby ensuring the next generation are a pile of fúcking morons. Is the slow degradation of the collective intelligence of their own nations children really their aim? What is the long term goal of Creationism? To spread misinformation, sabotage our medical knowledge base, and poison the minds of the young. Why? That doesn't make sense...

Why are you so keen on evolution? You are no different with those creationists. From what I understand, scientists have not find any definite DNA match with ancient creatures.
We should be open with different theories. We might be an immigrant from outer space or a mutation from mice. Mice's DNA is 97.5% match with human DNA

Evolution is correct, because no one has facts that Religion is correct :dumb:

So to you, is it true that if it's not black then it's white. The world will be so much similar if everything work this way.

Your entire post is completely wrong and insultingly so, don't post outright lies like this in my threads again. I want an actual discussion, not to sit here debunking your stupid claims. The fact is we've mapped the human genome and the genome of thousands of other species, and we've done it so accurately you can plot the DNA transitions on a fúcking tree graph... and guess what it perfectly matches the phenotypical tree we get from fossil records. Also Mice DNA is only an 85% match with humans, so even your so called "facts" are bullshit.

Sorry if this make you feel offensive, my point is we should be open minded with theories (creation, evolution, might be other theory as well etc..).

I did a little more search. It seeems that mice and human has 99% similar genes. You must login or register to view this content.. This might be out of date now since this article is 2002. Nonetheless, it is very close to human (this is one of the reason why we used mice for drug testing etc..)
On the other hand, chimp a very close relative to human only has 96% similar genes[URL="You must login or register to view this content. "]source[/URL].

There is always possibility of other theories. Why do we have to choose between creationism and evolution?
Again I am so sorry if it offend you or anyone in any sense (this is not my intention).

You must login or register to view this content.

"The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does."

I think time has proven itself useful when it comes to this. :p