Most retarded arguments against evolution

[Darth Wong]

Some teachers just have a clear wall of separation that they admit to: the scientific theories all say this, and we have to go with it in practical application because it's the only model that works, but I personally believe that everything was miraculously created by my personal god within the last 10,000 years. Because.

That's actually a huge improvement upon the guys who teach science in school and who clearly don't understand the most basic principles of the scientific method. There are teachers out there who actually think it's important to stress that "just a theory" bullshit, or who actually buy into some of those incredibly stupid pseudo-scientific arguments.

Compared to that, I'd gladly take a person who admits that the science definitely says one thing but his faith says another.

[Temjin]

It's been mentioned, but I have a personal hatred for "If humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then how come there are still monkeys and apes?"

There's a popular talk radio show in Winnipeg, and whenever an ad came on for it, they would play a clip of him saying that exact sentence. I'd hear that damn sentence three or four times a day.

[CaptainChewbacca]

That's actually a huge improvement upon the guys who teach science in school and who clearly don't understand the most basic principles of the scientific method. There are teachers out there who actually think it's important to stress that "just a theory" bullshit, or who actually buy into some of those incredibly stupid pseudo-scientific arguments.

I'm starting to build my own cirriculum for my classes when I'm teaching, and I've decided the first week of school is ALWAYS going to be on the scientific method. What theory, hypothesis, and law ACTUALLY mean and what they don't mean. It pays to set a good foundation.

Compared to that, I'd gladly take a person who admits that the science definitely says one thing but his faith says another.

Really you're not supposed to talk about your faith AT ALL with students, but if asked that's probably what I'd tell them. Same with political beliefs, I have to decline to answer all sorts of political questions when I'm teaching highschool students.

[Lusankya]

I encountered two gems while debating a YEC. While the arguments she made aren't strictly against evolution, she made them in order to prove that the Bible is absolute truth (including Genesis).

"The hill Jesus was crucified on exists, it's REAL! So you see, the Bible must be true."

And:

"Have you read the Bible? It's so perfectly written. Does that not prove divine intervention?"

I've encountered this argument before, and for some reason they always get angry with me when I use the exact same logic to show that the existence of Tokyo proves that Godzilla is real.


My favourite creationist argument is, "Obviously, weather patterns would account for the lack of flowering plants in layers below the Cretaceous period. That's just common sense."

[AATC-86]

I've encountered this argument before, and for some reason they always get angry with me when I use the exact same logic to show that the existence of Tokyo proves that Godzilla is real.

Indeed. I used "The war of the worlds". Since both London and Woking exists, then obviously Martians did invade Britain at the turn of the century?

[Twigler]

And using War of the Worlds as an example, you also counter:

"Have you read the Bible? It's so perfectly written. Does that not prove divine intervention?"

Since H.G. Wells was a far better writer than whoever thought that listing a huge family tree in one of the so-called perfectly written books was a fun idea. Or the sponsor list for the walls of Jerusalem for that matter.

[Lonestar]

I've encountered this argument before, and for some reason they always get angry with me when I use the exact same logic to show that the existence of Tokyo proves that Godzilla is real.

There's more audio-visual evidence for Godzilla too.

[Lusankya]

Wow, Lonestar, have you been reading my trolling of Christian boards? That's exactly one of the things that I say.

The best thing about the Godzilla argument is that it's so much fun to argue that for once it's the fundies who are getting more frustrated with you than you are with them. And it can be changed to fit so many of their arguments.

I mean, did you know that there are a whole twenty-eight Godzilla movies, and they all contain Godzilla and many of them also feature recurring monsters like Mothra and King Gidorah, as well as places that actually exist like Tokyo. Think about that. And they were made over fifty years by multiple authors. It would be absolutely impossible for the movies to attain that level of internal consistency unless Godzilla was actually real. Impossible, I say.

[Patrick Degan]

Wow, Lonestar, have you been reading my trolling of Christian boards? That's exactly one of the things that I say.

The best thing about the Godzilla argument is that it's so much fun to argue that for once it's the fundies who are getting more frustrated with you than you are with them. And it can be changed to fit so many of their arguments.

I mean, did you know that there are a whole twenty-eight Godzilla movies, and they all contain Godzilla and many of them also feature recurring monsters like Mothra and King Gidorah, as well as places that actually exist like Tokyo. Think about that. And they were made over fifty years by multiple authors. It would be absolutely impossible for the movies to attain that level of internal consistency unless Godzilla was actually real. Impossible, I say.

Oh I say! I think I'll add that one to my own rhetorical arsenal.

[Stuart]

I'm not sure on how many levels this counts as retarded or not. Input welcomed on that point.

Human beings: (Discussion of evolution)

Fundie: You can believe what you like but when you're going to die, your last words will be "God help me"

Now, putting aside the fact that isn't an argument against evolution at all and is a monstrous red herring, it's also documented (by the FAA) that in 80 percent of fatal air crashes, the last words on the cockpit flight recorder are "Oh shit." That makes it inaccurate. But, its intriguingly retarded in that it shows the mindset that any invocation of a god is presumed to trump any logical argument.

[Samuel]

I'm not sure on how many levels this counts as retarded or not. Input welcomed on that point.

Human beings: (Discussion of evolution)

Fundie: You can believe what you like but when you're going to die, your last words will be "God help me"

Now, putting aside the fact that isn't an argument against evolution at all and is a monstrous red herring, it's also documented (by the FAA) that in 80 percent of fatal air crashes, the last words on the cockpit flight recorder are "Oh shit." That makes it inaccurate. But, its intriguingly retarded in that it shows the mindset that any invocation of a god is presumed to trump any logical argument.

I believe the argument is based on the idea that everyone is secretly a believer but they are supressing it so they can be sinful bastards. I don't how to rebut an individual who believes you are lying about what you believe- it isn't like there is anything you can say as they would construe everything you say as lying or trying to turn them towards Satan.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm not sure on how many levels this counts as retarded or not. Input welcomed on that point.

Human beings: (Discussion of evolution)

Fundie: You can believe what you like but when you're going to die, your last words will be "God help me"

Now, putting aside the fact that isn't an argument against evolution at all and is a monstrous red herring, it's also documented (by the FAA) that in 80 percent of fatal air crashes, the last words on the cockpit flight recorder are "Oh shit." That makes it inaccurate.

This is related to the "there are no atheists in the trenches/foxholes" argument, which is also blatantly false. Not only have many agnostics and atheists, who went to war, come out of it with more or less the same beliefs, but some people who were brought up Christian have been convinced that God (or at least the supposedly good Christian God) does not exist by the very powerful Argument from Evil which modern warfare presents.

[Darth Wong]

It's also an example of the "I'm right and you're wrong" declarative statement, which is not an argument at all. Think about it: you're providing arguments why their God is not real, and they retort by saying that he is real, and that you will see that when you die. It's really nothing more than "Oh yeah, well, I'm right, so there!"

[Stuart]

This is related to the "there are no atheists in the trenches/foxholes" argument, which is also blatantly false. Not only have many agnostics and atheists, who went to war, come out of it with more or less the same beliefs, but some people who were brought up Christian have been convinced that God (or at least the supposedly good Christian God) does not exist by the very powerful Argument from Evil which modern warfare presents.

There was an excellent answer to the "no atheists in foxholes" argument. It is in a letter written by a German soldier trapped in Stalingrad to his father, a Catholic priest. Reading it was a very formative thing for me. It goes.

"I have looked for God in every shell crater, in every destroyed house, in every corner, among all my comrades when I lay in my hole, and in the sky. God did not show Himself, when my heart cried out for Him. Houses were destroyed. My comrades were as brave or as cowardly as I. Hunger and murder were on the earth. Bombs and fire came from the heavens. But God was not there. No, Father, there is no God. I write it again, and know that it is terrible and that I cannot make amends for it. And if in spite of all there should be a God, then it will be only with you, in the hymnbooks and prayers, the pious sayings of priests and pastors, the ringing of chimes, and the smell of incense. But not in Stalingrad. For there is no God in Stalingrad."

Most of the religious arguments against evolution fall into the same category; "Oh you're just pretending not to believe, you do really." or "You don't really believe that, you're just being difficult." What makes them particularly retarded in my eyes is the smug sense of self-satisfaction the fundies exude when they come out with them. It's not the argument itself that's retarded, it's the midset that produces them.

It's also an example of the "I'm right and you're wrong" declarative statement, which is not an argument at all. Think about it: you're providing arguments why their God is not real, and they retort by saying that he is real, and that you will see that when you die. It's really nothing more than "Oh yeah, well, I'm right, so there!"

Exactly, I've had that tried on me several times. Last time, I told the prat in question "I hope you're right because I want to set him straight about a few things. Not least being why did he put our oil underneath their sand." The whole "axiom" business is just another declarative statement of right. I don't know if you were around for this but back in the mid-1990s when the whole internet discussion community thing was really starting, there was fad for "I believe" posts. Somebody would come on to a board and make a post starting with "I believe" followed by a set of declarative statements of belief. Any effort to debate them would be met by screaming tirades that claimed they were "beliefs" and this exempt from debate or disagreement. Although the authors came from all over the spectrum, "evolution is false" always seemed to be in there somewhere. "I believe" posts faded away when more and more communities had banning functions built into them. It was the same basic mindset though; a declarative announcement that they are right and we are wrong and that is the end of the matter. Using the word retarded in its true sense, that is as close to the definitively most retarded argument one can get. It's just a wordy version of a young child's "Ain't so."

[Simon_Jester]

Although it's not as if developed (not-retarded) people can't be tempted. I'm sure you've had times when you wanted to say to someone "Look, no. You're just... wrong. That is completely wrong, go back to school and try again." Sometimes someone says something so manifestly absurd that it's hard to figure out where to begin demolishing it, or where the effort to do so isn't justified for practical reasons.

Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. I get the feeling it happens to a lot of smart people... and you've been a professional smart person much longer than I have.

[Lord Insanity]

The most retarded argument I heard was: "If humans and chimpanzees are related, how come we have never seen a chimpanzee give birth to a human?" He was quite confused when I told him such a thing would prove evolution wrong.

[Darth Wong]

Although it's not as if developed (not-retarded) people can't be tempted. I'm sure you've had times when you wanted to say to someone "Look, no. You're just... wrong. That is completely wrong, go back to school and try again." Sometimes someone says something so manifestly absurd that it's hard to figure out where to begin demolishing it, or where the effort to do so isn't justified for practical reasons.

That's not at all the same thing. When an educated person gets fed up with an ignoramus, he is perfectly capable of explaining his reasoning, but he knows that it would be a wasted effort with the ignoramus. When a believer states his beliefs as declarations of fact, he is not doing so because he doesn't feel like wasting effort with a rational explanation; he is doing so because he does not have a rational explanation.

Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it. I get the feeling it happens to a lot of smart people... and you've been a professional smart person much longer than I have.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The educated person who says "fuck off, you need to go to school and get an education before you can even discuss this" and the religious person who says "fuck off, I know I'm right because I just am" are not the same thing.

[Rye]

The single most-stupid argument against evolution, or, at least, what the creationist believed was against evolution was, and I quote; "How can something beautiful come from an explosion?" He had of course got the big bang confused with an explosion, and evolution. The sheer number of concepts to not understand to get that question as an argument against evolution did actually make me go silent, jaw agape for a moment. That's stupid and ignorant on a level I couldn't believe a person could be. It's a shame, because he was otherwise a nice guy with some decent knowledge about computers.

[Formless]

But explosions ARE beautiful.

At least, when viewed from the proper distance, of course.

[Mayabird]

I didn't want to dive down the memory hole, but I guess I'm forced to. Here we go. Most retarded excuse for an argument I ever heard:

"But EVOLUTION says life started in the BIG BANG when a bunch of chemicals exploded in the ocean. Where did the ocean come from?"

I believe it combines all the usual stupidity with a little extra topping of completely not understanding anything that mixes into a general whiskey tango foxtrot.

[Simon_Jester]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The educated person who says "fuck off, you need to go to school and get an education before you can even discuss this" and the religious person who says "fuck off, I know I'm right because I just am" are not the same thing.

From the point of view of who's got the right to say it and who doesn't, this makes a huge difference. From the point of view of the internal experience, I'm not sure there is a difference. The fundie says (in effect) "fuck off" because he thinks you're being willfully obtuse about a blindingly obvious fact, and therefore thinks that you're so wrong that there's no point in trying to argue with you.

He's wrong, but that's still what he's thinking. It's the same temptation that leads to "OK, shut up and go back to school," only with less justification.

[Darth Wong]

No, they're still not the same, because the fundie does not even claim to have a rational explanation in reserve. It's faith, admitted, up-front. Do you honestly not understand this?

[DPDarkPrimus]

This is related to the "there are no atheists in the trenches/foxholes" argument, which is also blatantly false. Not only have many agnostics and atheists, who went to war, come out of it with more or less the same beliefs, but some people who were brought up Christian have been convinced that God (or at least the supposedly good Christian God) does not exist by the very powerful Argument from Evil which modern warfare presents.

There was an excellent answer to the "no atheists in foxholes" argument. It is in a letter written by a German soldier trapped in Stalingrad to his father, a Catholic priest. Reading it was a very formative thing for me. It goes.

"I have looked for God in every shell crater, in every destroyed house, in every corner, among all my comrades when I lay in my hole, and in the sky. God did not show Himself, when my heart cried out for Him. Houses were destroyed. My comrades were as brave or as cowardly as I. Hunger and murder were on the earth. Bombs and fire came from the heavens. But God was not there. No, Father, there is no God. I write it again, and know that it is terrible and that I cannot make amends for it. And if in spite of all there should be a God, then it will be only with you, in the hymnbooks and prayers, the pious sayings of priests and pastors, the ringing of chimes, and the smell of incense. But not in Stalingrad. For there is no God in Stalingrad."

Unfortunately, being a German soldier, this will just get a dismissal of "Well of course, the Nazis were atheists".

[Simon_Jester]

No, they're still not the same, because the fundie does not even claim to have a rational explanation in reserve. It's faith, admitted, up-front. Do you honestly not understand this?

Either I honestly do not understand this, or I do honestly understand this and am talking about an aspect of the situation you think is irrelevant. Either way, trying to explain it to me again is a waste of your time. Sorry to trouble you.

[Serafina]

No, they're still not the same, because the fundie does not even claim to have a rational explanation in reserve. It's faith, admitted, up-front. Do you honestly not understand this?

Either I honestly do not understand this, or I do honestly understand this and am talking about an aspect of the situation you think is irrelevant. Either way, trying to explain it to me again is a waste of your time. Sorry to trouble you.

You see, it is pretty simple:

One person can explain his argument logically. But he get's annoyed by the other persons failure to understand it, so he gives up.
The other person can not explain his argument logically. He get's annonyed by the other persons demand for an logical explanation, so he gives up.

The ability to present an logical, honest argument is all that matters here. Creationists can never do that:
Either they have to ignore evidence (dishonesty) or argue illogically.