Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why is it that on every forum I go to, there is a discussion between evolutionists and creationists going on? Why do people always feel the need to bring this topic up again?
And as an extension of that subject: Why do atheists feel the need to disprove the existence of a god so much and why do theists always keep responding to that?
It is not as if their arguments ever change or there suddenly is evidence for or against the existence of a god. It always feels like I am reading the same discussions over and over again.

Why can't both sides just accept that science and religion are not one and the same thing, do not serve the same purposes and are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that evolution, at least micro-evolution has been proven (and macro-evolution to a lesser extent as well but that aside) does not discredit any religion.
The amount of theists making ill-informed claims about evolution and atheism,
and the amount of atheists making ill-informed claims about religion and christianity is just painful.
Why can't people just accept they are wrong and that agnosticism is the only correct path?

Heresy. The way of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true path.

All must embrace his moist and noodely appendage.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And as an extension of that subject: Why do atheists feel the need to disprove the existence of a god so much and why do theists always keep responding to that?
It is not as if their arguments ever change or there suddenly is evidence for or against the existence of a god. It always feels like I am reading the same discussions over and over again.

Why can't both sides just accept that science and religion are not one and the same thing, do not serve the same purposes and are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that evolution, at least micro-evolution has been proven (and macro-evolution to a lesser extent as well but that aside) does not discredit any religion.
The amount of theists making ill-informed claims about evolution and atheism,
and the amount of atheists making ill-informed claims about religion and christianity is just painful.
Why can't people just accept they are wrong and that agnosticism is the only correct path?

Because, the creationist try to push an untestable, unscientific theory onto schools, and hate when evolution is used in schools.

Agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Atheism doesn't mean "God doesn't exist, for sure." It means "God is no more likely than anything else without evidence for it."

It would be possible to convert an atheist via proof of God's existence.

Because people can't stand the idea that other people think they're wrong, hence this thread when the thread we just had about this same subject was just closed

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Atheism doesn't mean "God doesn't exist, for sure." It means "God is no more likely than anything else without evidence for it."

It would be possible to convert an atheist via proof of God's existence.

You are wrong there. The exact definition of 'atheist' is: "one who believes that there is no deity " or "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
while the exact definition of 'agnostic' is: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" or "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.".

In short: Theists say: God exists.
Atheists say: God does not exist.
Agnostics say: Whether God exists or not is unknowable.

I called the page the thread lock was going to happen on in the other evolution thread because the fact of the matter is both sides say the other is either superstitious about spaghetti monsters, unicorns and zombies or doesn't understand spirituality and makes things up that prove to be untrue later and rails on about persecution. I leave it to you which side says which.
I was actually surprised how long the civility lasted in the other thread and thought I was going to be wrong about the lock, but in the end, the posters failed to dissapoint.

Relapse wrote:
I called the page the thread lock was going to happen on in the other evolution thread because the fact of the matter is both sides say the other is either superstitious about spaghetti monsters, unicorns and zombies or doesn't understand spirituality and makes things up that prove to be untrue later and rails on about persecution. I leave it to you which side says which.
I was actually surprised how long the civility lasted in the other thread and thought I was going to be wrong about the lock, but in the end, the posters failed to dissapoint.

Rule #23 man. Rule 23

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Atheism doesn't mean "God doesn't exist, for sure." It means "God is no more likely than anything else without evidence for it."

It would be possible to convert an atheist via proof of God's existence.

You are wrong there. The exact definition of 'atheist' is: "one who believes that there is no deity " or "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
while the exact definition of 'agnostic' is: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" or "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.".

In short: Theists say: God exists.
Atheists say: God does not exist.
Agnostics say: Whether God exists or not is unknowable.

Atheists say "God does not exist" in the same way you might say Santa Claus does not exist. Atheists absolutely say whether God exists or not is unknowable (at least, for certain postulations of God) because it's not a falsifiable belief. There's just no reason to think He does.

There is no functional difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I suppose people often take it personally when you say that they are wrong about something that they hold dear.

I am always fairly bemused by a whole bunch of non specialists arguing the case in these discussions- it's tremendous arrogance to assume you have a deeper understanding than people who spend their entire careers studying something. (An arrogance I've shared in the past and will in the future on subjects I'm not informed about, of course. See my posting history with regard to gun control or military intervention )

The idea that a few websites, a book or two (written, generally, by non specialists) and a youtube video can replace years of study is really quite silly.

Of course, it's ideological.

I wish evolution wasn't always conflated to a "science vs. religion" argument, because that's pretty dumb too. Evolution says nothing about the existence or non existence of God. It is not the purpose of evolution to prove or disprove the existence of God. There absolutely doesn't have to be an argument there.

What I would like, however, is if affirmed and serious creationists would let the doctors know about that post surgery. Then we can treat them with the old antibiotics, out of respect to their beliefs. After all, according to them, the evolution of antibiotic resistance is impossible so those old antibiotics should be working just fine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are wrong there. The exact definition of 'atheist' is: "one who believes that there is no deity " or "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Which is pretty much the same as saying "since there is no evidence for the existance of god(s), there is no god(s)". I would certainly grant gods existance should there be evidence for it. But then if god existed, I would not need to believe in said god, as they would exist.

People rarely argue about evolution, if it gets mentioned at all (and I have seen less and less of these 'discussions' over the years) it is used as a proxy for yet another pointless religious argument.

Evolution is a scientific fact, arguing against it is exactly the same as arguing against a spherical earth. Basically if you engage in such meaningless threads beyond a post or two you are effectively trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
After all, according to them, the evolution of antibiotic resistance is impossible so those old antibiotics should be working just fine.

Even basic penicillin still works on some medically significant organisms, although the organisms that commonly cause post surgical infections won't even notice penicillin

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are wrong there. The exact definition of 'atheist' is: "one who believes that there is no deity " or "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Which is pretty much the same as saying "since there is no evidence for the existance of god(s), there is no god(s)".

There is a huge difference between those two statements. The fact that there is no evidence for something does not automatically mean that said thing does not exist.
Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

This is why I am a Pastafarian, Ramen brother.

Most atheists are stating "There is probably not any God."

Because most leave the option that they could be disproven open.

Believe it or don't believe it who cares, evolution is a fact, God is not, if it ever is a fact then great add it to the list of things that don't require your belief to be true.. Like gravity or light.

In my mind if God did exist then it would be so vast and alien an entity that it wouldn't care a damn if a few billion monkeys believed in it.

Believing that the universe was created for us is so supremely arrogant and self aggrandizing that it beggars belief in and of itself.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why is it that on every forum I go to, there is a discussion between evolutionists and creationists going on? Why do people always feel the need to bring this topic up again?
And as an extension of that subject: Why do atheists feel the need to disprove the existence of a god so much and why do theists always keep responding to that?
It is not as if their arguments ever change or there suddenly is evidence for or against the existence of a god. It always feels like I am reading the same discussions over and over again.

Why can't both sides just accept that science and religion are not one and the same thing, do not serve the same purposes and are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that evolution, at least micro-evolution has been proven (and macro-evolution to a lesser extent as well but that aside) does not discredit any religion.
The amount of theists making ill-informed claims about evolution and atheism,
and the amount of atheists making ill-informed claims about religion and christianity is just painful.
Why can't people just accept they are wrong and that agnosticism is the only correct path?

That creationists push their beliefs into education and try to undermine evolution science teaching by various means, is an issue. Education is a serious thing, children deserve a good education based on facts and not pandering to the whims of certain religions however loudly certain of their number will cry. Evolution theory is based on observable fact, creationism isn't, it's a dogmatic religious belief that twists and undermines genuine scientific evidence to create confusion where there need not be. Look at a creationist website, and you will see fallacies and outright lies to misrepresent evolution and its standing regarding creation, this is what they try to bring into the classroom, and frankly everywhere else they can, into museums and on TV. Time and again we have to defend against the 'evolution theory is only a theory' argument that so many creationists spout to purposefully mislead people. Creationists constantly play the victim card, seemingly forgetting that they don't represent a scientific argument and thus don't belong in a science class, just as people who believe in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system/universe.

Creationism against evolution isn't the same as theism against atheism, you're conflating the two. People opposing creationists are not atheists bashing on theists/religion. There is some overlap, because evolution theory does not include god in its working mechanisms. It doesn't say god specifically does not exist, but it does show that god isn't required in the natural world for this purpose. Some theists can't accept this and try to crowbar God in, somehow he's 'pulling the strings' behind evolution. Well that isn't evolution, if you think god is manipulating it then you don't believe in evolutionary theory, because the science of evolutionary theory excludes the need for god as it is internally logical and stands up on it own to work, it doesn't need some secret power underlying it to make it work. But even entirely excluding god from evolutionary theory doesn't mean god doesn't exist, and theists can believe in god and have an academically honest belief in true evolutionary theory as it stands. But some theists are particularly threatened by evolutionary theory because it means god wasn't needed for everything in the world, and some theists are creationists; who lie on a spectrum between so called 'Intelligent Design' and outright six day creationism.

You point out people making 'ill-informed claims about religion and christianity', but in this you point out another issue. Why single out christianity? Why should any debate about creation and placing it as a valid alternative to evolution always assume the christian model of creation is the correct theistic one? Seeing as we are attempting to elevate a non-science to the level of a science, we could do the same for any religion, or any wacky belief pulled from anywhere, they're all based on the same lac of evidence. The only reason that christianity is the creationism pushed most regularly in the West is because it's the most popular of religions, not because it makes any sort of evidence based argument. And that just shows that the underlying argument for creationism being taught anywhere is just a popularity contest, it's just because lots of people believe it, not because it has merit in itself. If everyone believed in 4000 year old egyptian religion, there would be an entirely different creationism myth being used to argue against evolutionary theory. It doesn't make that creation myth any more right because now lots of people believe that instead of christianity, but evolutionary theory would be standing on exactly the same facts and evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You are wrong there. The exact definition of 'atheist' is: "one who believes that there is no deity " or "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Which is pretty much the same as saying "since there is no evidence for the existance of god(s), there is no god(s)".

There is a huge difference between those two statements. The fact that there is no evidence for something does not automatically mean that said thing does not exist.
Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

Generally you assume a negative in the face of a lack of evidence for something. You don't imagine all manner of fictitious things and claim they exist simply because it cannot be demonstrated completely that they don't exist. Contrary to some feeble interpretations of probability, the odds of something actually existing is not 50:50 because the two outcomes are either it does, or it doesn't. Without looking out the window I can't tell if a pink elephant if flying around outside, but that doesn't make it right to presume there is one simply because I can't see outside to be sure.

Well atleast I think that most people based on what I have seen arguing in these Christianity vs. Atheists are trolls. (Though probably not in dakka.) Also I do not understand why people think you cant believe in both and for a final note I think it is quite funny how in a way they resemble each other, for example both say that fishes exsisted before humans.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is a huge difference between those two statements. The fact that there is no evidence for something does not automatically mean that said thing does not exist.

I would say there is not. The probability of there being something given a lack of evidence for its existance makes the assumption of there being nothing fairlt reasonable. Besides, the default assumption of any dicussion is that there is nothing. Any claim otherwise must present evidence to support itself. There is no evidence to suggest a teapot in space that controls the universe - that does not mean it is unreasonable to conisder such a thing not to exist... anyone suggesting it does would have to provide evidence to back up their claim. Why is religion excepted from this?

Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

I say there is no god as described by any of the main religions because it is quite easy to show just from looking at their texts that the utterly contradictory nature and activities of the god(s) they describe demonstrate it before you even get to any lack of evidence for said gods. However, even with that aside, the probability of gods existing is cose enough to nil that I can discount it.

And the reason for that is as I said - the default position in any investigation is to assume there is nothing. That is not ignorance, that is scientific method. When you have sufficient evidence to prove (or even indicate) otherwise, that is when you start to confirm your hypothesis.

 Formosa wrote:
Believe it or don't believe it who cares, evolution is a fact, God is not, if it ever is a fact then great add it to the list of things that don't require your belief to be true.. Like gravity or light.

In my mind if God did exist then it would be so vast and alien an entity that it wouldn't care a damn if a few billion monkeys believed in it.

Believing that the universe was created for us is so supremely arrogant and self aggrandizing that it beggars belief in and of itself.

Evolution is generally regarded as a scientific theory, for which there appears to be very strong evidence in favor of. Maybe all my scientific fact is out of date by 100 years or so, but last time I checked, it's no less theory than gravity.

Creationism, or "Intelligent" design, is not a theory. There is no observable or reproducible measurements we can perform to judge its accuracy. It's all based upon the idea that the word of men being translated and reinterpreted over hundreds of years still being accurate to the original material, for which we have no means of verifying accuracy to begin with, as I can't prove you god is fake anymore than you can prove it is real.

The argument seems to stem from the fact that some people are terrified of the concept of teaching mythology and hearsay in science classes in schools.

The truth of the matter is that no one really has all the answers, but you're doing a lot more damage to humanity to teach young people to stick their heads in the sand instead of asking questions.

I've found only certain . . . kinds (lol) of people 'argue' about evolution, most people who can actually think for themselves have accepted all the scientific proof as, well, fact.

I was raised Catholic, but my Catholic school also taught evolution in science class. So how is a generation being taught both concepts supposed to pick a side? Very bizarre. In the end, we have incredible scientific proof of evolution, and then just this one book about our religion which is VERY dated and full of outrageous metaphorical and proverbial stories and then we are told to take certain ones as literal. When faced with these two options, in my opinion, it's easy to see which is the correct one.

I'm sort of ruthlessly in favour of it. Let the populations who reject evolution see how they get by in a world that will increasingly be ruled by an understanding of biology.

Good luck with emergent diseases and various other consequences without an appropriately educated population. I look forward to the hilariously/tragic consequences of the wilful ignorance.

The truth will eventually win.

I noticed going through college that if someone says they are christian or apart of another religion they are all of a sudden surrounded by people ripping into them about it. I never see it happening the other way around. I have seen it get nasty too and i can see why. The kind of things people put up with to be christian is pretty tough when it comes to schools and so on. Overall i think that most creationists feel a bit cornered when it comes to admitting their beleifs. For example there is a doctor in my area that left britain to work here in NZ (he is a great doctor too, dont talk to him about blood because he can talk for hours on the subject) because of the way people treated a christain doctor. Apparently people told him he was too smart to be a christian and so on (to put it nicely). So i can see why it gets heated as (especially on forums etc) because creationists are out numbered. They say something then instantly they have like 8 people ripping into them.

Its not because atheists are bad or anything, but being an atheist is about debating to work things out. Scientists, historians (especially them, i had a lot to do with them whilst studying history) politicians and so on all debate. Its how they work things out. Debating brings out the worst in people and frequently ends up in heated argument (parliment TV...) especially when its going nowhere. Add internet to the equasion and bam you got the worst of everybody involved. If you sat them all in a room they'd probably be eating biscuits and drinking coffee together and end up changing the topic.

Its easy to say mean things on the internet and thats exactly what you see on forum debates.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is a huge difference between those two statements. The fact that there is no evidence for something does not automatically mean that said thing does not exist.

I would say there is not. The probability of there being something given a lack of evidence for its existance makes the assumption of there being nothing fairly reasonable. Besides, the default assumption of any dicussion is that there is nothing. Any claim otherwise must present evidence to support itself. There is no evidence to suggest a teapot in space that controls the universe - that does not mean it is unreasonable to conisder such a thing not to exist... anyone suggesting it does would have to provide evidence to back up their claim. Why is religion excepted from this?

Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

I say there is no god as described by any of the main religions because it is quite easy to show just from looking at their texts that the utterly contradictory nature and activities of the god(s) they describe demonstrate it before you even get to any lack of evidence for said gods. However, even with that aside, the probability of gods existing is cose enough to nil that I can discount it.

And the reason for that is as I said - the default position in any investigation is to assume there is nothing. That is not ignorance, that is scientific method. When you have sufficient evidence to prove (or even indicate) otherwise, that is when you start to confirm your hypothesis.

Since nothing can ever be 100% proven, claiming to know 'for sure' whether something does or does not exists is always ignorant, no matter the 'evidence'. Everything we humans perceive always is subjective. The 'truth' if something like that even exists, is unknowable. Everything must always be doubted, no matter how sure it may seem. That is one of the basic principles of philosophy.
For all we know, a teapot in space may actually be controlling the universe. For all we know, I may not even exist, and you are just reading this in a dream.
For all we know, the universe just exists in a giant snowglobe on some being's shelf. We don't know, and we shall never know. Truth is unknowable and therefore making definite statements in regards to such uncertain, abstract ideas as 'god' should be refrained from. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

 PrehistoricUFO wrote:
I've found only certain . . . kinds (lol) of people 'argue' about evolution, most people who can actually think for themselves have accepted all the scientific proof as, well, fact.

I was raised Catholic, but my Catholic school also taught evolution in science class. So how is a generation being taught both concepts supposed to pick a side? Very bizarre. In the end, we have incredible scientific proof of evolution, and then just this one book about our religion which is VERY dated and full of outrageous metaphorical and proverbial stories and then we are told to take certain ones as literal. When faced with these two options, in my opinion, it's easy to see which is the correct one.

The same is true for me. I went to an extremely strict, orthodox calvinist school. But still we were taught evolution in science classes. They let us choose for ourselves what we wanted to believe.
And I can not see how that couldn't be the same in other countries. Why teach only about evolution or creationism? Teach evolution in science classes and teach creationism in religion classes.
And do not forget to give all kids compulsory philosophy classes.
People need to stop being ignorant, and in that regard, evolutionists are sometimes just as bad as creationists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Since nothing can ever be 100% proven, claiming to know 'for sure' whether something does or does not exists is always ignorant, no matter the 'evidence'. Everything we humans perceive always is subjective. The 'truth' if something like that even exists, is unknowable. Everything must always be doubted, no matter how sure it may seem. That is one of the basic principles of philosophy.

There is a clear distinction between philosophy and science. For example the concept of reasonable doubt and the boundaries of probability (such as the P99 and P95 levels of confidance).

For all we know, a teapot in space may actually be controlling the universe. For all we know, I may not even exist, and you are just reading this in a dream.
For all we know, the universe just exists in a giant snowglobe on some being's shelf. We don't know, and we shall never know. Truth is unknowable and therefore making definite statements in regards to such uncertain, abstract ideas as 'god' should be refrained from. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

So, why get annoyed about people postig things on a forum if it is all a lot of rubbish you have made up in your head?

Why even get up in the morning (assuming that you perceive mornings anyway )?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Since nothing can ever be 100% proven, claiming to know 'for sure' whether something does or does not exists is always ignorant, no matter the 'evidence'. Everything we humans perceive always is subjective. The 'truth' if something like that even exists, is unknowable. Everything must always be doubted, no matter how sure it may seem. That is one of the basic principles of philosophy.

There is a clear distinction between philosophy and science. For example the concept of reasonable doubt and the boundaries of probability (such as the P99 and P95 levels of confidance).

For all we know, a teapot in space may actually be controlling the universe. For all we know, I may not even exist, and you are just reading this in a dream.
For all we know, the universe just exists in a giant snowglobe on some being's shelf. We don't know, and we shall never know. Truth is unknowable and therefore making definite statements in regards to such uncertain, abstract ideas as 'god' should be refrained from. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

So, why get annoyed about people postig things on a forum if it is all a lot of rubbish you have made up in your head?

Why even get up in the morning (assuming that you perceive mornings anyway )?

Well? Why get up? Probably to go to my school which may in fact be completely imaginary. But I am unable to know whether it is or not, so best go there anyways right?

And there is no distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophy is everywhere, and without it, there would be no science in the first place. There is even a whole area of philosophy dedicated to science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I noticed going through college that if someone says they are christian or apart of another religion they are all of a sudden surrounded by people ripping into them about it. I never see it happening the other way around. I have seen it get nasty too and i can see why. The kind of things people put up with to be christian is pretty tough when it comes to schools and so on. Overall i think that most creationists feel a bit cornered when it comes to admitting their beleifs. For example there is a doctor in my area that left britain to work here in NZ (he is a great doctor too, dont talk to him about blood because he can talk for hours on the subject) because of the way people treated a christain doctor. Apparently people told him he was too smart to be a christian and so on (to put it nicely). So i can see why it gets heated as (especially on forums etc) because creationists are out numbered. They say something then instantly they have like 8 people ripping into them.

Isn't that one of the main things in christianity? That christians have to suffer and stand outside of 'normal' society to find God? It is referenced quite a few times in the New Testament.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why is it that on every forum I go to, there is a discussion between evolutionists and creationists going on?

Because someone always opens a new one as soon as the old one is locked.

This has been your ironic self-awareness check of the day, dude.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well? Why get up? Probably to go to my school which may in fact be completely imaginary. But I am unable to know whether it is or not, so best go there anyways right?

So, you ascribe to the belief that it is best to go along with the reality of the delusion?

And there is no distinction between philosophy and science. Philosophy is everywhere, and without it, there would be no science in the first place. There is even a whole area of philosophy dedicated to science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science.

As a scientist, I draw quite a large distinction between science and philosophy. In the same way that I draw quite a large distinction between chemistry and alchemy and astrology and astronomy, for a couple of examples.

Science is a branch of philosophy. But the argument that "OMG we can never KNOW anything, science is all lies!" is extremely immature. No scientist really claims to know something 100%. People who misinterpret what science is do that. In reality, science represents our best current understanding of the world, subject to change.

That doesn't mean we can't be pretty damn sure of something, and ask for evidence for counterarguments.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well? Why get up? Probably to go to my school which may in fact be completely imaginary. But I am unable to know whether it is or not, so best go there anyways right?

So, you ascribe to the belief that it is best to go along with the reality of the delusion?

for the full 100% We can not know what is real and what not, so best go along with what 'seems' to be the most real, right?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That creationists push their beliefs into education and try to undermine evolution science teaching by various means, is an issue. Education is a serious thing, children deserve a good education based on facts and not pandering to the whims of certain religions however loudly certain of their number will cry. Evolution theory is based on observable fact, creationism isn't, it's a dogmatic religious belief that twists and undermines genuine scientific evidence to create confusion where there need not be. Look at a creationist website, and you will see fallacies and outright lies to misrepresent evolution and its standing regarding creation, this is what they try to bring into the classroom, and frankly everywhere else they can, into museums and on TV. Time and again we have to defend against the 'evolution theory is only a theory' argument that so many creationists spout to purposefully mislead people. Creationists constantly play the victim card, seemingly forgetting that they don't represent a scientific argument and thus don't belong in a science class, just as people who believe in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system/universe.

So, the only reason that these kind of threads constantly spring up is because evolutionists are pissed that some schools only teach creationism? An interesting topic for discussion, but I still fail to see why it should get repeated 1000 times over.
Also, I do not say evolutionism=atheims, but I was trying to say that a lot of evolution vs creation threads boil down to atheists vs theists or 'let's all bash religion', which I really dislike. A good discussion about evolution is nice, but the discussions are usually horribly bad.