The most common is the former (read comments from Barb, Kristen, Tabitha, and Jaime). These are your everyday god-fearing Christians. Usually, they are well-meaning, but misguided in their attempts to inject their own brand of Christianity into public schools. Their fear of evolution is misplaced because of their shallow understanding of science. Their leaders, who are also usually the former type of Creationist, tell them that evolution = atheism and that's all they need to hear in order to reject it. So where does this misplaced fear and confusion come from?
That would be these guys. The latter group, or as I call them, the 9th Commandment breaking Creationists. Not to say that these guys aren't also ignorant of evolution. No, they are still breathtakingly ignorant to a spectacular degree. Their problem is willful ignorance. They make their arguments on scientific grounds, and have been doing so since the release of Darwin's book. Even though every one of their arguments have been thoroughly shot down by the scientific community, they still trot the same old silly assertions nonetheless. Now, if they know the argument is bad, they're lying, and if they think the argument is good but have willfully ignored the scientific response, they're still lying.
To all Creationists reading this post. If you have an objection to evolution and you want to wave it in the face of some godless heathen, please go to Talk Origins in order to see how your argument totally got served by scientists decades ago. If by some miracle your argument is original, then by all means, have at it.
I absolutely loathe the latter group of Creationists. In a debate, there's nothing more vile than a liar. Each simple lie takes ten times as long to debunk, and the people I listed above are known for throwing lies around with wild abandon. I don't have a problem personally with the Creationists who don't know any better, I just despise the fact of life that most humans are lazy and refuse to see what evidence the opposing side has to offer. This brings me to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They are the former Creationists.
But I just can NOT stand Comfort and Cameron. Judging from their arguments, there's no possible way either of Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Retard have cracked even one book on evolution. I doubt they've even seen a pamphlet on it! What pisses me off is a combination of their arrogance with which they present their bafflingly inane arguments, and their steadfast refusal to learn a single damn thing about the subject.
The $10,000 Offer
A transitional form (or missing link) is an example of one species "evolving" into another species. Excited scientists thought they had found one when they discovered "Archaeopteryx." The fossil led to the theory that the dinosaurs did not become extinct, but rather all turned into birds. The Field Museum in Chicago displayed what was believed to be an archaeopteryx fossil on October 4-19, 1997. It was hailed as "Archaeopteryx: The Bird That Rocked the World." However, Dr. Alan Feduccia (evolutionary biologist at the University of North Carolina), said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleo-babble' is going to change that." [Science, February 5, 1993]. So here's my challenge: I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even as Archaeopteryx--a dinosaur that produced a bird). Species do not cross, no matter how long you leave them. The whole of creation is proof that evolution is truly "a fairytale for grownups."
Let's keep in mind here that Dr. Feduccia still believes in evolution. His only view (one that resides in the extreme minority) is that birds are descended from archosaurs (which includes dinosaurs), but not dinosaurs directly. So let's get all C.S. Lewis on Ray's ass and ask this question: You took an evolutionary biologist's quote out of context in order to support a view that he himself does not agree with - was that out of ignorance, or are you a liar?
That was the first of Ray's/Kirk's arguments that I actually had to research, so kudos to them. But now, on to the stupidity.
The way he and his growing pain Kirk talk about transitional fossils, you'd think it was a quick, one-step process. A lizard "produces" a bird, a dog "produces" kittens, a sheep "produces" chickens. Just typing those hypotheticals out almost caused blood to shoot out of my nose. I can't even begin to point out all the incredibly idiotic things packed into Ray's challenge. First of all, a transitional fossil is not necessarily a direct link between two separate species. Most transitional fossils (and yes, there are many) have hundreds to thousands of generations between it's ancestor and descendant, plus a transitional fossil isn't necessarily even a direct descendant from the previous form. The transitional fossil simply has features of both the species before and after it.
What's more, anything that ever lived is a transitional form. Everything is evolving, which means everything will eventually look different than what it looks like now, just like everything now looks different than what it used to be. Humans are a transitional form between ape-like creatures and skinny, hairless, giant-headed beings with telepathic powers!
The last ridiculous assertion by Camfort Co. is "Species do not cross, no matter how long you leave them." Again, this is proof positive that these two numbnuts haven't even bothered to read a single word about what evolution actually says. Is this a sign of intellectual laziness? Willfull ignorance? Arrogance stemming from their own beliefs? All of the above? You betcha. Listen, morons, a new species arises out of hundreds of generations of beneficial mutations, not by sheeps humping chickens.
Why do these two enrage me so much? They admittedly belong to the first group of Creationists, the one I don't usually have a problem with. I don't think they belong in the second group because anyone who makes arguments that stupid about evolution couldn't possibly be intentionally misrepresenting it. They are just plain ignorant of science. I think what gets to me is that these guys are popular. That means their flock of sheep will blindly and happily lap up every single ridiculous thing they say without question. That creates more work for schools and universities, not to mention sacrificing the population of potential scientists to the altar of ignorance. These guys do serious damage to intelligence, and that pisses me off.