There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for creationism

58 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
thank you so much! i love

thank you so much! i love writing, and my theory is, it's all in the adjectives. just like writing effective pornography, adjectives flesh out the scene.

i hadn't written for over a decade, at least -- my bipolar medications were stultifying my mental capacity. once i figured out the offending prescriptions, i eliminated them. the others still work, so it's all good. but my mind has been freed, and my writing has been the beneficiary. i have the government to thank for this "miracle" -- they cut off my health insurance, and i had to go a month or so without refills. running out of the offending medications was the best side-effect in the world!

truthfully, i take notes from me, too. they often lead to further essays.

Sheldon's picture
Thank you for that, I haven't

Thank you for that, I haven't seen anyone cite the Dunning Kruger effect on here yet, and I was thinking on exactly the same lines. To be honest it's clear to any halfway objective reader that the guy is way out of his depth here, that's why I've tried to keep the rebuttals as simple as I can for him. The fact he can demonstrate no objective evidence for his belief, and endlessly uses common logical fallacies in his arguments says it all really. It's ironic he chose to go down the ad hominem route of course, but even more ironic he chose to start throwing insults like ignorance at people, and arrogance since his posts have been fairly arrogant from the start, he clearly doesn't see it though.

bigbill's picture
Why don`t you address the

Why don`t you address the subject at hand that I posed to Sheldon If there is no god then how did man and women come into being, with all there qualities? You studied my post on this forum and the best you can come up with is my method of communicating my arguments here!!!!!!. You outlined in great detail what you perceive are errors in my thinking, But you didn`t and failed to address the subject matter at hand .Science has no answer to my question and so neither do you.

Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
your initial mistake is in

your initial mistake is in your flat statement that "Science has no answer" -- insofar as the assertion goes, you're correct. however, the declaration should properly be concluded with the word "yet." Science functions over Time, because it requires Thought. Religion ... doesn't -- "as it ever was, it is, and it shall ever be," or some nonsense like that. the Answer is considered both the beginning and the end. you make a logical error by excluding Time as a function of critical thought and problem-solving.

as i am not a scientist, i would defer to ALL the scientific data and theories -- "scientific theories," not "just theories" -- in the world's data storage outlets, from libraries to clouds; to infinity and beyond! the religious tactic -- forcing Science supporters to regurgitate facts ad nauseam, ad infinitum, ... well, THIS Homey don't play that. i'm not qualified, as a non-scientist. further, i have no problem admitting my lack of knowledge of a specific topic. there is so much to be known, my poor little brain's capacity is not limitless (but, boy, would i LOVE the drug in that film!). i have to rely on man-made techniques to call relevant data to my fingertips. to be able to call relevant data, i must first educate myself on what are the facts relevant to a particular topic.

i get my facts the same way you can get them, should you really WANT facts -- by research, study, reading, thinking, reaching out to experts and asking questions ONCE I'VE LEARNED ENOUGH TO ASK INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS -- did you learn the proper methods of effective research during your school days? these days, it's not a given; you have to ask.

in conclusion, Science has innumerable answers to various iterations of your not-really-simple question -- Where do we come from? one answer is ... stardust. yup, we're made of the stuff of exploded stars. i learned that bit of astrophysics when i read "The Secret Life of Dust: From the Cosmos to the Kitchen Counter, the Big Consequences of Little Things" by Hannah Holmes (2001), i highly recommend it -- yes, the non-existent Adam was made of dust; so was everything in the universe as it turns out. reading this book will tell you WAY more about dust than your sad excuse for a reference text ever does.

Sheldon's picture
"as the physicist Richard

"as the physicist Richard Feynman said, "Give me questions I cannot answer, not answers I cannot question.""

Brilliant, thank you for that, I may use that myself in the future.

Since creationists love making arguments from ignorance, and smugly claiming gotcha when people have the intellectual integrity to say I don't know, can Billy please demonstrate objective evidence that shows where god came from, and how? I suspect we will now see the hypocritical double standard of apologists like Lane Craig, where their god claim is not subject to the same standards of evidence as everything else.

Billy however has just sunk to a new low, with his odious remarks about the late Christopher Hitchens and his death from cancer being "deserved". I encourage him to post a retraction, and an apology, lest we are forced to conclude he is devoid of both compassion and integrity in equal measure. Then of course we would have little choice but to view his grandiose claims for moral objectivity on behalf of his religion in light of that despicable claim.

Sheldon's picture
"In the torah the first book

"In the torah the first book of the bible explicitly states that God made man from the dust of the ground Then woman followed and God saw at first that man was alone and so he formed woman. Simple as that; "

It's also completely wrong, as we know for a scientific fact supported by a mass of evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt that humans, like all living things, evolved slowly, and have common ancestry. Just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true, it must have objective evidence for this, as science has for evolution.

"Why do you atheist have to make what is so simple to outright hard and complex ."

This has nothing to do with atheism, and it's extremely dishonest to keep making this mendacious claim after it has been explained to you many times. Science has evidence evolution, atheism had nothing to do with that process.

".I t is right there in Genesis the whole creation story. "

Just as there is magic and wizardry in Harry Potter, that doesn't make it real.

"As for you Mate Sheldon you are ignorant and at times arrogant."

Both true on occasion, but this is pure ad hominem, and nothing to do with the discussion or anything I have posted. Also is there any particular reason you have used a capital letter in the middle of a sentence where you're calling someone else ignorant?

"That`s why great Britain has the kind of problems it does, Is because Liberals like you. Who is destroying what was once a great Country into shreds."

No it isn't, and no it''s not, and country doesn't get a capital c in the middle of a sentence genius. Hitchens's razor applied slash.

"As for you Mate Sheldon you are** ignorant** and at times arrogant."

"That`s why great Britain " ******Capital G for a noun.
"problems it does, Is because " ******No capital required after a comma.
"because Liberals like you. Who is destroying" ******That's are destroying since you used Liberals as a plural..
"because Liberals like you. Who is destroying" ******That should be a comma between you and who.
" Internally your descending" ******Your is not an abbreviation of you are.

I'd seriously lay off the ad hominem if I were you Billy, as you're in no position to call anyone ignorant. Though for the record I'll happily admit I have a middling intellect, and a fairly mediocre formal education. I have also never claimed to be a Liberal.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon " In the Torah"

@ Sheldon " In the Torah"
Ouch, I feel that burn....

" edited to get ice water for Billy"

Sheldon's picture
Sadly I fear he like most

Sadly I fear he like most religious apologists, he is irony impaired. Facts tend to bead up and roll off as well. Still, he's more honest than Breezy, he does at least answer you when you point out the erroneous nature of his claims, and unlike Breezy of course he couldn't easily be accused of ignoring the facts as much as he appears to be entirely unaware of them, or what they mean for his claims. By comparison Breezy starting half a dozen threads entitled slavery, claiming the bible prohibits it, but refusing to even acknowledge the parts that emphatically endorse it is palpably dishonest. As were his endlessly dishonest refusals to answer any questions that didn't directly apply to the passages he had cherry picked to "prove" his point.

Or Breezy starting a thread with a loaded question on morality aimed at atheists, then proclaiming loudly his own theism is irrelevant to this, then why single out atheists one wonders, is again palpably dishonest. Especially when he then tap dances his way through the thread refusing again to answer any salient questions on the obvious implication of his claim about atheism's subjective morality, so by implication theism possesses objective morals. Again his reticence when questioned is self evidently dishonest. I could go on of course but I think enough people have called him on dishonest posts by now.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Spot on.

Spot on.

Sapporo's picture
I haven't seen anyone other

@faith in God follower
I haven't seen anyone other than you claim that something came from nothing - you seem to think a true act of creation (rather than a transformation of matter) is possible.

algebe's picture
@faith in god" change my

@faith in god" change my thinking

What you're doing isn't thinking.

Where did Man And Women come from?

Men are from Mars. Women are from Venus.

Tin-Man's picture
@FIG Re: "Well I was

@FIG Re: "Well I was created in the image of God."

Soooooo.... Just to be clear, you are saying God is a wishy-washy, indecisive, temper-tantrum throwing, narrow-minded, ill-behaved child in the middle of an identity crisis?...... COOL! Thanks for clearing that up for everybody.

Sheldon's picture
"Well I was created in the

"Well I was created in the image of God. "

No you weren't, Hitchens's razor slash.

"are you really going to sit there and tell me this all came from nothing into something ."

No, that's still a straw man argument no matter how often you rehash the lie. It's also an appeal to ignorance since not knowing everything about how the universe was formed does not justify assuming magic was used by a deity from a bronze age superstition.

"Where did Man And Women come from? "

They're born of course after sexual intercourse results in a woman conceiving.
"If you can or anybody else on this op forum satisfactorily convince me you know how with all there differences that man and women came into being then maybe then I`ll change my thinking."

That's gibberish sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say.If it's meant to be a question it should also end with a question mark. As for changing your thinking, I'm sorry to cause offence but nothing you have posted suggests you are thinking at all, just regurgitating religious apologetics you don't understand.

Edit: It's their differences Billy, not there (sic) differences, dear oh dear.

bigbill's picture
Sheldon I see you have no

Sheldon I see you have no answer for man nor womens arrival on this planet. You keep side stepping the issue. That`s because as you have shown repeatedly on this op forum you have no answer but to say as I an countless others "In The Beginning God" created the heavens and the Earth and Man And Women. Also why are you an admirer of Christopher Hitchens, He lost every debate he had with William Lane Craig Especially the debate at Biola University. He didn`t even get to the podium to respond to Craig at the end he skipped his final rebuttal. If he was so knowledgeable on the subject matter why toss in the towel? He received the kind of result health wise that he deserved. A Vulgar hating Atheist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
"Sheldon I see you have no

"Sheldon I see you have no answer for man nor womens arrival on this planet" but you have not answered Sheldon or myself regarding the contradictions in your own accounts of this alleged creation.

Do you not have access to the three traditional Torah? Two of which mention Lillith?

The rest of your post ,as usual, is just silly. Opinion, falsification and ridiculous hyperbole.

Sheldon's picture
"Sheldon I see you have no

"Sheldon I see you have no answer for man nor womens arrival on this planet."

Billy, I see you're still lying shamelessly, as I just said they are born after sexual intercourse, and conception.

"You keep side stepping the issue."

Eu contraire, I answer you candidly each time, as I have told you every single time, you are using a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, and I encourage you to research this and what it means for any arguments based on such a fallacy. Homo Sapiens evolved slowly over time, speciation is a scientific fact, and again I encourage you to research the evidence from science if you doubt this. However even if we had no idea, or in the extremely unlikely event species evolution were falsified entirely tomorrow, this still doesn't evidence the superstitious creation myths you keep espousing.

"Also why are you an admirer of Christopher Hitchens, He lost every debate he had with William Lane Craig Especially the debate at Biola University."

I am an admirer of his skill as an author, and his skill as an orator. William lane Craig has never won a debate I've seen, like you he bases his assumptions on superstition and logical fallacy. Though unlike you I think he really ought to know better, and is being thoroughly dishonest. However please feel free to give us the gist of any arguments you think WLC has offered that you think are valid, and we can address them, otherwise all you have done is offer an opinion without any substantive reasoning for it.

"He received the kind of result health wise that he deserved. "

How very "christian" of you, Billy. Do you think making such odious remarks impresses those who don't share your absurd superstitious beliefs? If so then I am happy to disavow you of that idea right now. Though sadly such ad hominem attacks are what I have come to expect from the superstitious when their beliefs are subjected to any critical thinking.

Now since like Breezy you seem blinkered to questions, perhaps you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you, namely what objective evidence have you for the existence of a deity?

Sheldon's picture
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 01:29

Sun, 02/04/2018 - 01:29 (Reply to #35)Permalink

Billy "Where did Man And Women come from? "

They're born of course after sexual intercourse results in a woman conceiving.
Sun, 02/04/2018 - 04:36
"Sheldon I see you have no answer for man nor womens arrival on this planet."

Oh dear Billy. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive....please note I have placed them in the correct chronological order with the times of the posts included.

algebe's picture
@faith in god: He received

@faith in god: He received the kind of result health wise that he deserved.

What a vile thing to say.

Tin-Man's picture
@FIG Re: "A Vulgar hating

@FIG Re: "A Vulgar hating Atheist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Thankfully, not as close this time. You were about three or four exclamation marks short of making me believe this one. Nice try, though.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
all of 'this' came from the

all of 'this' came from the very universe that we are but a tiny insignificant speck within.
you say something cannot come from nothing, and yet your 'god' brings about all of the cosmos from nothing.

this is my field of study and there is absolutely nothing within astronomy nor physics that require any deity,
actually it appears that everything we know of has a naturalistic reason/cause and so on.

also, in physics there are two leading theories in which the precursor to the big bang was a dense hot state in which virtual particles can be documented to appear to blink in and out of existence, some would say this proves something can spontaneously appear.
however I would state that from what is seen, tested and predicted, electrons are in a superposition which would certainly support an eternal universe and/or many worlds theory.

either of which has far more evidence and data to support it then any god/creation myth.

and for the record, William lane craig is woeful and regularly got defeated by Christopher hitchens, but the hammer blow was his debate with sean carroll who simple tore him and his very thin grasp of the sciences apart.

Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
thanks for that

thanks for that recommendation -- i enjoy seeing wlcraig torn apart. i don't recall seeing sean carroll; i'll have to find that. so glad to see a real live scientist here. the faithists, while few, are frustrating as hell.


Attach Image/Video?: 

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
Please do watch it indeed, it

Please do watch it indeed, it is easy to find on youtube, William lane Craig vs Sean Carroll.
And Sean really holds back from doing serious damage, but at the same time he easily deconstruct Craig's argument with an ease I have yet to see others do.

Thank you, I try to come on here and a few other forums when I can.
I did this mostly because I really dislike the 'god of the gaps', creation and causal beginning arguments put forward by theists.
The arguments are truly ridiculous, however I have no issue with what people wish to believe, I just ask they don't lie in order to support their narrative.

Hollis Evon Ramsey's picture
i've already got it cued up.

i've already got it cued up. it's almost 1:30 pm and i've been awake since the Super Bowl started, so i think it's time for my nap! there's my Progressive news programs, and then i can settle in with some coffee and a nice debate to chew on ;-). theists have no respect for words, except as weapons -- have you noticed that? their holey bible is really a loaded weapon, IMO. they try to get atheists to repeat themselves ad nauseam, just to fuck with us, i think. i used to watch the Wayans bros.' In Living Color, and i picked up a catchphrase from Homey the Clown: this Homey don't play that.

LucyAustralopithecus's picture
I hope you enjoy your nap, it

I hope you enjoy your nap, it sounds though you have earned it :D

When it comes to the sciences, Theists heavily cherry pick arguments to support their claims or simply get it wrong.
I have seen many on here make ridiculous claims which to them look fine, but under the scope of sciences is just silly and baseless.
One of my favourites was that of creationists stating Darwin said the eye coming from natural selection was absurd, but happily leave out the context and the rest of what he says, where he explains exactly how it does in fact happen.

The same happens within the universe, they claim the big bang was the beginning of everything (which it wasn't) and that as its originally came from nothing (which it didn't) then a creator must have been necessary (which is certainly does not).

The funny thing is at one talk I was present at, I was approached with these statements and I simply asked the person in question "how many planets in our system have rings" to which he replied, "one, Saturn!" that was enough for me to realise that most have never even looked through a telescope or studied our insignificant speck in the cosmos, let alone astrophysics, general relativity or quantum mechanics.

David Killens's picture
Well I was created in the

Well I was created in the image of God. So therefore GOD is the Creator.

That is an interesting statement. I assume you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. If so, why did this god require eyes? I mean, this deity was around first, then decided to make light. It's all right there in your book. And if your eyes are identical to your god, then your god is incredibly imperfect. Compared to other animals (my favorite the mantis shrimp), human eyes are very low quality.

Can you explain your creationism position on this paradox? Because cosmology and evolution do offer rational explanations why our eyes are the way they are.

As far as "came into being", nothing came from nothing. You are attempting to steer everyone down that rabbit hole of "everything has a purpose, everything was created by something". Everything we witness and understand came from something else. My body is repurposed star matter. And the same with this universe. Scientists do not assert that before the big expansion there was nothing, they honestly admit they don't know.

For me it comes down to deciding between two sources. One is barbaric tribesmen with zero scientific knowledge making up tales, the other the accumulated work of generations of intelligent, dedicated, and rational people.

Sapporo's picture
How is babby Jesus formed?

How is babby Jesus formed? How Mary get pragnent?

Sheldon's picture
Sadly Billy's ineptitude

Sadly Billy's ineptitude knows no limits so far, and extends to his (in) ability to frame a cogent question. I suspect he means to ask how did speciation produced separate sexes from single celled organisms that use parthenogenesis? He need not have included humans in his questions at all.

I suspect he is again regurgitating what he thinks is a compelling creationist objection to evolution, he's wrong of course, and one can turn on any news channel to see that. However here is an article offering an explanation of the evolution of sexual reproduction, if he wants anything more substantive he can research it himself from the wealth of scientific evidence.

more here


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.