Theists And Evolution

Creationists come up with all sorts of stuff.

I have been told by one that something had to exist before the Big Bang. We haven’t an idea what exactly was if anything was before the Big Bang. But creationists like one on YouTube thinks it had to have a cause, if he argues anymore what is a good thing to tell him?

Ask them why it [must] have a cause?

1 Like

He posts a reply I will. He is unpredictable when he’ll actually post. He was posting so much in a day it is not even funny.

He also thinks the official investigation is only a theory and a lie on 9/11. He’s an idiot. Doesn’t have the balls to come here even when invited.

So they are a conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should consider why you care about what some nutjob thinks.


One of the reasons is to see the stupid shit he comes up with.

Another-one would definitely be to keep gullible people from believing in the theorist lies and myths.

Third is I guess would be entertaining seeing what excuses they make up for not posting any evidence.

As for the main subject he is so sure that we were created by a creator it is not even funny. To the point he thinks fossils are not evidence of evolution. He so much believes that some supreme being created us, he seems to ignore any evidence otherwise.

@Least we know what evidence exists for a god, or lack of to be more precise. If a god were to exist we will find that out at death. But so far there’s not enough evidence of this… I can not imagine living forever in some heaven, what the fu** would I do with myself?

So I wait to see what crazy stuff he comes up with next.

There is nothing at all wrong with “We don’t know.” Anything at all beyond that assertion requires evidence. Inserting a God prior to the Big Bang is a “God of the Gaps” fallacy. Anyone can use the exact same logic to insert anything at all into the exact same Gap. Blue universe creating bunnies. Big Yellow Universe Creating Bananas, Eric, The Rainbow Farting Unicorn, Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Ra, etc etc etc… just choose your myth. I’ve always liked monkeys all the way down.


If there had to be something before the big bang, then why didn’t there have to be something before God, and something before that, and something before that? That very argument works against the very faith that the theologian tries to espouse. If something cannot come from nothing, then how did God come to be? Oh, that’s different. God just always was. Circle rhetoric. Needless to say, arguing this with them will not win then over to the secular side, but it’s still a valid point.

Welcome to AR from Sunny South Australia, where it has rained every day for the last week (it’s spring here and not supposed to rain much)

Creationist may claim so, but it is an unsupported claim. As far as I’m aware the best information at present is that there WAS no ‘before’ the Big Bang.

That issue also remains contentious . At this point nobody knows if that is true.

Creationists make a much louder noise than one might expect from their relatively small numbers. They try and often succeed in fomenting public discussion over non issues, or pretend to have answers to unfalsifiable questions.

The claims about the big bang and the origin of the universe are good examples.

Some members here get a bit bored and like to argue with those dickheads. I simply don’t have the patience. My response is something like: " Before you argue about anything else, you will first need to establish that your God exists. This needs to be done with empirical evidence. This is because it is my position that god cannot be argued into or out of existence. IE all claims about god are unfalsifiable. (so far)

If you want to shove the burr a bit further up their arse, ask them to which god they refer----there are vast number of gods worshipped world wide. The Hindus alone have 15 MILLION.

Special Pleading and Ye Ole God of the Gaps… “The Atheist Nightmare” Not because we don’t have a reply, but rather. we are so fucking tired of repeating ourselves that it has become like that fucking tune in our heads that we just can’t turn off.

1 Like

Amen to that you furry little wanker.

1 Like

Listen to Nyarlathotep, you’re never going to dent the disjointed crazy paranoia of such people.

I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. – George Bernard Shaw.

1 Like

So what? He’s denying a scientific fact because it contradicts an archaic religious myth, point and laugh, that’s all such idiocy deserves.

1 Like

Hmm, that seems like an unevidenced assumption to me.

1 Like

I figure death is nothing, with nothing after it.
Just like the blackness I experienced during seizures as I had a few in my life. I had no memory after my body blacked out.

Death is probably the same thing only consciousness never returns. If it does and we are wrong, yeah well.

But yes I agree.

What I meant is that if a deity existed, hypothetically, there is no evidence we would learn this to be true after we die, this is just an unevidenced assumption some religions make.

1 Like

And if a deity were to exist, (Doubtful)… I would ask that so called god why all the other bullshit? Why play so many games with us and just make yourself obvious?

Life may seem short, but at the same time long enough to enjoy it. That is what I do try to do too, as there maybe nothing after death.

Like basically before one is born. And I have no problem with this probability of just ceasing to be. The person who makes me up is no more. The end. That’s it and there’s no more. If an afterlife existed I would expect much better evidence of angels and ghosts. As it is there’s hardly any evidence for either one. If any at all. I have heard people claim there’s demons from hell, but unless I experience something directly myself I wont ever believe such things.

Gawd I can’t wait for tomorrow, I get some pot. xD

-and if my grand mother had testicles she’d be my grandfather.

Unlike virtually every believer I’ve met, I readily concede the possibility that I may be wrong and God may exist. I think It’s unlikely, but not impossible.

IF there is a god, and he’s like the monster YHWH of the Torah, I’m fucked. On the other hand if he’s my mother’s infinitely compassionate and merciful Jesus, I’ll be fine.

Besides, Pope Francis has already said that atheist who is a good person will go to heaven. I might squeeze by.

"In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience."


I’m not sure we can say it’s not impossible that a deity exists? It might well be impossible, but we don’t know.

We can’t know if it’s impossible or possible, since the broad claim is unfalsifiable, and tells us nothing. Thus the only epistemologically consistent position is for me to withhold belief, or else I’d have to believe all unfalsifiable claims. To believe one unfalsifiable claim and not all others is obviously biased, and therefore closed minded. If one bases even one belief on the vapid notion of blind faith, then what will be our criteria for disbelief?

Mine is pretty simple, and applied with an unbiased open mind. I believe things for which sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated, and withhold belief when it cannot.

I don’t make claims to knowledge, and thus disbelief may also mean I can’t (at least at the present) know anything about the claim.

To me it is absurd to believe a claim I can know nothing about.

So, an extant deity may be impossible, or it may possible, but nothing demonstrated by theism or theists or religious apologists suggests anyone can know which.

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. If this were not the case, we would repeat the same scientific experiments over and over and over again while expecting different results. We have 2000 years of failed apologetics, unsubstantiated myths, unqualified assertions, lies, fabrications, woo woo and bullshit, with no substantial, valid, verifiable, empirical evidence for the existence of any of the hundreds of thousands of gods at all. This is enough evidence to put god claims to rest… at least until something new comes along. The same old bullshit apologetics, garbage assertions and inane mythologies can be met with the exact same response. “That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.” When some theist comes up with something new, we will all give it the attention it deserves, until then, all current evidence points directly to “NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR GODS.” and no reason to assume any such thing exists or has ever existed.

1 Like


OF COURSE I an assert it’s not impossible. However, I’ve realised that’s a claim which I can’t prove ,so I’m obliged to recant my claim. In terms of knowledge, the best I can say is ''I don’t know"

Me too, mostly . Anyone has a right to that position but it’s just a claim, not a demonstrable truth.

1 Like