Theists And Evolution


Well I guess so.

Of course there’s no evidence we know of, of any god or deity.

A good god though would be forgiving enough to let atheists into heaven. I seriously doubt there is a heaven though.

Absolutely correct there’s no evidence any god ever existed. I am open to evidence if some should surface but so far there’s none.

And it is doubtful the universe had a cause either, but I am arguing with someone on YouTube who insists that because of Albert Einstein having his theory of relativity that follows that he said all things have a cause. I doubt for some reason that is what he meant. Can you shed some light on that for me?

Theists use the word proof, not evidence.

Absense of evidence isn’t proof of absence. As you say, it is evidence of absence, though a more salient point would be why on earth anyone believes something in the complete absence of evidence? It proves bias if nothing else.

1 Like


And there’s lots of so called proof in the Bible, yet there’s no real evidence to back that up.

I love everyone’s posts.

There’s no proof, or evidence in the bible? There are only unevidenced anecdotal claims.

1 Like

Right… there’s no evidence of the Christian god.

Or any other of the millions of gods out there either.

Edit; PS can you shed any light on what I asked Cog about?

  1. Relativity breaks down at Planck time. It does not apply to the Big Bang. On a quantum level, however, cause-and-effect breaks down,causes%20another%20to%20follow%20it.&text=On%20a%20quantum%20level%2C%20however,-and-effect%20breaks%20down.

There is no reason to assert the universe had a cause. There is no reason to assert the universe, “came into existence.” There is certainly no reason to assert a god at the beginning even if there was a cause instead of a natural process.


Awesome thanks. I love when you post and this is the information I was looking for.

I’m guessing he forgot to tell you that Einstein spent decades arguing that everything has a cause, only to have his arguments annihilated over and over again.

1 Like

Really. I didn’t know that.

I would guess his position was once the consensus of scientists? If true, approximately when did that begin to change?

From my experience, creationist make claims of scientific truth based on nothing more than faith. This is not science, it’s a personal belief. Any claim of knowledge must be falsifiable or at the very least, pass a peer review process. The burden of proving biblical scripture wrong does not rest with atheists. Science can’t prove or disprove something for which there is very little evidence. It is the creationists that must prove their position. To do otherwise is not consistent with scientific discovery and discipline. Creationism is not science because it takes a shortcut to arrive at truth. Creationism strokes the egoes of those with weak faith so they can sleep well knowing their superiority over others is complete and justified.

1 Like


Just so, with a minor quibble.

Science proves nothing and with the exception of mathematics, makes no truth claims . Scientific proofs are not absolute, but provisional. IE based on what is known at the time. EG Newtonian physics has not been shown to bewrong, merely incomplete.

I’m at a disadvantage because I’m not a scientist. Its my understanding that Quantum physics may lead beyond Einstein.

The above are opinions based on an imperfect understanding . I have no problem with being corrected whenever I make a factual error or a claim with insufficient or no evidence.

1 Like

I agree, science is not law. It is only an accumulation of mankind’s knowledge about the natural world. I don’t think there is a scientist today that would claim any scientific theory as absolute truth and beyond criticism. But creationists have no problem doing so. And I guess that was the point I was trying to make. My apologies for not clarifying this in a meaningful way. I’m not a scientist either.

But to deny the importance of scientific discovery and progress that has been accomplished to date is to deny oneself a relationship with reality. Science is and should always remain an open discussion. But it’s also an invaluable tool for providing answers to some of mankind’s most important questions. Not a perfect system but better than magic or superstition.

1 Like

Paradoxically, while making massive contributions to the field; Einstein never really “got onboard” the quantum mechanics train. He insisted to the end that there is no real randomness in the world; or in other words, he stuck with classical mechanics.

Perhaps by 1927 his views on the matter began to diverse with the other movers and shakers in the field, as by then the random nature of things was becoming harder and harder to ignore (with developments such as the Born rule and uncertainty principle).

Perhaps his most important criticism was the very famous EPR paper (EPR from the authors names: Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen). They pointed out that quantum mechanics made some very crazy predictions (implying that something must be wrong with QM). Bohr’s essentially responded by pointing out there is nothing wrong with “crazy predictions” so long as they match experiment/observation.

Later Bell devised a cleaver argument which shows that quantum mechanics violates classical logic quite badly. Later still the experiments were done, and of course Bohr was right, and Einstein was wasn’t.

But to be fair, Einstein put this finger right on the heart of quantum mechanics and then made a guess about what would happen. While his guess turned out to be incorrect; his pointing out of this feature became somewhat of a watershed moment. The EPR paper is part of the foundation of many exciting fields. I would say hardly a week goes by without me reading a reference to this paper.

A “real genius” is a genius, even when they are wrong.


Scientific “Law” is not “Law.” A “Law” in science is a description and not a prescription. The natural world does not follow the laws of science, but rather, the laws of science are what we generally perceive / expect in given situations. Theories are models that explain as much evidence as possible. When the evidence changes or a better theory comes along that explains the evidence better, our theories change.

1 Like

Hmm I see. In other words things do not have to have a cause.


As we know the Big Bang happened, why who knows. Ir happened and invented laws of physics as it expanded. Also bringing time into existence.

A god causing it? No. If time can not exist before the Big Bang then neither can a god.

This comes up a lot with creationism. The big bang has nothing to do with the study of evolution. Evolution is the study of how species survive or face extinction, not where life or the universe came from.

Abiogenesis is a study that focuses on the origins of life but is not theory because the findings are inconclusive.

Every time creationists ask me about the origins of life or the universe I can be sure of one thing, they know nothing about evolutionary biology and are not interested in learning it. I no longer allow myself to be dragged into these foolish discussions.

It’s ok to not know something. Believers must find this to be intolerable. Pure childishness.

1 Like

Indeed. Creationist dropkicks make far too much noise for their size.

They insist in trying to debate something about which there is no debate. As a group, they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Because they are anti science, anti reason and anti intellectual they always end up looking like ignoramuses.

1 Like

We should all know micro doesn’t prove macro. With proto thoughts before actions creates reality.

Now exactly what the fuck does that mean? Do you just stick words together out of a magazine?