Why don't you believe?

Okay, Let’s work on “Lack of Evidence now.” The evidence that exists is extremely poor. Hearsay, unfounded miracle claims, ancient stories, personal experience and personal testimony. (This is not "NO EVIDENCE) It is very bad evidence that can not stand against critical in inquiry. Bad evidence + bad evidence + bad evidence ad infinitum, will never equal good evidence. (There is a room full of zealots in any psych ward that have daily conversations with angels, the devil and Jesus or God himself. Most miracles have been debunked and the few that have not, do not lead us to make the leap to a supernatural cause. The supernatural must be demonstrated to exist before it can be the cause of anything. (“I don’t know” or “It can’t be explained” is not an argument for the supernatural.)

So … Learn to say… "There is no GOOD evidence for the existence of God or gods.

That’s for sure, but it’s also impossible not to see how obviously dishonest he’s being.

I have asked him several times whether he does or does not see the difference between the lack of belief in a deity, and the claim a deity does not exist.

It’s a simple yes or no question, that he refuses to give an honest answer to.

1 Like

That is why I confronted Fievel and said harsh words. That was my last option, and I did not want to do it.

I’ve been confronting his posts for a year now. It’s still the same old BS over and over and over.

Can’t believe you just used up all that space to explain subspeciation (within a species without gene pool expansion, GPE) and nada on trans-speciation(like gorilla to man by GPE). Consider the difference in speciation types first. I want you to move beyond just gathering accurate info to the independent processing and determination of whats and what nots from that through logic because you have that ability, else much of what you read would inform you and deform your thinking. Here, move beyond nomenclature and understand flow and concept.
If we call this process you describe, a formation of new ‘species’, that without GPE, can that account for mutation necessary for transforming a fish to a man, i.e. across species, from simpler to complex, which involves GPE, as in the evo rhetoric?
Like I’ve told you already, there are no new discoveries to drive an evo rhetoric against creationism. There’s nothing on evolution you’re presenting here to discredit creationism that has not already been debunked in that light.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Creationism is not a theory. It is a claim. There is nothing backing up creationist ideas. As for recent evolutionary discoveries… there are a plethora if you learn how to use google.

Top that with the simple fact… regardless of what nonsense you spout on an atheist forum “The court has held that it’s not a scientific theory,” THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN CREATIONISM.


1 Like

Hilarious, creationism is an unevidenced myth, there is no need to prove it wrong. You’re yet again trying to reverse the burden of proof with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

The rest of your vapid religious rhetoric has no factual basis, and you’re trying to pitch this superstitious guff in direct contradiction of accepted scientific theories and laws.

I’ll stick with science over vapid superstition thanks. Especially since you don’t even know the difference between a scientifc theory and a law. :roll_eyes: :laughing:

It doesn’t matter, since there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for creation myths.

Evolution is an accepted scientific theory, a scientific law (3rd law of biology), and an accepted scientific fact.

In the astronomically unlikely event it were entirely reversed right now, setting the field of biology back to naught,

Creationism would remain an unevidenced superstitious myth.


Then when you’re done there go to the talkorigins website I’ve linked several times, that you’re ignoring. It has a vast database of evidence supporting the fact of species evolution.

And as I’ve told you, it also has a large database of the crackpot claims creatards make, and the science that debunks them, including all the ones you’ve rehashed on this site…go educate yourself, because you’re embarrassing yourself man.

This is failed logic.

One does not need to disprove anything, you must prove your claim that creationism is valid.

If one uses the failed logic of having to disprove any claim, then you must accept that baby Godzilla exists. Or any other creations of the human imagination.

If you stopped to look around, no one is attempting to disprove creationism, the universal response is “prove it”.

Still peddling this fucking lie, despite me expounding in detail from peer reviewed papers written by scientists who know more about this subject that you’ll ever be capable of learning?

Oh, and the gene pool doesn’t need to “expand” in order for allopatric speciation to take place. All that’s needed is population division, followed by cessation of gene flow between the now divided populations. The moment gene flow ceases between two populations, they will diverge from each other, and eventually exhibit mutual failure of interfertility. This has been demonstrated time and again in the relevant scientific literature. Which you’ve obviously never read.

By the way, I’m aware of an organism that destroys your lame and mendacious apologetics. Hyla chrysocelis is a species of tree frog living in North America. in the past, a population of these frogs underwent an interesting genetic event, which resulted in the emergence of a new species, namely Hyla versicolor. The interesting genetic event in question was a whole genome duplication. As a result of this event, the population in question became reproductively incompatible with other populations of Hyla chrysocelis overnight. The reason? Those individuals are now tetraploid - they have four copies of each chromosome instead of two. As a consequence, they are incapable of reproducing with their Hyla chrysocelis ancestors, which remain diploid. Indeed, speciation by genome duplication and subsequent emergence of polyploidy is well known to botanists, who have documented numerous instances in the literature, perhaps the best documented of which being the emergence of the hexaploid Primula kewensis from a diploid ancestor.

Oh, and please, don’t bother posting links from Arsewater In Genesis, otherwise known as Ken Ham’s collection of lies.

Unlike you.

I really love it when mythology fanboys posture as being in a position to lecture me on concepts, despite being manifestly ignorant of the concepts in question themselves.

Apparently you didn’t bother reading my exposition of the biological species concept, which you either don’t understand, or are wilfully refusing to understand for duplicitous apologetic purposes.

You would do well to correct your deficiencies in the English language, before posturing as being in a position to lecture me on biology.

Oh, and in case you failed to learn this in your biology classes, evolutionary biology doesn’t postulate that humans emerged directly from fish. Instead, what evolutionary biology postulates, on the basis of the data from palaeontology and molecular phylogeny, is that Rhipidistian fish lineages first gave rise to proto-tetrapods (heard of Tiktaalik have you), which then gave rise to more completely land-dwelling tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega in the late Devonian era. These in turn were the founders of the first recognisable amphibians, including the temnospondyls, which radiated and produced a range of lineages in the Carboniferous era… From that collection of founder lineages, arose the first true amniotes, which became the basis for emerging reptiles in the early Permian era, and radiation of those lineages in the Permian led to the emergence of the Cynodonts and other mammal-like reptiles. These produced the first true mammals in the Jurassic (Castorocauda being a particularly fine example, along with Montanalestes), which then radiated into the monotreme, marsupial and eutherian lineages.

Once the mammal radiation had taken place, the first primates appeared around the mid to late Eocene, of which Darwinius masillae (middle Eocene) is a particularly well-preserved example - the phylogeny, interestingly, demonstrates that the first primates shared a common ancestor with the lineage that later became the bats. But I digress. Alongside Darwinius masillae, we also have Eosimias, which again dates back to the middle Eocene. Radiation of those primate lineages resulted in the emergence of two monkey lineages, the Cercopithecidae and the Ceboidea. The Cercopithecidae, being a Catarrhine lineage, provided the common ancestor of all great apes, and thence, the requisite steps to humans appeared.

In short, the journey from fish to humans involved 370 million years and thousands of prior steps. Steps which are exquisitely represented in the fossil record, sorted in time and taxonomic order. Furthermore, phylogenetic analysis of gene families dovetails beautifully with most of the fossil record, and on those occasions where it hasn’t, it inspired scientists to look for new fossils, predicted to have existed by that phylogenetic data, and which, wait for it, were subsequently found. The phylogenetic link between whales and artiodactyl land mammals is a case in point - that phylogeny resulted in the prediction that new fossils exhibiting the transition from land mammals to aquatic mammals in the whale lineage would be found, and lo and behold, once scientists knew what to look for, they sought out the fossils and found them.

On the other hand, creotard fantasies about an imaginary cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, had nothing to say on this subject, until the fossils were found, at which point the predictable and duplicitous apologetics appeared. Creotard fantasies have NO predictive power, NO testable postulates, and NO supporting data.

I’ve just mentioned one above. Oh, and in case you forgot, Tiktaalik was predicted to exist before it was found.

That’s another of your verminous little creotard lies busted.

Bullshit. All that’s happened in the fantasy world of creotard excrement, is that more duplicitous made up shit apologetics has been peddled, to try and hand-wave away the hard science.

Once again, you’re a fucking lightweight and a fucking dilettante.

Right, I’ve provided citations for forty nine peer reviewed scientific papers from the ever growing speciation literature, none of which you even knew the existence of before I provided those citations, and in response, all you’ve provided is the usual bluster, cant, bullshit and lies we see from creotards like you, along with a pathetic link to the massively discredited source of lies and bullshit that is Arsewater In Genesis. I’ll give you three guesses what conclusion an unbiased observer would draw from the requisite comparison.

Now, unless you have something resembling substance to bring here instead of toddler level foot stomping every time your lies and bullshit are shredded, I respectfully suggest that your fuck off.


Do take care,there’s a god chap.I resemble that remark.(but do not pretend otherwise)

Imo, our little friend gives we fucking light weight dilettantes a bad name. Probably because his shallowness of thought and intellectual dishonesty. Just a thought , but I could be wrong.

I freely admit I’m a dilettante [at best] in most things . Was a time I was an authority on a couple of things in a quite small discipline. Alas,that was 35 years ago, so most of what I knew is either wrong or out of date. (the bits I can remember)


Yes it is so, and you have proved this by failing repeatedly to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for it, or any deity when asked to do so. Resorting to argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies instead.

Well there you go, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, used to offer a “god of the gaps” polemic, your irrational apologetics are the very definition of mediocre rhetoric.

I know they’re anathema to you, but lets try some objective facts:

  1. Life exists
  2. Natural phenomena occur
  3. You are adding an unevidenced deity, and woo woo magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever (Occam’s razor applies)
  4. You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to insist others offer an alternative to your superstitious fantasy

0/10, I’d like to give you half a point for effort out of pity, but since you’ve made none, just plagiarised the most woeful apologetics of others, I can’t sorry.

Begging the question fallacy, do you think we won’t notice your question assumes there is something “behind” evolution, or that your question assumes creation, and in your argument for those things? More tedious second rate apologetics that define the word mediocre.

Unlike your posts then, which have a virtually limitless scope for improvement. Nice non sequitur though.

Another begging the question fallacy, I think your apologetics are so tedious I my fall asle…ppppppppppppppp1’

Sorry, I nodded off because you’re rhetoric is so fucking boringly predictable.

You seem to have skipped the bit where you demonstrate a shred of objective evidence they were even fucking real, only a blinkered retard would even try and claim they were.

Now that’s a fucking hilarious lie, but do be a dear and link the peer reviewed work, and of course the Noble prize winner who made this paradigm shifting discovery… :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I don’t blame you given how pathetically poor your debating skills are, or was there some other point you were making? If I had a shred of objective evidence for any deity for every time a theists came here and claimed they were once an atheist, I would have to accept an extant deity was real, but I don’t and therefore I remain dubious.

Don’t give a flying a fuck what you claim someone who may have been real may have said, why would I?

Oh well that’s different, now that you claim it it must be true…fnarrr :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Seriously you need a pulpit or a revival tent meeting for this bullshit you’re posting, it doesn’t belong in a debate forum.


As for me, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with some invisible guy in the sky who calls himself god. I just don’t believe in fables and fairy tales.


As for me, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with some invisible guy in the sky who calls himself god. I just don’t believe in fables and fairy tales.

What is the objective difference?

1 Like


Umm, what? But then you say :

Well now. Religious belief is based on faith. A simple definition of faith is “belief in things not seen.” I think that’s a pretty good definition of superstition.

It is Jesus himself who is reported as saying ; John 20:29 " Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (NIV)

Like many of the atheists here, my lack of belief is not a choice. Rather an inevitable conclusion which was the result of active enquiry for over 20 years.

I am unable to believe in god(s) and a bunch of associated ideas for one simple reason; a lack of empirical evidence.

Your beliefs don’t matter to me you understand. Until you begin making claims. Then I ask you to produce empirical evidence for your claims(s)

Oh, I am unable to accept that god may be argued into or out of existence.

1 Like

You have just made a positive, affirming claim. That attracts the burden of proof. IE it is up to you to prove there is no god, not to me to prove there is.

I say only that I do not believe. I make no claims. Hence I need prove nothing.

See Russell’s teapot



The default position is not to accept a claim without proof or evidence. Not deny it. There may or not be a god, that proposition is untestable.

1 Like

That’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Try and avoid unevidenced claims, as theists and religious apologists will leap on them to suggest theism is just as rational a position as atheism.

I don’t believe in any deity or deities, as no objective evidence, or rational argument has been demonstrated to support the claim. Despite millennia being swallowed in the effort.

1 Like