Refuting Creationist Ignorance – Again…

Feb 3, 2013
Cyclist wrote:
The truth is, 1)You can not prove that God does not exist so your assumption that he does not is just a theory. 2)You can not prove the theory of evolution as science to date has not been able to create life from inorganic material and the problem is that if you can’t get something from nothing, it’s pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. That is a HUGE problem, and, 3)To discount ancient history, manuscripts, archeology, similarity in oral and written traditions (many cultures have a flood story and a creation story that are similar in nature)is just ignorant.

johnhead1) I do not bear the burden of disproving the existence of an entity which by design is unfalsifiable.  My assumption that your god is entirely man-made is not a theory.  Actual theories are well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world.  Your god is super-natural and therefore outside the bounds of theoretical explanations.  My non-belief in your god is a conclusion founded upon the complete absence of anything remotely resembling evidence pointing to your god being real.  You have come to the same conclusion regarding every other god ever claimed throughout the history of man-kind.  You are an atheist with regard to literally thousands of other deities.  When you finally get around to understanding the real reason you lack a belief in those gods, you will understand why I lack a belief in yours.

2) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life from inorganic material.  You are confusing ‘evolution’ with ‘abiogenesis’ because you are scientifically ignorant.  Evolution is a FACT; organisms change over time.  That’s all evolution is, change over time.  The theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural Selection explains the mechanism by which life evolves and branches into many different species over millions of years.

a. Your assertion that without a Creator you cannot get ‘something from nothing’ is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

b. You claim that we cannot “get anything, let alone everything” must also apply to this supposed creator.  This phantom Creator is ‘something’ is it not, and ‘something’ cannot come from ‘nothing’, so what created your asserted Creator?

3) The fact that “many cultures have a flood story and a creation story that are similar” does not lead to the conclusion that a man was instructed to build a gigantic floating zoo, holding every land animal on the planet, floating for 40 days and nights, before landing on a mountain top, after which he repopulated the world via incest.  That you insist on claiming your specific myth is what happened is ludicrous to say the least and is what is actually ignorant.

Cyclist wrote:

1. No science has been able to prove any viable theory for origin of life. Assumptions have to be made that can not be proven by any science.
2. Random mutation and natural selection do cause change within species but do not cause an organism to change species. That is impossible.
3. Where did the very first organic material come from.
4. What you consider fact is simply your belief in someone’s take on trying to explain things like God or no God, origin of life, age of the universe, etc.
You’ve drank just as much koolaid as I, just a different flavor.


johnhead1) Again, I’m forced to weave though your misapplication of concepts. There is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

What I was explaining to you was the difference between ‘abiogenesis’ and ‘evolution via natural selection’. We may not know the exact process by which the first self-replicating molecules arose but we do this; the elements which compose life on earth are abundant both on this planet and the galaxy and, there is nothing in chemistry which would prevent self-replicating molecules from arising on their own.

Your claim that because you cannot fathom life arising via natural processes it must be a supernatural sky wizard playing a cosmic game of the Sims is just a special pleading argument in addition to an argument from ignorance. You assert as a general rule that the ‘something’ which we know exists cannot come from ‘nothing’ yet you except your god from your own rule.

2) Random mutation and natural selection do not cause organisms to change species, correct but that’s not what the theory says. The theory says that over time species diverge via genetic drift over successive generations. They eventually drift so far that they become two different species.

3) The first ‘organic material’ which composes life (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) was produced inside the core of a massive star which blew itself apart billions of years ago. You really should brush up on your cosmology.

4) What I consider facts are observable, testable, and repeatable. I believe facts because of those attributes. Your god, like every god, is neither observable or testable. Because I base my belief on objective evidence there is no need for koolaid, someone take is irrelevant unless it matches experiment and observation. This is another attempt to pull my position down to your level because your fully realize your position is untenable, it is a product of wishful thinking and a willingness to become convinced that imaginary beings are real.


Cyclist wrote:
1. Give me an example of a species that experienced genetic drift over a period of time to create two different species.
2. So this massive star which blew apart billions of years ago produced the material which composes life. Where did the massive star come from?
3. Explain why your observable facts have so many holes. Since explosions cause disorder and chaos, how could a Big Bang bring about order to the complex level as to create life? If said order did come into being by a massive explosion billions of years ago, why have we never been able to observe a self replicating organism form by itself?
4. If all the galaxies were created as a result of a massive explosion billions of years ago, why do the closer galaxies have a higher degree of red shift than the further galaxies which are blue, suggesting that they are moving toward us as opposed to away from us?
I’m sure you will use big words to try and explain how stupid I am, try not to condescend, just answer.


johnheadYES! Now you are catching on. You’re asking for evidence. The absence of knowledge is not stupidity. Stupidity is the inability to obtain and grasp knowledge. I did not always know these facts either, I do not think you are stupid.

1) EXAMPLE: Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

2) The massive star came about when, under the force of gravity, hydrogen gas was drawn together toward a single point. The rise in pressure lead to a rise in temperature until, at 3 million kelvin, 5.4 million Fahrenheit, hydrogen atoms began fusing into the helium atoms. Helium is fused into heavier and heavier elements until iron at which point the star blows apart; iron taking in energy when fused as opposed to giving it off.

3) The Big Bang is not what brought about order to the complex level we see today. It was just the initial expansion of space-time. What we see today the the result of 13.7 billion years of contact interaction between gravity and electromagnetism. I don’t know if you’ve looked at some of the Hubble images but the cosmos is far from orderly.

4) We have not seen a self replicating organism form by itself because such an event occurs on time scales larger than the history of the human race. Though we have not seen it, we know of possible ways it could have happen which do no violate the known laws of physics. In a universe as vast as the one in which we live it appears life was bound to happen somewhere.

5) You have it backwards, the galaxies where are further away are more red shifted. This is called Hubble’s Law and gives rise to something called Hubble’s Constant. The universe is in fact expanding faster and faster by the second. There are some galaxies like Andromeda which are moving toward us, gravity has overcome expansion with regard to these.


Cyclist wrote:
1. Still a wildflower, not a different species.
2. Where did the hydrogen and the helium come from?
3. So gravity and electromagnetism created life?
4. So you can’t prove it. Though a mathematical possibility, it is unlikely I will ever win the Tour de France.
5. in an article called The Evolution of the Universe, John P. Huchra and Margaret J. Geller tell us that: “There appears to be a relatively random distribution of small distant blue galaxies,” and that “Each square degree of sky contains more than 300,000 blue galaxies”.
The more of yours and others writings I read, I realize how much you really don’t know. You base your belief on assumptions which you can not prove. Just like I base my beliefs on assumptions I can not prove. The difference is where we look for our answers.


johnhead1) Wildflowers come in many different species.  A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  The flowers in the example could not interbreed because their genetic makeup had ‘changed over time’ <- EVOLVED to the point where the had diverged into two new species of wildflower.  That happened in less than 100 years.  Do you not think that larger changes cannot take place over millions of years?

2) The hydrogen of our baby universe was the result of charged subatomic particles pairing up to form natural atoms around 380,000 years of cooling following cosmic inflation.  Hydrogen = 1 Proton + 1 Electron  It doesn’t get much more simple than that.

3) Gravity and Electromagnetism created life in the sense that without these forces there would be nothing heavier than hydrogen and chemistry would not exist.  Gravity pulls matter together and matter interacts with other matter according to the laws of electromagnetism.  They are only two of the four fundamental forces which we know to govern the universe, the other two being the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.

4) Science is not used to prove anything, proof exists the form of observable facts and mathematics.  What I keep trying to tell you is that there is nothing in nature which prevents self-replicating molecules from forming and that’s life is at its most basic level.

You laugh at the possibility of life arising via natural processes but turn around and with complete conviction assert that a magic invisible being produced life by merely TALKING.  Are you serious?

Science doesn’t know and has made no claim to know the exact means by which life arose naturally.  We may never know how it happened because we only have one planet where we know life exists and we can’t travel back in time.  That fact does not give you licenses to assert, in the absence of knowledge, whatever fairytale notion best appeals to you.

5) The quote you cite having to do with blue galaxies refuting the big bang was cherry picked by creationist and has already been accounted for by cosmology.

An observer at a lower gravitational potential than a source (“downhill”) will observe radiation to be blueshifted to shorter wavelengths.  This is a natural consequence of conservation of energy and mass–energy equivalence, and was confirmed experimentally in 1959 with the Pound–Rebka experiment.  Gravitational blueshift contributes to cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy via the Sachs–Wolfe effect: when a gravitational well evolves while a photon is passing, the amount of blueshift on approach will differ from the amount of gravitational redshift as it leaves the region.

How much I don’t know is quite a lot and I will admit it.  Everything I have ever read by religious people tells me that they actually think they can know everything!

You are right about one thing, we look in different places for answers alright.  Where I look uses observation and experiment, where you look uses an old dusty book full of magic stories.

Share with others

No Responses so far | Have Your Say!

Leave a Feedback

You must be logged in to post a comment.