Welcome to Feedback Friday! I recently received this comment from a faithful reader (And by “Faithful”, naturally I mean she is an atheist/evolutionist/animal rights advocate who has stopped by a few times to assure me that I am an idiot.) Here is her comment in its entirety:
The theory of evolution has nothing to to do with atheism, creationism, theism, religion, or spirituality; It’s a theory developed by professionals utilizing information gathered and observed by scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geographers, physicists, and researchers.
Being atheist has nothing to do with believing the theory of evolution. You can be one and not the other.
Atheists have NO bias or bribe encouraging us to believe evolution, it benefits us in NO way to believe evolution; It JUST so happens that people who are sensible enough to question creationism are generally the ones sensible enough to accept the theory of evolution as a probable theory.
And I replied thusly:
Welcome back!
When last we left, you “had no time” for my questions, because you realized that you can’t defend a worldview where in cute fluffy puppies are valuable and should not be murdered without JUST CAUSE, but human babies are worthless and ought to be slaughtered for the convenience of women who don’t want to bother with birth control. [Note: She’s a fierce animal rights advocate who is pro-abortion]
Furthermore, I showed that your embracing of evolution undermines ALL of your moral positions, and makes the defense of ANY life a pointless exercise, not to mention the fact that you are actively trying to persuade others to mimic your morality- all the while believing that morality, your own included, is the result of blind evolutionary forces which will someday cause all morality to change yet again, maybe to the point where rape and murder are praised and we choose to kill puppies BECAUSE they are cute.
It could happen.
I can see why you don’t have time to reply to any of this. I am exhausted just thinking about it. Though, I really am curious to know- if you DID take the time to think it over- what you would conclude. I’m honestly curious. All of my previous questions still stand.
But here you have changed the topic wildly away from the other topics and have shown yet again that you don’t really know anything about these topics. I am not trying to be rude, but you are simply VERY wrong here, like when you told me creationists think the human race is 2,000 years old. If I didn’t do so before, let me encourage you to ask questions, because you are clearly in no position to educate me. Again, I don’t mean to be rude, but you leave these blocks of assertion which cannot be defended, even from your own position, and when asked to explain you turn hostile. But let me assure you that I welcome open dialogue.
I’m just thinking you should give asking questions a try.
Just keep in mind I will ask you some as well.
That said, let’s look at what you asserted here today:
Your first comment is entirely wrong. Not even an educated evolutionist would defend your position here. Three groups who no one would ever give credit for “Developing the theory of evolution” as you claim are “archaeologists, geographers, and physicists”.
Archaeology is the study of human civilizations. Clearly you do not develop the theory of man evolving from soup over billions of years by looking at pottery shards made by recent human civilizations.
And geographers? They make maps. They don’t develop theories of biological origins.
Physicists study matter, energy, and motion. Once again, not likely they would jump across the isle and propose theories of biological origin based on their studies of gravity, light waves, or the alpha particle.
Did you know what those fields of study were when you added them to your list?
And our modern understanding of Evolution came from the writing of Charles “Chuck D” Darwin in 1859. It really wasn’t a big team effort. I know you might want to think that all of science just kind of stumbled upon it together, but Chuck invented it the way that L Ron Hubbard invented Scientology. Now it’s the federally enforced religion of scientists who know they had better support the accepted paradigm or die, like a Muslim looking into the history of the Koran.
Your second comment is also wrong. Certainly, you can be an evolutionist without being an atheist, and you can be an atheist without being an evolutionist, but people believe all kinds of contradictory things all of the time. Some people think that animals have the right to live while refusing to accept that human babies have the same right to not be slaughtered for no justifiable reason. I do not question people’s ability to hold conflicting ideas.
But atheism needs to account for the existence of life on earth, including human life. Once you remove the possibility for intelligent design, you have only one option- accidental natural processed.
By default, atheism falls into evolution.
Ironically, I find that the only way to defend Evolution is by first embracing atheism. The science sure isn’t going to help you any.
Your concluding paragraph is a fine piece of empty propaganda from someone who neither understands evolution nor creation. With all due respect, you don’t get to demonstrate such ignorance of your religion and mine and then profess that your position is the reasonable one. It is obviously not REASON which lead you to being an evolutionist.
(I’m not convinced you know enough about the theory to actually BE an evolutionist.)
On the contrary, your religion is based on the proposition that you can add BY subtracting. I am a creationist and reject evolution because of, among many other fields of study, basic math.
Thanks again for your comments. Perhaps next time you should give asking some questions a try? You may be glad you did.
(Comment originally posted on https://abitoforange.com/2018/05/17/maybe-the-atheists-are-onto-something/)
A Bit of Orange 
Turning a comment and response into an article? Me, too. Atheism is indeed a religion, and several people (including evolutionist Michael Ruse) have pointed out the religious nature of evolutionism. Atheists need it, else they have no origins myth. I’ve heard podcasts of discussions with atheists where things were civil, but have the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to doubt the Bearded Buddha, and you can see the fangs come out and the hair bristle.
LikeLike
They do tend to get their panties in a twist when you call their religion a religion.
All you need to do is point out that a world view founded on a belief about the supernatural/God with tenets of faith which follow from that belief is a religion. Atheism is FOUNDATIONALLY about the existence of God (they pretend He isn’t) and then their religious faith flows out from there. How is that NOT a religion?
Also, it’s funny how they throw temper tantrums when you tell them that their religion is a religion. It’s like when you tell Socialists that THEIR taxes are going up too. Their little faces get all red!
I used to be a kinder person. Now, I enjoy Fail Army more than a Christian should.
thanks as always for your comments, Cowboy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The original commenter said the theory of evolution was “developed by professionals utilizing information gathered and observed by scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geographers, physicists, and researchers”
So, he is saying the archeologists, geographers, and physicists gathered data, they didn’t develop the actual theory.
Archeology is indeed important to evolution, and these people gather datasets that are varied and include stone tools, butchered animal remains, modified organic materials, structural remains and the traces of early art. From these sources we are able to develop robust models of past human behavior’s and examine variation across the globe from the past.
A more accurate term would be Biogeography, which is absolutely related to evolution theory because it’s the study of why certain animals live on certain continents, how they diversified, migration, tectonic activity, etc.
Same thing with studying physics, I’ll give you one example that uses physics and biogeography. So, what is the biggest animal in the world? The blue whale. Where do the biggest animals in the world live? In the oceans. And why is that? Because the gravity that hold us down to the earth on land is much weaker underwater.
Atheism needs to account for the existence of life on earth, and human life, why? I love how you just say stuff without EVER demonstrating it or backing up any of your claims. Good laugh.
LikeLike
Hey there Spewson,
It’s telling that you keep saying “I love how you just say stuff without EVER demonstrating it or backing up any of your claims” because it tells me that you’re new here, haven’t read much, and totally ignorant about my YouTube channel. Essentially, your claim is, because I don’t provide an argument in the one article you stumbled on while scrolling through the internet while on the toilet, then I must have NEVER made a reasoned defense of my position.
That’s dumb, and I won’t go into why it’s dumb here because I explained that in detail in other articles and videos.
Do you see what I did there? That’s layered wit right there.
But since you think you made a point in your comment, let me explain why you did not:
1. An evolutionist said something astoundingly stupid.
2. You tried to explain why I somehow missed her point (Yes, HER- again with you not reading enough to know the context, but, hey, I guess it’s MY fault that you’re lazy, right?)
3. Your defense of her position ASSUMES evolution to be a fact well before you begin- an idea which you offer NO DEFENSE of. You simply ASSUME evolution is a fact, and then you use that assumed faith in the unproven to say things like, “Archeology is indeed important to evolution.” I love how you just say stuff without EVER demonstrating it or backing up any of your claims. Good laugh.
(See what I did there? That’s a “Call Back”)
4. Even assuming everything you say to be true, NOTHING you say actually has anything to do with evolution.
Answer me this: How does “robust models of past human behavior’s and examine variation across the globe from the past” prove that humans evolved from apes? How would any of that conflict with the model of Biblical Creation and the dispersion after the flood?
Or, how does “the study of why certain animals live on certain continents, how they diversified, migration, tectonic activity, etc.” prove that worms evolved into fish? How would any of that conflict with the model of Biblical Creation and the dispersion after the flood?
or, how would the biggest animals on earth living in the water prove that they EVOLVED that way and were not CREATED and DESIGNED that way by a designer who understands/created the laws of physics? How would any of that conflict with the model of Biblical Creation and the dispersion after the flood?
You ASSUME evolution without realizing that you’re not even talking about Darwinian Evolution. You’re ASSUMING it, without actually even understanding it enough to bring it up when you’re trying to tell me what an idiot I am.
And for the record, I don’t need you to tell me what kind of an idiot I am. I made a whole video about that on my YouTube channel. You’d know that if you had bothered to look it up. Maybe next time you’re in the bathroom you can give it a Google.
Oh, also, 5. You are wrong. She meant that archaeologists, paleontologists, geographers, and physicists were the scientists who invented Darwinian Evolution. She was just astoundingly ignorant. But, hey Spew, way to pick a team. Maybe start with asking questions before you pick sides and try to join the fray. I don’t want to tell you how to do your job, but I seriously think asking questions might be worth the effort. Give it a try. I’m here to help.
LikeLiked by 1 person