Uh oh, another Creation-Evolution debate!

I often marvel how militant, in-your-face atheists think. Not the run-of-the-mill one who just doesn’t believe and keeps to his or herself, but the rather the Secular-Humanist Evangelists who go around the town/city/State/Country/world preaching atheism and attacking those who think differently than them. If God doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t matter if some people believe in a Creator/God, does it? They often claim that “science” proved atheism, debunked God, and you are a science-denier if you do believe in something outside of the natural world.

But there’s a problem. The atheist will often attack the theist claiming that there is no empirical evidence for a God, but then run and hide when asked about empirical evidence of their position.
Hypocrites.The Secular-Humanist / Atheist / Naturalist Evolutionist who combats the Theist / Supernatural Creator’s position must demonstrate:

(1) the origin of matter out of nothing (a topic they rarely want to talk about… I mean, how does non-matter create matter anyhow?),

(2) the origin of complex information, its meaningful organization (DNA programming for millions of life forms), and how non-information can suddenly evolve into information,

(3) the origin how inorganic matter evolved into organic matter (abiogenesis, life from non-life, spontaneous generation which was disproved more than 150 years ago),

(4) the observation of how a non-living thing can suddenly become a living thing, when does life begin or, for that matter, why something that already lived (and has all the “primordial soup” ingredients to live) can’t come back to life?,

(5) any evidence whatsoever that genetic information increases (evolves) instead of decreases (devolves) over time, or that any evidence whatsoever that shows smaller, less complex organisms (or “kinds” of plants or animals) mutating into larger, more complex organisms,

(6) any evidence whatsoever (such as even one living or dead example) of a living creature anywhere giving birth to anything other than it’s own kind (transitional fossils simply do NOT exist),

(7) how does Naturalism (Naturalistic Darwinism/Macro-Evolution) it pass the scientific method when it cannot be observed, tested, examined and/or falsified,

(8) if “the majority of scientists believe” is proof, then why do hundreds if not thousands of scientists disagree on many subjects, refute each other, change their minds based on new evidence, remain open to evidence that hasn’t been discovered yet, and can a supernatural universe supernatural God be undiscovered outside of the yet discovered sciences?

(9) if science has proven atheism, then why are there are just as many (if not more) theist scientists as atheist ones, including many of the fathers of the modern sciences,

… and last but still of critical importance to atheists who believe they are taking the moral high ground because there is no God and theists lord “morals” over them,

(10) a genetic or scientific explanation for why it is mandatory that anyone be moral or how morality can arise out of only the physical matter of the known universe (in other words… without a greater power, why is it wrong to – for example – cheat, assault, steal, rape, or commit murder and why do we even have laws to protect innocent life from those who would do them).

If these points cannot be demonstrated scientifically as well as observationally, then their stance, naturalistic macro-evolution is nothing more than a modern-day form of alchemy, a quasi-religious fairy tale that must be believed with… gasp… faith.

Yes, it is true. The atheist is required to have the same amount of faith as a Theist / Supernatural Creationist must have to believe. There is ZERO empirical evidence for Darwinism, which many say “evolution“, but that is wordplay that gets many people all riled up because evolution is an expansive term that has both sides of the debate laughing at each other. Evolution did and didn’t happen. What sort of evolution are you speaking of? That is the question.

In reality, micro-evolution (change within a kind) is proven science that nobody disagrees with. It isn’t just a postulated theory, it is fact. It is macro-evolution (the postulated conjecture and unproven theory that every living thing evolved to what it is from primordial soup without guidance of a Supernatural Creator), fails the scientific method – it has never been seen, tested, verified, falsified… and mathematically is an impossibility!

So, atheist evangelists (that is what they are, after all) run around attacking their difference of opinion on various religions, religious people and various scriptures (they do point most of their ire towards Judeo-Christianity, although most religions will get a barb from time to time – Christians and Jews do seem to be the primary focus of their disdain), claiming they have science that isn’t even there. All while their scripture (the already outdated and debunked and infamous book by Charles Darwin – On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) and religion (Naturalistic abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution, AKA Darwinism) also requires evidence that they cannot provide empirically. And because they have no empirical scientific evidence to back the very ground they stand on when they hypocritically mock on every public and private forum that discusses the subject around the world, thusly self-defeating/self-refuting their very own argument against those they so fervently mock and argue against.

What is that?

Well… that if it isn’t “science”, then it cannot be true, it cannot be right, and it cannot exist. And that the only absolute that exists in the atheist’s world is that there is no God, even if he/she/it denies all absolutes.

But how do they know that absolutely, and what part of science ever told them that they are exempt from every thing they accuse theists of doing: Arguing from a non-scientific, unproven – and therefore must be absolutely untrue – belief?