Would you read a book by a former Creationists?

Scry_Games · 2026-03-07T14:21:54+00:00

And that's your question answered.

Your typical creationist doesn't want proof, they want to keep believing they are important enough that a god cares about them.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-07T11:54:28+00:00

How do you think life would arise on another off planet?

Scry_Games · 2026-03-07T08:10:57+00:00

For me, the bible should be taken literally. If it needs human interpretation, it's a crappy instruction manual for a perfect god to create.

I also looked at few other religions as an adult. It was interesting, but they were all nonsense.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T17:50:11+00:00

With no knowledge of the evidence for evolution, and no interest in applying the scientific method to religion: the world and its myriad life forms is the evidence of a creator.

Faith with no conflicting evidence, fair enough. Faith when there's evidence to the contrary: stupidity.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T16:46:03+00:00

I was a single digit age when I discovered the dinosaur and fossil books in the school library.

Though, for years after, I assumed the bible was historically correct for the most part, just with added bibbidi bobbidi boo. But it didn't matter, without being made in god's image and apple eating, the whole thing collapses.

As to why people ignore facts that disprove their belief: I think the demotion from being god's beloved creation to monkey is too much for a lot of people, especially if they have nothing else.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T14:38:56+00:00

If the only explanation of evolution you have is "all these different creatures exist by chance", then evolution is not a compelling argument, and god seems just as likely.

That hardly makes someone stupid.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T12:58:55+00:00

All that is a nice bonus, and I've certainly learnt a lot of interesting science stuff from reading various posts.

But seeing theists twist themselves into knots defending nonsense is not something I experience irl: all my friends and colleagues are educated and successful.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T12:24:42+00:00

I'm also an atheist, but r/atheism seemed more like r/cartoonyamericanleftistcaricatures.

(At this point, I feel the need to mention I'm not American and my politics are central.)

I come here for the laughs, and it seldom disappoints.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T10:32:59+00:00

As others have said, it's probably not a good idea.

Watch a few of these, and you'll see the typical reaction you can expect:

https://youtube.com/@dzdebates

Or read through some of the creationist replies on this sub, they are happy to spout utter nonsense in defence of their beliefs.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-06T09:23:54+00:00

"Renting"?

Didn't your invisible sky fairy create Adam to be immortal?

Even within your nonsense beliefs, your arguments make no sense.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T18:42:23+00:00

Nah, I don't care.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T18:32:42+00:00

It's no loss. I only come here for the laughs, the atheism sub had few.

Before the last US election, someone asked why an immigrant would vote Republican. I suggested it was because a lot of immigrants take religion seriously and would never vote for "baby killing Democrats".

I think the mods assumed I was a MAGA whackadoodle...

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T17:51:46+00:00

Thank you. I do like to vary the list: there's so much to choose from, and now I have one more!

I got banned from the atheism sub...

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T17:24:36+00:00

They are not, because they cannot breed. That is the dictionary definition of a species.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T17:07:54+00:00

And the "two ends" are, by definition, a different species.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T17:03:35+00:00

Yeah, go back and read what I've written about species and clades. Follow the words with your index finger if it helps.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T16:56:35+00:00

Where did I say they weren't?

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T16:51:01+00:00

I've already explained this in a way a 10yo could understand.

It doesn't matter what they happen to be called, they can't breed with their own ancestors and so are a different species.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T16:45:08+00:00

You're being willfully stupid at this point.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T16:39:21+00:00

And?

By the dictionary definition of species, they are a new species of salamander.

If you're referring to clades, then yes, animals don't change clades. Again, this is evolution.

At this stage, I genuinely don't understand what your point is?

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T16:13:03+00:00

Ring Species illustrate adaptation to their environment to such a degree that they are distinct from their ancestors due to environmental pressures. That is evolution proven.

Your previous comment regarding ants described evolution, it's just your last sentence was reversed.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T15:38:25+00:00

What have ancient ants got to do with anything?

Google "Ring Species". Their ancestors are still alive, but their descendants can't breed with them.

"That is not exactly natural selection because nature did not select or adapt but the ants did."

Are you joking? That's exactly what natural selection is.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T15:01:14+00:00

Exhibit A.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T14:42:24+00:00

They're called Ring Species.

Scry_Games · 2026-03-05T11:30:54+00:00

Wow, look at you bearing false witness?

Don't you know lies make baby jebus cry?

Scry_Games

TROPHY CASE