Atheists & Evolutionists: They Always Appeal To A Higher Power

Has anyone else noticed this somewhat endearing trend amongst atheists and evolutionists? Whenever they’re boxed into a corner and can’t answer a bleeding argument, they nearly immediately invoke some sort of “super-atheist,” some sort of fundie neoDarwin apologist, some member of the oft-described “better/smarter men than I” club.

Be it, talkorigins or their favorite antitheistic author [You know, Dawkins, Hitchens and that rabble: the ringleaders responsible for the latest round of anti-religious, pseudoscientific vitriol coming from the atheist camp.], whenever they get in over their heads and get into a situation that would normally require them to actually THINK for themselves, they pawn it off on a substitute.


I’ll tell you why. Because they weren’t thinking for themselves to begin with. They were indoctrinated by science textbooks that contained false information — information they KNOW is false like Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, moths that were pinned to a tree trunk before being photographed since no one could get a shot of them actually doing so and the Stanley-Miller experiment sans the crucial information that it is now totally discredited, as well as drawings of speculation presented as fact: the Tree of Life, the Ascent of Man, the Dawn of the Horse, et cetera ad nauseam — and then were fed the same garbage by university evangelists professors with a bone topick against religion, especially Christianity. What they spout is parroted dogma and doctrine, something they decry in religious folk.

And because they’re just repeating the atheist/Darwinist Catechism, they really aren’t sure how to respond when you dig deeper than a surface treatment. So they pass the buck onto atheist/Darwinist experts. They show a lot of faith in their apologists and priests, their evangelists and demigods of naturalism.

I’ve already commented on this sort of Unthinking Man’s atheism before in a post called Warning! Thoughtless Atheists Are Organizing For Ignorance! [apologies, but this post was apparently removed, though I cannot recall why at present.] In that case, someone was organizing a list of pat answers to give to creationists, so that no one would actually have to research or think things out for themselves.

At least, they’re entertaining.

–Sirius Knott


10 Comments Add yours

  1. vitaminbook says:

    Oh, God – this is comedy gold. Haeckel’s embryo drawings? The peppered moth experiments? You’re not even parroting the current creationist garbage.

    For your own sake – because, truly, there’s nothing more embarassing than confidently putting your foot in your own mouth – read some science books. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be books; pick up a magazine or two.

  2. Sirius says:

    I’ve perused the textbooks. These golden turds are still in there, along with propaganda like the Ascent of Man drawings, speculations of the Dawn of the Horse and the statement that archaeopteryx is a missing link between birds and dinosaurs when it’s now been confirmed that birds predate archaeopteryx! There’s also unqualified statements like “Fossils always form slowly,” “The Earth is billions of years old” & “Men and dinosaurs never lived at the same time.”

    They also misrepresent the Miller-Urey experiment which only produced nonbiological amino acids – and under the wrong conditions it turns out!

    Try thinking beyond what they’ve told you to believe.

    –Sirius Knott

  3. vitaminbook says:

    Seeing as you’ve made…five (possibly six) major mistakes in that one paragraph, I suggest you stop believing everything Answers in Genesis tells you 😉

  4. Sirius says:

    um, what mistakes? care to enlighten us, O Great Vitamin One?

    -Sirius Knott

  5. vitaminbook says:


    Archaeopteryx is currently defined as the earliest known bird. There have been other candidates that are much older, most notably protoavis, but the eight or so archaeopteryx specimens we have on hand (nine if you count one that was merely described but is now lost) have convinced the majority of scientists that it is, indeed, the oldest bird we know of. The confusion over its ‘missing link’ status comes because people see transitional species as the following:

    Dinosaurs —> Archaeopteryx (transitional) —> Birds.

    That’s not how it works. Archaeopteryx isn’t regarded as being the ancestor to modern birds, (remember, it itself is considered a bird) merely a close relative of that ancestor. However, it’s still a transitional fossil because it shares features of both reptiles and birds. It’s likely that secondary-school level textbooks don’t make this distinction, since they often don’t go into much detail on the subject.

    In short, Archaeopteryx is still the earliest bird.

    The ‘Ascent of Man’ drawings are simplifications, just like most of the diagrams in my old biology textbooks were gross simplifications of much more complex processes. They’re designed to get a basic point across easily, not to be 100% accurate. A lot of scientists don’t like drawings like that being used in textbooks.

    The Earth is, indeed, billions of years old, and there’s no evidence to suggest that humans and dinosaurs ever lived at the same time. (Unless you count modern living fossils.) Of course, the Answers in Genssis articles on dinosaurs largely quote the Bible as evidence. Way to go, AiG.

  6. Eric Kemp says:


    You’re probably not looking at this thread any more, but I thought I’d just show you the presuppisitions you are making in your statements.

    Archaeopteryx is only a “transitional” fossil if you ASSUME that evolution occured. IF, in fact, birds came from reptiles then Archaeopteryx would be a good example of how. But if we are looking for wether or not Archaeopteryx is really evidence of evolution, the example falls apart. Why? Because all Archaeopteryx REALLY is, is a fossil of a dead species of bird that is similar to other species of birds and perhaps (it’s still a hotly debated topic, but I’ll give it to you for the time being) similar to reptiles. Similarity, that’s all you’ve got. YOU must make the logical leap from “it’s similar” to “therefore it evolved from…”.

    Your statement “The Earth is, indeed, billions of years old”. So, are you saying that the Earth being billions of years old is observable, and that’s how you “know”? Are you saying radiometric dating is bulletproof and makes no assumptions? It’s funny that you criticize AiG for using the Bible but ignore your own statements of faith.

  7. Sirius says:

    Well put, Eric, though I should like to add that – though science textbooks continue to falsely state that Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil – it has been demonstrated that according to the evolutionary model bird fossils actualy PREDATE Archaeopteryx. It’s kind of hard to be the ancestor of something that came before you. And you can’t be the arliest bird if there are birds [looking exactly like birds do today, no less!] that came a lot earlier than you did.

    Also, all vertebrate species have members with teeth and without. Birds are no different, except toothed avians only exist in the fossil record. As for the wing claws, we only need to look to the ostrich for a modern example of such a structure in birds. It has also been demonstrated that Archaeopteryx was fully capable of flight and is very similar to modern birds in anatomy. For all of these reasons and more, modern scientists now reject Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, even though it keeps getting put into science textbooks erroneously as such.

    I believe Eric has got to the quick of your faith statement that the Earth is billions of years old, so I’ll leave that one alone for the time being.

    Oh, and the Bible isn’t the only source of records of man and dinosaur co-existing. Would you care for a few examples?

    –Sirius Knott

  8. Jaz says:

    I find it amusing that you call out atheists for not thinking for themselves, quoting from other ‘smarter’ atheists etc.

    [Sirius: OK.]

    I find in any argument I have with a believer they quote from the bible or other relevant holy book.

    [Sirius: You haven’t argued with me yet, but so long as it’s relevant to the discussion, how about Psalm 14:1…]

    After all, this is what their belief system is based on, some other ‘higher power’ or ‘more intelligent’ being wrote it.

    [Sirius: Yeah… Was I unclear? I was making note of the fact that this is consistent for us, but rather hypocritical for atheists.]

    Is this not the equivalent of an atheist quoting Dawkins or Harris?

    [Sirius: Um, only if Dawkins or Harris is God. Hey, if they were, wouldn’t that mean they’d have to deny and hate themselves? But seriously, no, it’s not. Christendom has a sourcebook. Atheists [much less misotheists] cannot agree on an authorative sourcebook. And in any case, we’d still be comparing a Bokk by infallible omnipotent God to books by fallible, oh-so-limited men.]

    The only difference I can see is…

    [Sirius: … with your no-God blinders on…]

    …if we all agreed not to quote from other sources, and think for ourselves as you put it, is that religion would quickly fade.

    [Sirius: Considering how well you’ve missed the point thus far, I doubt we religious types have much to worry about. The idea I’ve presented, on the athiest moron level, is that we ought to make lucid arguments all on our own. You may use relevant quotes on this site, but refering to a link without making the argument yourself [i.e.– “Just go to this link by brilliant atheist evangelist Dr. Sawmforteen Won and see for yourself!”] in the fisrt place. I realize that this requires effort and, yes, actual comprehension of the subjects you are discussing. And, yes, I realize that atheists are severely handicapped in the area of reasoned dialogue. Atheism, being a negative argument against future evidence, requires one to turn one’s brain completely off. The only rational atheist is an oxymoron.

    Read it again. Come up with a better response. Try reason this time.]

  9. Matt says:

    Let’s, for one moment, assume you are correct in that Atheists only ever appeal to a higher power and are unable to think for themselves.

    Care to see what you are doing? That is right, you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse atheists of doing. You’re looking at the one source of information which tells you what to do, think and generally behave and make appeals to it on a constant basis.

    That is a clear cut and classical case of hypocrisy.

    As for your baseless claim that all atheists do is appeal to higher powers … if even true, what is wrong with pointing to the research which backs up statements? You mention talkorigins (now temporarily due to server problems) as, for some reason, a dubious source.
    Yet every claim made on that website is fully referenced to peer reviewed and thus independently verified research that has stood up to full objective critique and scrutiny. According to your logic, scientists and other rational people would not be allowed to point to this collection of research since it is a ‘higher power’ which is absurd by any measure. Is the only source of information you think acceptable the ones you choose? Kindly justify this stance.

  10. Sirius says:

    If you assume that I’m right for even one moment, you’ll have an epiphany.

    I can see however that your thought processes are, as usual, in the lowest gear. As evidence of this fact I direct your attention to the fact that you’ve stated the obvious — but missed the point entirely! It’s not hypocritical for a Christian to appeal to a Higher Power. It’s quite [super]natural. It’s actually been put to us as an accusation. The hypocritical thing, as I pointed out in the blog article which you obviously skimmed if you read past teh title at all, is when atheists start appeal to higher powers – demigods of misotheism, if you will.

    So it’s not a “clear cut and classical case of hypocrisy,” poor knuckle-dragger. It’s a case of irony. Perhaps if you’d brush up on rhetoric and argument instead of just regurgitating whatever your higher powers tell you… Who am I kidding? You actually think you’re having an independent thought by parroting the latest Darbot propaganda! Ach!

    The “for some reason” that I consider TalkOrigins a dubious source… wait. That’s not right. I don’t consider them a “dubious” source. I consider them to be bunk through and through. I consider them to be an erroneous source. Get your facts straight, man. I debunked their lynchpin and demonstrated that evolutionism is, depsite their claims to the contrary, an unfalsifiable tautology. No rational person should ever consider that collection of propaganda as authorative. [btw, don’t play the peer-reviewed card when you know they won’t let anyone else play their reindeer games, schmuck]

    If you’ve been reading what I’ve written [BIG DOUBT] you’ll note that my rule against appealing to higher powers has an intent. You cannot let the site make the argument for you. YOU have to form your own argument and then you may reference a supporting link, but only AFTER you’ve first made a coherent argument. I realize that this puts you, the quintessential Unthinking Man’s Atheist at a distinct disadvantage. And since you worship TalkOrigins and hold their word as absolute, maybe you need to get off the teet for a while and see if you can muster up an independent thought or two during your hiatus, hmmm?

    And I’m ignoring the straw man you ended with, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    –Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s