Atheists are amusing

[MadNomad]

For example, the Big Bang theory,@MadNomad said it was the best thing they have, but the mainstream scientific community had abandoned it in favor of a new theory several years ago. But yet he would have taken out the telescope like he said and whatever he would have seen that confirms the Big Bang would have been confirmation bias, because if we hold their words as "FACTS" then the Big Bang theory he said he would find evidence for doesn't even exist. It's like you said they do backwards calculation.

What? When was the big bang theory abandoned? New models of the same theory does not constitute as abandoning it all together, you know that right?

 

[McLovin]

He makes a good point. You don't accept it now because the mainstream hasn't done so. Not because of evidence but for other reasons, had they accepted it you would too. The "evidence" for it is still out there. The difference is who's promoting it?

I deny racialism because it doesn't have any strong evidence supporting it. Not because it is against the mainstream or 'taboo' or whatever.


I don't think you understand how peer review works. New rulings arent just issued on the spot like a fatwa. Rather it consists of meticulous scrutiny of the work by the top experts in the given field before it is allowed to pass on to the next stage of validation. Its also the reason why crackpot theories like creationism and homeopathy have a hard time being published by any reputable scientific society

 

[Inquisitive_]

The nail was hit on the head by the OP, the most backward miscreant voodo pagan from the slums of Haiti or the jungles of Congo knows more about his believes and has more conviction then these conformist quacks.

It's virtually impossible to grasp all the sciences and hence blind following is required as @hodon argued and as @simulacrum confirmed even arguing blind following is somehow bizarrely 'rational', hence there goes the 'evidence' quack mantra straight out of the door at the first sign of a challenge.

If you look at the exclusively all white Europhile club of quackademics pseudo scientists, they were all occultist, satanists and part of secret society groups such as the freemasons, they write about this freely, from Copernicus, Darwin, Eratosthenes, Kepler, Einstein etc

That's right! the guys that brought you the spinning ball earth, gravity, relativity and evolution were all occultist that summoned the demons and worshipped Satan on the side, while preaching the opposite to the sheep. So do all the elitists today as Wikileaks exposed.

Hence it's impossible to take these pathetic spineless gutless blind sheeple serious and they deserve nothing more then ridicule

 

[OmarLittle]

Atheism is not a religion, so I don't see why you're generalizing here

 

[bluebird]

I deny racialism because it doesn't have any strong evidence supporting it. Not because it is against the mainstream or 'taboo' or whatever.


I don't think you understand how peer review works. New rulings arent just issued on the spot like a fatwa. Rather it consists of meticulous scrutiny of the work by the top experts in the given field before it is allowed to pass on to the next stage of validation. Its also the reason why crackpot theories like creationism and homeopathy have a hard time being published by any reputable scientific society

if you believe in human evolution then there is a lot of evidence supporting scientific racism. You're demonstrating right here that blind following and belief I was talking about. If fits their agenda but it would never be published except by a few heretics like Amun said.

@MadNomad the new model explicitly says there was no big bang so how could be be new model of the same theory?

 

[Aaegal]

The nail was hit on the head by the OP, the most backward miscreant voodo pagan from the slums of Haiti or the jungles of Congo knows more about his believes and has more conviction then these conformist quacks.

It's virtually impossible to grasp all the sciences and hence blind following is required as @hodon argued and as @simulacrum confirmed even arguing blind following is somehow bizarrely 'rational', hence there goes the 'evidence' quack mantra straight out of the door at the first sign of a challenge.

If you look at the exclusively all white Europhile club of quackademics pseudo scientists, they were all occultist, satanists and part of secret society groups such as the freemasons, they write about this freely, from Copernicus, Darwin, Eratosthenes, Kepler, Einstein etc

That's right! the guys that brought you the spinning ball earth, gravity, relativity and evolution were all occultist that summoned the demons and worshipped Satan on the side, while preaching the opposite to the sheep. So do all the elitists today as Wikileaks exposed.

Hence it's impossible to take these pathetic spineless gutless blind sheeple serious and they deserve nothing more then ridicule

You say the same shit in slightly different ways every thread about atheists.

Voodoo - check
Congo jungles - check
atheists are stupid - check
europhile - check
conformist - check
quackademics - check
flat earth - check
occulist - check
satan worshipers - check
more insults - check

Your shtick is getting tiring

 

[bluebird]

tee kale, in the other thread I made, 2 atheists in that thread saw "blood" in a picture because the picture was labeled "blood" yet anyone with eyes could see it wasn't blood. Is this the mind of a logical individual who thinks for themselves.?

 

[MadNomad]

if you believe in human evolution then there is a lot of evidence supporting scientific racism. You're demonstrating right here that blind following and belief I was talking about. If fits their agenda but it would never be published except by a few heretics like Amun said.

@MadNomad the new model explicitly says there was no big bang so how could be be new model of the same theory?

Are you arguing semantics now? There was an expansion, this hasn't changed. How about sharing this new expansion-less theory with me? Links?

 

[EternalLightX]

What is this obsession you have with atheist ? Are you in doubt ? Typical Muslims cry like apes when someone goes against them come on shout islamaphobia !!!! Because that's all you people are capable off instead of critically debating them you cry like little children. If it's writing in Hadith and the Quran as they are quoting then it's the truth. Even with your mental gymnastics your making yourself as fools.

 

[Genie]

For me Evolution has way to many loopholes before it seals the deal for me personally that is.

1. Firstly absolutely NO! evidence for Macro evolution , form one species to another , this is completely different from micro evolution which i completely understand and the evidence for this is very much undeniable. However from ape to human or a fish that no longer needed its gills and developed legs , We have not yet witnessed such changes not even a minor change in todays fish for as long as this theory was around.

2. Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticisms by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. How do they explain this , some say these creatures simply stopped evolving earlier however this will contradict with their theory that its takes a significant amount of time to produce such complex creatures.

3. Another thing i find very hard to believe is the earths age 4.5 BILLION years , maybe a million or so but a billion come one , so scientists use a measurement known as Radioactive dating or radiometric dating to measure rocks and fossils based not he radioactive decay within the rock. However
the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologists do they make up an assumed geological history for rock after the event , depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab that measures the isotopes in the rocks now.

For example :

Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?

When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” They realize that you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.

Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the end for each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need three timekeepers to independently record the times during the race to meet the standard needed to enter the record books.

Would it make any difference if the watch we were using was more accurate? Absolutely not! You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.

The fact is that you can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more reliable eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish of the race.

This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Conclusion: There are too many holes in the theory for my liking but as some of you stated above , if i'm proved otherwise i would'nt mind changing views , as evolution doesn't even prove how life started but rather how life evolved upon starting. I'm a muslim and i know many muslims have embraced evolution , but even if i wasn't a muslim i think i would still be skeptical about evolution , These are the 3 main issues i have with the theory (yes theory imma call it theory until my points are proven otherwise).

 

[Genie]

What is this obsession you have with atheist ? Are you in doubt ? Typical Muslims cry like apes when someone goes against them come on shout islamaphobia !!!! Because that's all you people are capable off instead of critically debating them you cry like little children. If it's writing in Hadith and the Quran as they are quoting then it's the truth. Even with your mental gymnastics your making yourself as fools.

Says you i have never seen you 'critically debate' , all you do is complain and talk abut ur Madow hair and how you're too skinny and can't twerk , pls skrr skrr .