I'm too dumb to be an atheist

[pocaracas]

I am not sure gravitational lensing is exactly the same as a gravity wave, if it was then observations in the early part of the last century would have resolved it.

I never said it was...
Gravitational lensing is a piece of evidence for general relativity.
Nothing in general relativity states that there is such a thing as a gravitational wave, as far as I'm aware...

So sorry I don't believe you and think it is important to hunt for gravity waves.

What's with you and these gravitational waves?...

But as I understand it there are many, many closely equivalent theories which would be consistent with what we have observed.

Care to share them?

The elegance or beauty of a model is not evidence for it's reality. Until we observe it, we don't have direct evidence. There is no reason to treat science differently than other questions and every reason to hunt for proton decay and gravity waves and keep an open mind.

Exotic stuff tends not to get much funding...
If, during standard funded experiments, there is something that hints towards those exotic phenomena, then funding appears... until then, they remain scribblings with little value and no one to accept them as science.

No the visitors center at the grand canyon DOES NOT support Noah

Whew! For a moment, you had me worried.

, have you been there?

No, It's a bit out of my way... as I'd need to cross an ocean to get there.
For what? a fissure in the ground? I've seen it on tv.... does that count?

There are discussions of radioactive dating of the strata

You know how the YECs argue with this?... "how do you know radioactive decay worked according to your exponential decay law, millions of years ago?"
"Things worked way way faster in the past... that's how you arrive at very old ages, when they should be, at most, 6000 years"

and observed erosion rates. It is glaringly obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of years of history there and a flood is not consistent with any of it. Also observe the behavior of tar under even slight water pressure. It would NOT have sealed any cracks in the doomed box that the alleged god, Creator of the universe and all powerful, needed a man to make for him. So no, Noah is obviously BS to anyone with even a slightly functioning brain.

Noah?
Oh, you mean Gilgamesh, or was it Atrahasis?... yes, I agree...

As for theory and definitions like that, there are shades of grey and uncertainty in science. It does not help to pretend there are not. Nor does a theory being supported by evidence mean that all theories are equally true. You really have to talk about specifics. We don't need the first few seconds of the big bang to prove or disprove any theology, they are not necessary for support of atheism, they are often obscuring more important things, like the simple science present at the visitors center of the grand canyon.

Indeed, science is not necessary to support anyone's atheism.
But it helps to answer some of the burning questions that the theists like to claim that their god-did-it.

If you supply an alternative explanation, the requirement for a god shrinks in scope.

OR the fact that you knew about magnetic monopoles and I didn't could prove you are really the voice of athiesmo, great sky god of atheists.

Oh, thank you for your recognition.
I dub thee, knight of the atheismistic graal!