Atheist Idicoy

[Nine]

Response: You can't present any evidence here that shows that evolution is true, without referring to a textbook saying that it's true. Period. Until you do, your rant is a waste of time and only confirms the idiocy of atheism.

Response: Not my problem your too lazy to actually go learn something for yourself.

Confirms that your ignorant.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

*ahem*... is that supposed to be an insult?

[Nine]

[...]that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

*ahem*... is that supposed to be an insult?

I think he meant it as an insult. I took it as a compliment.

[Edwardo Piet]

Likewise.

[TaraJo]

Hey, Muslim boy! Do you know why you need a new flu shot each year? I'll give you a hint: it inolves evolution.

Response: Nope. Try again.

I do. The flu that effects us this year is the evolved version of what effected us last year. It simply evoves into a slightly different version and last years vaccine doesn't work.

There's a similar story about why we're having such a difficult time treating AIDS: we treat the virus and the virus just evolves into something that our current treatment won't stop. In fact, that's the reason HIV+ people get a medication coctail: each medication targets a specific aspect of the HIV virus so that if it evolves to get around one of the medications, the other two will still stop it.

MRSA comes from a similar place. Bacteria has evolved to the point that antibiotics aren't stopping them anymore and we're having to find new ways to treat infections because of it.

And the key, as has been shown to you in post after post after post in this thread, is that these findings can be found in a laboratory. Give me the resources and I could repeat them for you or, hell, I could show you how to repeat them yourself.

But here's the big question: How much faith do you really have in your dogma? How certain are you, really, that evolution doesn't happen? Are you willing to risk your life because of your faith that evolution didn't happen? I'm sure a strict theist like yourself trusts your dogma much more than modern medical science, right? Like, you aren't going to bother getting a flu shot every year because evolution is a lie and you can just rely on last years' shot. And one drug will stop HIV because there's no way it can evolve to get around that drug, right? And bacteria, there's no way for it to evolve to get around antibiotics, right? So if you get MRSA, you're just going to take the same antibiotics because, hey, they'll work since the bacteria didn't evolve, right?

[Edwardo Piet]

Viruses are more powerful than humanity ultimately.

[Ryantology]

Why did God create bacteria capable of eating nylon?

[Edwardo Piet]

Because "God" has a mental illness.

[Christian]

The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is there proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

Mister Sir Al-Fart-hah,
How dare you call someone idiot? Does your fake God and fake Quran teach you that? All members here are so nice and welcoming, expect for other Islamict facists like you, with the exception of Rayaan.
Jesus tought us to love each other. Its pretty obvious your fake allah didn't teach you that, coz he didn't exist in the first place. Look here - I am a Chrisitan by heart and mind, but my heart and mind is not closed, like you Islamist facists. Science is God's way to showing the world the marvels of His creation. Rejecting science is rejecting God.

[pocaracas]

After 4 pages of just kicking this guy, I think it's time someone told him how the theory of evolution by natural selection came about.
It was not poofed into a book. It was not imagined. It was not inspired. It was not dreamed up.
It was reasoned after many observations and comparisons of the various animal and plant species in diverse regions of the globe.
Let's quote the wiki a bit, because I don't want to write it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ry_thought

With the beginnings of biological taxonomy in the late 17th century, Western biological thinking was influenced by two opposed ideas. One was essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable, a concept which had developed from medieval Aristotelian metaphysics, and that fit well with natural theology. The other one was the development of the new anti-Aristotelian approach to modern science: as the Enlightenment progressed, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

In 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory that was explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life, meaning that two very different species could share a common ancestor. The theory was based on the idea of natural selection, and it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[9] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[10]

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[11] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[12] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[13] Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[5] In 1871 he examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.

All of Darwin's research has been verified time and time again by a number of researchers, botanists, biologists, etc.

The scientific community accepted the theory as valid because of the sheer amount of evidence he presented.
Nowadays, people still accept the theory because no evidence has managed to challenge it. All evidence supports it.
Lay people never actually read the books and papers which show the evidence, but many watch nature documentaries on tv, and end up seeing some of the evidence this way... and we're aware that, given funding, time, and dedication, each and every one of us could find that evidence for ourselves.
This is one of the main factors of science: any one could repeat the experiment and obtain the same results.... if they don't mess up the methodology.