Atheist Idicoy

[Al-Fatihah]

Ok, I'm getting bored with this guy. It's kinda turned into "I'm not a poopie head! You're a poopie head!" I'm just gonna have some fun with the dork.

Response: It's not my fault you can't stomach being exposed of your foolish belief that evolution is an actual fact. But then again, you're an atheist, which is synonymous to dummy anyway. Debunked as usual.

---

Your entire argument is smashed to little tiny pieces and obliterated before it even begins,
You say ask any atheist about evolution? well atheism isnt a belief in evolution its a lack of belief in god, so theres probably atheists out there who dont believe in evolution just as theres muslims who believe in evolution.
You say the proof of evolution is only in a book, theres fossil evidence, you can go to museums and see displays and such, doctors know about evolution because of micro evolution.
Attacking the theory of evolution not only makes you look stupid but has nothing to do with god, there could be a god and evolution and there could be no evolution and no god.
And if you want to judge which book is more reliable its a simple case of modern day scientific text books which all agree with each other about the basic idea of the theory of evolution vs creationism, by the way this argument has been actually carried out in court by creationsts WAY more persuasive than you who STILL failed at trying to get creationism taught in schools.

Resonse: The amusing part is that you only confirm that atheism is stupid, by stating idiotic things like "you can go to museums and see displays and such, doctors know about evolution because of micro evolution". That's not proof dummy.For you accept that the displays in museums are true because "they say so". So you still confirm that everything you accept as fact is simply based on because someone said it is. That's not evidence, that's proof of being a mental case na ddelusional, for saying so is not proof that it is so. Once again, confirming the idiocy of atheism.

---

Al-Fatihah: Is it true that you're a Falafelist?

Response: Not at all.

---

Even if evolution was false and there was a God, it would not at all prove that Islam was right. It's just one monstrously stupid delusion out of tens of thousands.

Response: Yet there is no "if". Evolution is clearly false and only a delusional person would believe otherwise.

---

We've been here before Al..you are clearly incapable of or unwilling to understand what evolution -is-. The proof of evolution is simply that organisms change as we descend or ascend through the strata. How they accomplished this would be a theory of evolution (which is what you seem to have an issue with). Go get a shovel, dig a hole. Don't take my word for it (you don't need it). Don't take any scientists word for it (you don't need it). Don't take any books word for it (you don't need it). Again, what you need is a shovel...you can dig with your hands if you like, but I suggest a shovel. That life has evolved is a demonstrable fact - demonstrable by anyone. Modern Synthesis is the theory that attempts to explain the fact. Get this right first, because if you don;t, there is no discussion to be had.

Now that we've done that all over again. Atheism simply denotes a lack of belief in god. An atheist doesn't have to prove evolution to you, nor do they have to prove to you that god does not exist to remain logically consistent and sane atheists. If you absolutely insist they would simply have to demonstrate that they do not believe. You can probably take my word on that one....right? I mean, I take your word for it when you tell us that you believe in ghosts.......np...no, you're absolutely right...I shouldn't just take your word for it - now prove that you believe. I personally don't think that you do, I'm skeptical.

Response: To he contrary, the truth is that you accept evolution as true because a book says so, meaning such logic stems from being brainwashed. Claiming something is true because it says so is not logical evidence, and since evolution is based on such idiocy and you accept it, then that makes your rebuttal sound foolish. No shovel digging has ever made a species evolve into another species. So this argument is utter nonsense and you know it, and only further exposes the idiocy of atheism.

---

Y'know something I'm starting to notice about the Muslim douchebags here? All it seems like I have to do is post some semi-blaspheming cartoons of Mohammed and they go away. Might be something to keep in mind next time they start going full-retard on us. And I'm gonna have to go find some more Islamic blasphemy cartoons.

Response: Nope. You noticed that muslims actually have a life, unlike you, who spends there days on a forum trying to justify the dumbest belief imaginable that evolution is actually a fact.

[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.

---

It's so frustrating that one of the most serious answers to the OP got completely ignored by the OP....
Maybe he just chose to ignore it... that would tell us so much about him... no wait... it wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know, sorry, carry on.

[Metallica]

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?

Response: And where did you get that from?

A book.

And how do you know the book is true.

Because it says so.

Thus confirming the idiocy of atheism. Thanks for the clarification.

So, we are both idiots, because you do the same with your quran...

And then?

You should spend your time to pray or to do charity for your brothers and sisters, or fight in Gaza, instead of trying to convince us we are stupid... What is your goal?

[Edwardo Piet]

Response: Stating facts are not insults.

That's true if they are indeed facts, and for sake of argument let's assume that they are (despite the fact that I disagree). Although you could use a word with a less negative connotation if we're just talking facts here

Ok.... so: Do you think that insanity is something one should be ashamed of?

[Metallica]

I don't know why we are talking about evolution. Let us try to strip away it.

We don't believe in god, you believe in it.

YOU have to prove god exists, that's not our job to prove it doesn't.

I also could tell you I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves). Of course, you don't believe in it... You think it's only a myth, an invention, a man's creation. Should I ask you to prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Peace Be Unto Her) doesn't exist, or have I to prove she exists?

So please, prove us us there's a god and islam is the truth. Then , we could talk about evolution

[Zen Badger]

So tell me Al-fathead, why do you fear science books so much?

Is it because of all the big words?

[pocaracas]

I also could tell you I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves).

I thought the IPU was male...

[Metallica]

I also could tell you I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves).

I thought the IPU was male...

In fact, I don't know if IPU is male of female, but in French, a unicorn = une licorne, and that's a female gender word, so I use 'she', and I hope that's not a blasphemy, I don't want to go in hell.

Quick question : in English, when talking about 'god', do we have to use 'it' or 'he'?

[pocaracas]

I thought the IPU was male...

In fact, I don't know if IPU is male of female, but in French, a unicorn = une licorne, and that's a female gender word, so I use 'she', and I hope that's not a blasphemy, I don't want to go in hell.

Quick question : in English, when talking about 'god', do we have to use 'it' or 'he'?

In portuguese, a unicorne = um unicórnio, and that's a male gender word.
You french peoples, always exchanging genders of things.... next, you'll want to make computer a female word, no?

About god, well, the female version would be goddess, so god defaults to male.
However, if there is only one, then gender becomes redundant, so we should apply the 'it'.

[Creed of Heresy]

---

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.

---

tl;dr.