A fair point

A fair point
Atheists, your rebuttal?

Why is that a gif?

It only has 256 colors

because thats how god intended it to be.

Because they're two completely different parts of science. That's like saying "because we understand general relativity, we must be able to understand a complete essay of how the brain works, and why it works like it does!"

how, exactly, is that a "fair point"?

>posts shitty web comic from some bible-thumper site
>tries to use it as argument for not accepting evolution
>is absolute idiot
>should an hero

you're an idiot. please take yourself out of the gene pool.

How come you cant accurately predict the exact events of your life tomorrow but you can remember important details from certain events years ago?

>remember
infer

Variables and probablitiy.
Weather is a predictive science where each forecast has only limited information, limited time of said information, and far to many variables to be properly accounted for. It is highly dependent on small aspects of the environment. Most importantly it is PREDICTIVE.

Earth age is in the past.. meaning we can look at multiple variables, constrain all our information, and have as much time as we want to do it. Even so, it's hardly accurate. the earth could be between 6.2-4.7 billion years old.. that's a huge gap. What we know for sure is it is VERY OLD.

>life on earth

the same rules apply

Checkmate, indeed...!

1. What does weather modeling have to do with paleobiology?

2. Atheism and science are independent with perhaps some mutual inclusiveness, but one does not imply the other. Hence, why ask "atheists, your rebuttal" to a science-related dilemma?

3. The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, not proving the negative. If you're stating God exists, the burden is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.

nah, that doesn't follow logic.
If you don't believe, why DON'T you beleive? it must be because you find something wrong with belief. what about belief is wrong?

i read it as "athletes"

>continued
Therefore, there's a bit too much mental gymnastics going on to go from "see, the weather forecast is wrong" to, if I may infer the deeper question from your query, "prove God didn't create life."

I almost agree, but vaginas are disgusting so I disagree. fucking hairy ass roast beef bitches, christ why can't they die at age 15

> The burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, not proving the negative. If you're stating God exists, the burden is on you to prove it, not for others to disprove it.
this

This follows logic precisely.
>Presented with either proof or evidence supporting a claim that I cannot refute, aka science.
I believe the statement until evidence supports otherwise.

>Presented with no proof or even evidence supporting the claim
There is insufficient evidence for me to believe this statement.

In other words, you're telling me you actively believe any claim by default until there's evidence proving or supporting the opposite rather than you don't believe said thing until there's proof or evidence supporting it??

The particular vagina I'm posting is completely shaven with a very small clitoris and a nearly non-existent labia minora. I'm not sure where you're befuddlement is coming from, guy.

Theism and atheism are just theories about the origin of the universe; whether it was designed by a conscious being or not.

It's true that carbon dating is innacurate, but that doesn't mean atheism is bullshit because neither atheism or theism are necessarily correlated with science.

It's clearly from an of-age "actress", and it's a clear photo, she's used to this. It's so clear, so presented, she's well past "used goods" and into "thrift shop" territory

there is nothing wrong with clean vaginas except being used before and refurbished

So; we should trust the word of people who wrote a bunch of shit before anyone knew what "fiction" was? This is more infallible?

You really need to get these definitions down before you engage in a debate, guy. Atheism, in its purest form, is simply not subscribing to theology. Howevetr, you're correct in implying (because I'm going to assume you used the word correlate incorrectly but instead meant "related") that atheism is not related to science.

I'm a christian (not strict at all) and a paleontologist/geologist. There are relative dating techniques that are used that don't rely on carbon dating like measuring sediment deposition over time and then averaging that out for thick sandstone outcrops, etc

It's almost always potassium, uranium, rubidium, etc dating because those reach out millions to billions of years where carbon is only a few 10's of thousands

Okay, so you only take issue with post-adolescent female genitals? Even if you're a pedophile, hebephile, or ephebophile, wishing those past 15 death has me guess that your issues with women are much deeper and more troubled than simply having a penchant for the pubescent form.

Have you been denied sexual contact from too many women? Have you been humiliated by them before? What's going on, man?

I think you just hate things you don't understand. Atheism and climate change are two independent concepts.

It's a jumpscare. Apparently nobody reads anymore

Though I disagree with op as well and the statement "Atheism and climate change are two independent concepts" is unto itself correct, what does an inaccurate weather forecast have to do with climate change?

What exactly is your point? It seems to come down entirely to your feelies and that you're arbitrarily choosing what to believe and what not to.

Otherwise, you had better start adhering to Sharia law as well as Greek polytheism, because those are equally prove-able as divine truths.

Well that's just it, isn't it? An inaccurate weather forecast has nothing to do with climate change. It's a false correlation that half-smart fuckbags make in order to discredit something they don't understand.

This is so retarded I'll assume it's bait. Thank you and good day.

But climate change was neither explicitly nor implicitly being argued. This guy
seemed to have incorrectly implied that from nowhere. I was just trying to get clarification on it. Not sure where the rest of your stuff is coming from, guy.

>Otherwise, you had better start adhering to Sharia law as well as Greek polytheism, because those are equally prove-able as divine truths.
so in other words, not provable.

> predicting the future
> compared to explaining the past

some people just shouldn't be allowed to breed