Atheists in the building, lets deal with this

It’s all good man. As long as we know evolution remains a theory with all so called objective evidence simply subjective. Take that with you anywhere.

All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

Plus sir, you seem to be tripping over yourself. Saying you don’t subscribe to faith, you’ve misconstrued, and then getting offended I called you faithless, by my definition, even as it wasn’t directed at anyone specifically on that thread?
Well, it’ll do you good to tell you you’re faithless, cause that gives you hope that you’ve not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won’t find that in the realm you’ve confined yourself to.

Are you serious? :woman_shrugging:

Oh dear. You really don’t understand the meaning of a scientific theory do you. You seem to be using it to mean hypothesis or proposal, which it is not.

A scientific theory is an explanation for observed facts. Evolution is fact, not an hypothesis .

Going by the standard of your prose, I don’t believe you are incapable of using Google or a hard copy dictionary. Or is it that you simply don’t accept authorities generally accepted,in the general community and in science ? That you will only believe your faith based humbug?

In fact, a theory can be both and hypothesis AND an explanation,as I suspect you are fully aware… Trying to dismiss the theory of evolution as 'just a theory ’ is disingenuous, imo. As a result you have no credibility.

To amuse myself:

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomenathe wave theory of light

2a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all

3a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjecttheory of equations

4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an artmusic theory

5 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Other Words from theory


Scientific theory , systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

PS I apologise for calling you a cunt. I am not usually that indiscreet.


The dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc :laughing: :laughing: :roll_eyes:


I’d be proud, if a superstitious religious apologist calls me this. As I always strive to reason rationally, and using blind faith, as religious apologists do, is absurdly irrational.

Hey…hello :wave:

Your perfect god has a memory problem… (maybe it’s because he has no DNA :dna: hahahahaha)

I thought this thread’s purpose was to somehow “deal with atheists” - you put a lot of effort into Evolution Theory (for you, this must be like Evilution) - however SHOULDN’T YOU be “proving” your claims…

Get your ass in gear AND deal with YOUR CLAIM…

REPOSTED so you don’t have to scroll up to the very top… you’re welcome :blush:

There are two common applications of the definition of “theory”. There is the general “theory” which is just basically an idea, it does not have to be supported. The application of “theory” I (and many other atheists) use is the scientific one, where it must be supported by evidence, peer review, and batteries of challenges.

The scientific theory of evolution is well supported, from hard evidence to confirmation from other disciplines, such as genetics and geology.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions.

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it.

Pascal’s Wager. I reject it.

I will have to add another rule when I read any posts in here.

The first is never to have any liquid in my mouth, because uncontrollable laughter can result in it being sprayed out my nostrils. I had to get a new keyboard, it began to stink like curdled cheese.

The new and second rule will be to place a towel or something on my chair so I don’t soil it when I too, PMLMAO.

The life of an atheist in this forum. Place towel on seat, make sure no liquids are in reach. Have a spare towel ready. Make sure no one will be in the washroom during any forum sessions, a shower may be required.

Dirty work, but someone has to do it. :rofl:

1 Like

As long as we know gravity remains a theory, the terms “up” and “down” will remain purely subjective.

No shame in learning so if you’ve got something to teach me, do graciously. But first, verify it. Only for your sake, I googled it, so you wouldn’t be so rash in your ignorance next time. Here.

Look at the definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory, supposition, proposition, which is why it is continually modified with findings.
It seems certain you’re not trained in the scientific method SM, though obviously learned, evidenced in verbosity and loquacity. Might make a good journalist too, wonder your field?
Not that you’re uninformed about the SM but seem yet to apply it to produce standard scientific material else you would understand the justified arguments against the evo rhetoric.
To help you, a theory looks at findings, you wrongly term proof, proposing reasonable explanations, under established principles. However, this is usually subjective and open to modification and critiquing, as there could still be several unknowns, grey areas and more circumspect perspectives. A law, on the other hand, is not open to modification, nor subjected to perspective as it is constant logically deduced by experimentation. Just google all, not some, differences between a theory and a law and quit your huff and puff of more guff. Your 12" will do you no good on this dancefloor, especially not with your draping ball-gown.

When I said you’ve thrown out a mind of your own, understand I really meant no insult but that you let others do your thinking, swallowing unfiltered info. It’s also true of most but on the path to freedom, you need to subject all information to independent scrutiny using logic. I’m certain you’re bright enough for such task, hence my suggestion. If you only try this, you’d see why Darwinian evo doesn’t get “fact” status by “consensus” but until objectively proven.

Is that what religions do?

1 Like

Does it make you feel better with cussing? Very well then. I’m no more guilty than the book I quoted. At least I only called a line of thought what it is and that remains what it is.

The undergirding proof of reality is consciousness from which logic is developed. Learn again, logic projects from intrinsically established realities/axioms to deduced realities based on established laws. There is a self-established reality to develop logic from and not deduced by logic. This is why faith, like matter, cannot be logically determined. It is a self-subsistent reality. A little baby knows mama is real because it’s aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real.
Are there laws to be developed from the materiality of faith? Like in the universe, yes, but these must be patiently learnt and is why the man of faith has many unknowns in that school and even his knowledge is not impeccable. But faith is a self-subsistent substrate to be freely contacted by any who wishes.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be ‘how to contact’. It is not about believing bogus claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren’t and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.

Until you back your claim and that of god being perfection (previous quote) you are full of hot air waving around your “man words” :open_book: blustering about god.

YOU can’t even address the fucking 10 Commandments!

Bullshit! Bullshit! BULLSHIT!!! You cannot back this claim at all! Aside from the telling of the stories of OBE and NDE from MEMORY - where is the evidence? A person claiming alien abduction also uses their MEMORY of the event - does not provide demonstrable proof that the EVENT HAPPENED as it is “remembered and experienced through the person”.

Jesus fuck!

Its painfully simple.

Laws tell us what happens.
Theories explain how and why something happens.

Links eh? I have some too.

One of your links, Dictionary .com, also has this definition: scientific theory

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.”

which is only what we’ve been telling you forever.

And from Live Science,
What is a law in science?

“Generally scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.”

And two explanations from the “Understanding Science” site at Berkeley University

Under the section “Vocabulary mix ups.”

“Law: In everyday language, a law is a rule that must be abided or something that can be relied upon to occur in a particular situation. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are less rigid. They may have exceptions, and, like other scientific knowledge, may be modified or rejected based on new evidence and perspectives. In science, the term law usually refers to a generalization about data and is a compact way of describing what we’d expect to happen in a particular situation.”

And just above that entry the heading of “Misunderstandings of the limits of science” comes the following:

"MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God.

CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

Which is what we have also been telling you forever.


It is not about what makes me feel better. If you knew me better, I prefer to engage in polite discourse. In fact, even befriending a theist so we can have a healthy exchange of opinions where we learn from each other.

But you immediately set the tone, being toxic, combative, and antagonistic. My response was proportional to your post.

You are an asshole, I will treat you as such.


AHEMMMM… Evolution happens and that IS ‘FACT.’
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory , a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Aw bless, try googling the correct words next time, as we were talking about a scientific theory, and the dumbest creatard canard of all, that you used above, evolution is just a theory. It’s no more just a theory, than a car race is a species in the sense the human race is. Moronic creatard rhetoric of the most risible kind.

Get a literate sane adult to help you. Maybe one of the nurses after she’s done cutting your fruit into your bowl for you?

Look at the definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory

No need to guess, we’ve all seen enough creatards make this howler. Nothing you’ve posted suggests any interest in honest rational debate, your arrogant pompous hubris in favour of your unevidenced ignorant superstitious fantasies are to be pitied and laughed at.

From now on I shall act accordingly. If you were capable of integrity or adult politeness maybe I’d torture myself reading the asinine drivel you post, but since you’re being a trolling prick, why would I bother exactly?

You came to us to peddle your fantasies sunshine, try and grasp that.



You’re as “knowledgeable” in science :joy: as you are with the bible :joy:

1 Like

Obviously, you folks are not trained in the Scientific Method. Laws are putting in words objective facts, hence remain objective. Theories are an attempt to explain the whys and can be offered in multiple plausible ways. This is why laws are immutable commensurate to their facts but theories are not but only subjective.
Again do a thorough study on both and may be try at least one scientific experiment involving both to truly comprehend else you’ll keep missing the point.

I also like how you’ve found a way to rubbish the thread. It’s all good, I’m tired of your circles too. At least you’ve learnt a few things including the false security of evolutionism. Go back and search for answers y’all