I know the answer to both those questions, and since none of you can prove me wrong, just skip the middlemen and send your tithings directly to me.

in the 99% of the knowledge that i havent yet come across (99% ?!?) there wouldnt be ample evidence to prove the existence of a god.
there's more than enough evidence to prove that it's more probable that one didnt create us. that's why creationists arguments fail and they're being told not to participate in these debates, because they'll lose - because they're wrong and clutching at non-existent straws.

there surely is enough evidence to prove that that "banana-guy" is dumb.
now question is, do I care?
actually, no, I don't!

this video is a little less pointless than the one that is referring to.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Easily refuted by Pastafarians.

As a rational human, and most especially a scientist, one is forced at some point to contemplate the God hypothesis. A rational person concludes that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, and rejects it.

As the video says, that does not mean that we should attempt to "disprove" God. It's a waste of resources on a rejected hypothesis. Read a book or play some guitar instead. Similarly, it is a poisonous waste of time to attempt to "prove" the God hypothesis. It can't be done, and when you couch dogma in quasi-scientific terms as an attempt at offering "evidence" for an unscientific premise, it just makes you look ridiculous.

Hence, Banana Guy. And all of the "Intelligent Design" crap. And anyone that ever tries to tell you the Bible is an accurate primary source of historical events. And so on and so forth. What's worse, if you already are a "believer" and are trying to come across as an "expert" with "evidence", you have two immediate problems; inductive logic and an existing predisposition to constructing your global perspective and moral code on faith.

You accept a hypothesis that can't be proven as sacred from the beginning and then pervert the scientific method in the hopes that people will take you seriously.


/waits for gorgonheap

Not to mention that, well, if you really wanted to know how many hairs are on a yak's back, or how much Hawaiian sand weighs, you could actually find out. It might take you a while, but you could. Those things exist.

Who needs evidence to believe in their religion? Believe, as an intransitive verb, is all about faith and opinion, not a waying of facts...

... I'd also agree with fungible's comment, there are more than 1 and less than an infinite amount of hairs on the back of a full grown yak. If they specified the particular yak and the time at which to assess the number of hairs then a much tighter range would be possible. Same for Hawaii; give a time, outline what encapsulates Hawaii exactly, and a helpful range to answer the question can be developed. , yes, I am always this ridiculous.

A 1337 internet atheist on the internet? Color me surprised.

Ray makes a good point.
but i have a test for him.

Unless he himself can answer the questions he too would have to admit that there is a lot he doesn't know, And in everything he doesn't know there may be evidence that god doesn't exist. Go on Ray, Admit that it's possible you are wrong.

Ray Comfort is the only guy I know of, that can open his mouth, say less than 50 words, and you feel considerably dumber afterwards, and it happens, remarkably, every time too. A walking, talking virus of ignorance.

A 1337 internet atheist on the internet? Color me redundant.

Fixed for ya lil buddy.