0
   

For those who don't believe evolution....

 
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2008 06:18 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62380 wrote:
Thank you for admitting that you can not prove an absence of God.


who ever said they could? :dunno:
0 Replies
 
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2008 10:21 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62384 wrote:
The complete lack of evidence is enough to show that he does not exist. In order for something to exist, there must be observable evidence of such. If there's no evidence, there's no existence. I need nothing more than that.

The default is always non-existence. Evidence shows existence. Do you have any evidence of the existence of God?



Quarks did not exist until the last few years if in fact they even exist now:rollinglaugh:
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2008 11:18 pm
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62419 wrote:
Quarks did not exist until the last few years if in fact they even exist now:rollinglaugh:


If we have evidence of their existence why would you assume that they didn't exist before we found this evidence.
0 Replies
 
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;62384 wrote:
The complete lack of evidence is enough to show that he does not exist. In order for something to exist, there must be observable evidence of such. If there's no evidence, there's no existence. I need nothing more than that.


Thus, according to Sabz, before there was evidence of quarks there was no existance of quarks.:ban:
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 01:25 pm
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62466 wrote:
Thus, according to Sabz, before there was evidence of quarks there was no existance of quarks.:ban:


You misrepresent. He isn't saying that something was nonexistent during a time before there was evidence of it but rather if you currently have no evidence then you should conclude it's absence.
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 07:01 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;62469 wrote:
You misrepresent. He isn't saying that something was nonexistent during a time before there was evidence of it but rather if you currently have no evidence then you should conclude it's absence.


But, there were quarks before there was proof of quarks, were there not?

In fact, when the existence of quarks was still being highly debated and doubted, it was scientists who, without yet having evidence of their existence supposed that they might exist and thus tested for them.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 10:04 am
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62471 wrote:
But, there were quarks before there was proof of quarks, were there not?

In fact, when the existence of quarks was still being highly debated and doubted, it was scientists who, without yet having evidence of their existence supposed that they might exist and thus tested for them.


Before there was quarks they were assumed to be merely hypothetical entities it wasn't until we had strong evidence that we concluded that they exist something that is still debated.
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2008 08:59 pm
@Musky Hunter,
Musky Hunter;62466 wrote:
Thus, according to Sabz, before there was evidence of quarks there was no existance of quarks.:ban:


Before there was evidence, there was no reason to consider their existence. Was their existence considered 500 years ago? Clearly not.

Regardless of an object's existence, there is no reason to assume they exist unless evidence points towards it. It is not until evidence is shown that such a thing is taken into consideration.

And not one second before.

That means, until you provide evidence for this deity, there is no reason its existence should be taken into consideration. You can hypothesize all day and night, but hypotheses do not mean something exists.

So... the betting comes back around to you. Do you have evidence for the existence of this being? If not, why is there any reason to consider its existence?
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 05:07 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Quote:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John F. Kennedy


All political double talk repeated every fourth year and abandoned in the following 3.
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 05:50 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;62566 wrote:
All political double talk repeated every fourth year and abandoned in the following 3.


Off topic!!
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 06:15 am
@Numpty,
Numpty;62567 wrote:
Off topic!!


Correct, I read it as a signature on a post and chose to respond. If it's written anywhere in the post, is it off topic..? If so, then it should be removed.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 07:55 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;62568 wrote:
Correct, I read it as a signature on a post and chose to respond. If it's written anywhere in the post, is it off topic..? If so, then it should be removed.


Is my sig part of the discussion? When you click "Quote Post" does it get included?
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 08:13 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
It is impolite to answer a question with a question.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:39 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;62568 wrote:
Correct, I read it as a signature on a post and chose to respond. If it's written anywhere in the post, is it off topic..? If so, then it should be removed.


What about the ads at the top of the page? They too are part of the discussion?





(Although i admit that i can't actually see the ads because i have adblocker)
0 Replies
 
Musky Hunter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 11:15 am
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;62603 wrote:
It is impolite to answer a question with a question.


What do you mean by that?Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:17 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;62603 wrote:
It is impolite to answer a question with a question.


It's impolite to threadjack.

If you wanna be technical, you made two statements and asked one question. My two questions reference your two statements, so I did not answer a question with a question.

You have dodged two questions. Two that I expect you to answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 04:47:58