Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[tlongII]

what the fuck ever..bottom line is it wasn't produced by evolution....evolution cannot produce taste buds and make sex feel good....that's a product of design

Nope. That's evolution baby!

[Koolaid_Man]

Nope. That's evolution baby!

evolution is star wars whereas the human body is intelligent design....get back to me when evolutionary Star Wars creatures invade the planet...the human body is too balanced to be a product of evolution..even if I was being generous I would give evolution one species but I cannot give evolution a whole range of species confined to earth only...I'm not even saying you have to believe in the bible all I'm saying is you guys believing in evolution are some of the biggest fucktards life has ever produced...to be quite honest

[mouse]

There is no scientific objective to prove God doesn't exist. God has no relevance in science. You need to prove that God does exist.

They all ready did.......they have the fossils to prove it.


http://static-www.icr.org/i/articles/af/fossils_gnostics_wide.jpg

[tlongII]

evolution is star wars whereas the human body is intelligent design....get back to me when evolutionary Star Wars creatures invade the planet...the human body is too balanced to be a product of evolution..even if I was being generous I would give evolution one species but I cannot give evolution a whole range of species confined to earth only...I'm not even saying you have to believe in the bible all I'm saying is you guys believing in evolution are some of the biggest fucktards life has ever produced...to be quite honest

:lol Seriously?

Evolution is undeniable. Your intelligence has to be extremely limited if you don't accept it.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did God create male nipples?

Does he have a fetish?

[RandomGuy]

Why? Science has not proven God does not exist. Period

Believers have not proven God exists, period.

Who has the real burden of proof, the person making a claim,
or t
he person who has to figure out if that claim is true or not?

Science does not comment on the non-existance of God, that is generally not a testable claim, as far as I have seen.

[RandomGuy]

what the fuck ever..bottom line is it wasn't produced by evolution....evolution cannot produce taste buds and make sex feel good....that's a product of design

Both the emergence of taste buds and the connection of reproduction to pleasure are fully consistent with evolution.

Creatures that are unable to distinguish between good and bad food, will be selected against.
Creatures that spend more time and effort reproducing will be selected for.

Natural selection = evolution.

Your points would be a lot more effective, if you understood what you were criticizing. Statements like that make it obvious you don't, no offense.

[Spurminator]

Why did God create male nipples?

Does he have a fetish?

Because men were created in the image of God, and God has nipples. Divine, holy nipples.

[ChumpDumper]

Right. Why did God give himself nipples other than to play with them?

[Koolaid_Man]

Why did God create male nipples?

Does he have a fetish?

male nipples serve a purpose....not god's fault you're into anal sex and don't know the pleasures of a woman licking your nipples

[ChumpDumper]

male nipples serve a purpose....not god's fault you're into anal sex and don't know the pleasures of a woman licking your nipplesSo why does God have them?

[Koolaid_Man]

So why does God have them?

jump off a bridge kid

[ChumpDumper]

jump off a bridge kidWow, that religious certitude of yours just fell apart over God's nipples.

[Blake]

jump off a bridge kid

saltiness is next to godliness

[RD2191]

The only transitional fossil ever found went missing in the 50s. Rofl scientists. Another Nebraska man:lmao

[Blake]

Rofl scientists.

this explains much.

[tlongII]

The only transitional fossil ever found went missing in the 50s. Rofl scientists. Another Nebraska man:lmao

Every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil.

[Bito Corleone]

Why? Science has not proven God does not exist. Period
You cannot prove that there are not pink flying elephants on the moon. However, reasonable people can still deduce through the lack of any real evidence to support such a claim that there are not pink flying elephants on the moon.

[xmas1997]

Believers have not proven God exists, period.

Who has the real burden of proof, the person making a claim,
or t
he person who has to figure out if that claim is true or not?

Science does not comment on the non-existance of God, that is generally not a testable claim, as far as I have seen.


This is incorrect.
When it comes to "burden of proof", what matters is who is making the claim FIRST, regardless of whether that claim is the non-existence or the existence of a supernatural Being, unicorns, or whatever.
The burden of proof falls upon "the one making the initial claim in the first place."
If you make the claim of the non-existence of God then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests this is so.
However if you make the claim of the existence of God, then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests that this is so.
It all depends on who is making whichever claim first. The burden of proof rests with that initial person.
We have had this argument before and I gave countless examples and definitions of this fact backed up by references on the internet.

[RD2191]

You cannot prove that there are not pink flying elephants on the moon. However, reasonable people can still deduce through the lack of any real evidence to support such a claim that there are not pink flying elephants on the moon.
Because its perfectly reasonable to believe that we all came from a fish.:lol

[Blake]

This is incorrect.
When it comes to "burden of proof", what matters is who is making the claim FIRST, regardless of whether that claim is the non-existence or the existence of a supernatural Being, unicorns, or whatever.
The burden of proof falls upon "the one making the initial claim in the first place."
If you make the claim of the non-existence of God then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests this is so.
However if you make the claim of the existence of God, then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests that this is so.
It all depends on who is making whichever claim first. The burden of proof rests with that initial person.
We have had this argument before and I gave countless examples and definitions of this fact backed up by references on the internet.

Incorrect.

there is no philosophical burden to prove a negative.

In this case the burden of proof will always fall on the believer

[Blake]

Because its perfectly reasonable to believe that we all came from a fish.:lol

Lol science

[RD2191]

Incorrect.

there is no philosophical burden to prove a negative.

In this case the burden of proof will always fall on the believer
Like the believers of evolution and their zero evidence.

[xmas1997]

Incorrect.

there is no philosophical burden to prove a negative.

In this case the burden of proof will always fall on the believer


You are completely wrong on this point.
And I showed you this the last time we had this discussion, but you were too dense to check it out for yourself to see that I was right.
I'm not going to bother schooling you again on philosophy, science, and/or theology because you are too hard headed ignorant and to learn anything.
My quote that I put in bold came directly from sources in the internet that are well accepted and the generally agreed upon consensus on the matter.
You can believe your fairy tales and your make-believe stuff all you want to, but it still won't make you right about this.

[RandomGuy]

This is incorrect.
When it comes to "burden of proof", what matters is who is making the claim FIRST, regardless of whether that claim is the non-existence or the existence of a supernatural Being, unicorns, or whatever.
The burden of proof falls upon "the one making the initial claim in the first place."
If you make the claim of the non-existence of God then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests this is so.
However if you make the claim of the existence of God, then the burden of proof rests upon you to scientifically show replicable tests that this is so.
It all depends on who is making whichever claim first. The burden of proof rests with that initial person.
We have had this argument before and I gave countless examples and definitions of this fact backed up by references on the internet.

I ain't said shit incorrect. Sorry.

It doesn't matter who says what first or second or what ever. The requirement for proof is not ordinal, and I would challenge you support that.

I haven't claimed God doesn't exist, nor would I. Not a burden of proof I would venture to accept, as it would seem to require some pretty iron-clad proof.

It is far easier to simply point out, yet again, that believers have not met any reasonable burden in proving the existence of a god, or their preferred God.

[RD2191]

Prove that we came from a fish.:wakeup

[xmas1997]

To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.).

However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically.

Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

* asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
* claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
*asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

[SnakeBoy]

I mean emotionally, I need to be at peace with myself, accept my peers, and respect them.

Well just look into the mirror more closely.

Try stripping yourself of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy & pride. Then look deep into the mirror. Then ask yourself ...what's in the box.

[Bito Corleone]

You can believe your fairy tales and your make-believe stuff all you want to, but it still won't make you right about this.
Oh, the irony...

[xmas1997]

I ain't said shit incorrect. Sorry.

It doesn't matter who says what first or second or what ever. The requirement for proof is not ordinal, and I would challenge you support that.

I haven't claimed God doesn't exist, nor would I. Not a burden of proof I would venture to accept, as it would seem to require some pretty iron-clad proof.

It is far easier to simply point out, yet again, that believers have not met any reasonable burden in proving the existence of a god, or their preferred God.

And it could just as equally be said the same for non-believers supporting their claims of non-existence of said Being.
We are going in circles on this subject.
My only contention had to do with "burden of proof" and who it was required of.
Whether or not you choose to believe or disbelieve is purely up to you, not me or anyone else.
It is an individual choice one makes based upon whatever criteria they have, had, and will have, no more and no less.
Thus I would never criticize someone for their own particular beliefs, simply because those beliefs are for the most part "subjective."

[xmas1997]

Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.

Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.

[xmas1997]

Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

*If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
*If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

[Blake]

Nobody is making the direct claim that a god does not exist.

But a claim is being made that a god exists.

[RandomGuy]

You are completely wrong on this point.
And I showed you this the last time we had this discussion, but you were too dense to check it out for yourself to see that I was right.
I'm not going to bother schooling you again on philosophy, science, and/or theology because you are too hard headed ignorant and to learn anything.
My quote that I put in bold came directly from sources in the internet that are well accepted and the generally agreed upon consensus on the matter.
You can believe your fairy tales and your make-believe stuff all you want to, but it still won't make you right about this.

There is a philosophical burden of proof in certain contexts, yes.

I think, however, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what science and or atheists really put forth.

I would say though, the God depicted in the Bible is pretty much logically impossible, and even were it real, it would be evil and/or insane.

That I would be readily prepared to support, and have.

[RandomGuy]

Prove that we came from a fish.:wakeup

Already done. Even were it presented to you simply and with solid mountains of evidence, you would reject it.

Why should I bother?

Does the truth matter, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Most discussions about the existence of God are not scientific ones. They may involve observations about the universe and things that science studies (e.g., order, design, etc.).

However, they also involve premises that cannot be verified scientifically.

Many of them involve premises of a philosophical nature, and so the discussion of God’s existence is often regarded as a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re:

* asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms,
* claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or
*asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

I don't see shit about an ordinal burden of proof here.

Next....

[RandomGuy]

Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.

Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.

In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.

Again, fuckall about an ordinal burden of proof.

Strike two.

[RandomGuy]

Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

*If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
*If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).

Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

Final fail.

You're out.

The claim that the burden of proof only rests on the first person making a claim is rejected.

Atheism is simply the rejection of a claim, nothing more, nothing less. It has no accepted burden of proof.

If someone really wants to go out on a limb and prove the non-existence of God that is their bidness, but not mine.

[xmas1997]

There is a philosophical burden of proof in certain contexts, yes.

I think, however, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what science and or atheists really put forth.

I would say though, the God depicted in the Bible is pretty much logically impossible, and even were it real, it would be evil and/or insane.

That I would be readily prepared to support, and have.

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.
:lol

[RD2191]

You have no proof, you simply posted links to old studies.

[RandomGuy]

And it could just as equally be said the same for non-believers supporting their claims of non-existence of said Being.
We are going in circles on this subject.
My only contention had to do with "burden of proof" and who it was required of.
Whether or not you choose to believe or disbelieve is purely up to you, not me or anyone else.
It is an individual choice one makes based upon whatever criteria they have, had, and will have, no more and no less.
Thus I would never criticize someone for their own particular beliefs, simply because those beliefs are for the most part "subjective."

We aren't.

I am simply rejecting a positive claim.

You are attempting to commit a strawman fallacy for something that I have not yet seen claimed by anyone here.

Are you trying for a strawman?

[Bito Corleone]

The burden of proof falls upon "the one making the initial claim in the first place."
What about the claim itself? Which actual claim do you think was made first? The claim that there is a God, or the claim that there isn't?

Most people who dispute the claim that there is a God don't flat out say that God doesn't exist, but rather point out that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim. People who claim that God exists offer no true supporting evidence, but do outright claim that the existence of God is real.

So where should the real burden of proof fall? On those who make a claim without evidence, or on those who dispute the claim because of lack of evidence?

[RandomGuy]

You have no proof, you simply posted links to old studies.

I have mountains of proof for evolution in multiple fields of science. The funnest, newest stuff is in genetics, with things predicted by the theory of evolution that have been fully borne out by the evidence we are discovering.

If you want evidence, get into some college level biology, physics, and chemistry classes.

You don't seem interested in learning the truth here, maybe if you have to shell out some good money for it, you might take it a bit more seriously.

[Blake]

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.
:lol

Neh. It's illogical to deduce that a loving god would put you on a planet filled with hunger, disease and death.

[RandomGuy]

And for the most part, I would logically have to agree with you.
However, this does not change my faith that a loving giving God indeed exists.
My own experience on this living on this planet makes it the epitome of ignorance to believe otherwise.
But I would never criticize you or anyone else for believing else wise.
That would be even more ignorant of me to do so.
:lol

Oh please, erase my ignorance.

What argument am I ignorant of, that supports the claim that a loving God exists?

[xmas1997]

Final fail.

You're out.

The claim that the burden of proof only rests on the first person making a claim is rejected.

Atheism is simply the rejection of a claim, nothing more, nothing less. It has no accepted burden of proof.

If someone really wants to go out on a limb and prove the non-existence of God that is their bidness, but not mine.

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

[Blake]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

[xmas1997]

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

[xmas1997]

Uh oh. You just asked for it.

I asked for nothing except the acceptance of Truth.
This is more of your incessant trolling.

[xmas1997]

Oh please, erase my ignorance.

What argument am I ignorant of, that supports the claim that a loving God exists?

I would put the burden of proof on you for stating the non-existence of God in the first place.
I only stated what I believed, and my beliefs come from experience that is "subjective" and as I said since they are subjective they are not replicable scientifically or in any other way, they are based on faith.
You and others are welcome to criticize that all you want to, but it just makes you look really foolish to criticize someone based on that someones' subjective experience.
Get it now?

[tlongII]

Prove that we came from a fish.:wakeup

It's more likely something like a sponge.

[RD2191]

Article I'm reading now pretty much takes a huge dump on evolution.

[RD2191]

It's more likely something like a sponge.
Sweet, we evolved from SpongeBob Squarepants

[ChumpDumper]

Article I'm reading now pretty much takes a huge dump on evolution.Which you aren't going to share with anyone?

[xmas1997]

Which you aren't going to share with anyone?


Apparently.

[Leetonidas]

Just watched my dvr'd episode from last night, damn Neil spray farted in creationists mouth :wow

[Blake]

Article I'm reading now pretty much takes a huge dump on evolution.

well let's all see what you've got

[RD2191]

For what? So all the armchair scientist can try to discredit it?

[Blake]

For what? So all the armchair scientist can try to discredit it?

sure, why not?

[xmas1997]

What about the claim itself? Which actual claim do you think was made first? The claim that there is a God, or the claim that there isn't?

Most people who dispute the claim that there is a God don't flat out say that God doesn't exist, but rather point out that there is no concrete evidence to support the claim. People who claim that God exists offer no true supporting evidence, but do outright claim that the existence of God is real.

So where should the real burden of proof fall? On those who make a claim without evidence, or on those who dispute the claim because of lack of evidence?

I like where your reasoning is taking you on this, but the premise I disputed was the "burden of proof" premise.
The problem rests in who made the claims in the first place.
It's the old who came first, the chicken or the egg proposition.
Personally, I think it is a fruitless argument with no clear cut answer.

And randomguy making the "ordinal" argument fails completely in it's essence because he completely misses the point I was making, besides arbitrarily disregarding authorities on the matter, rather than another "strawman" claim to the contrary.
I am talking about major truths here (concerning the definitions of burden of proof), not conjecture concerning the validity of God.
As I said, God can neither be disproved nor proved IMHO.
If an atheist or an agnostic wants to reject it, then that is his business and/or belief, and I respect it as such.

[xmas1997]

I saw virgin Mary in a tortilla. :lol

Wow, did you?
What about those nachos?
No screen doors?
:lol

[Blake]

I like where your reasoning is taking you on this, but the premise I disputed was the "burden of proof" premise.
The problem rests in who made the claims in the first place.
It's the old who came first, the chicken or the egg proposition.
Personally, I think it is a fruitless argument with no clear cut answer.

And randomguy making the "ordinal" argument fails completely in it's essence because he completely misses the point I was making, besides arbitrarily disregarding authorities on the matter, rather than another "strawman" claim to the contrary.
I am talking about major truths here (concerning the definitions of burden of proof), not conjecture concerning the validity of God.
As I said, God can neither be disproved nor proved IMHO.
If an atheist or an agnostic wants to reject it, then that is his business and/or belief, and I respect it as such.

Except, again, that nobody is making the direct claim that god does not exist.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

LOL

"I win, you lose, neener neener"

Fail. You don't win because you wave your hands and say you did, Cosmored.

We walked on the moon.

[RandomGuy]

Article I'm reading now pretty much takes a huge dump on evolution.

I could give you an article on the magic healing powers of crystals. Would you believe that too?

[RD2191]

I could give you an article on the magic healing powers of crystals. Would you believe that too?
I can give you an article on how he we came from fish. Would you believe that too?

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

Ok, define his argument. I want a link to what you think his argument is, and your summary, so you can show me you understand.

[RandomGuy]

I can give you an article on how he we came from fish. Would you believe that too?

There is more evidence on how we evolved from fish like creatures than magic healing creatures. It has met a burden of proof to a reasonable degree.

Do you think truth is important?

[RandomGuy]

And randomguy making the "ordinal" argument fails completely in it's essence because he completely misses the point I was making, besides arbitrarily disregarding authorities on the matter, rather than another "strawman" claim to the contrary.
I am talking about major truths here (concerning the definitions of burden of proof), not conjecture concerning the validity of God.
As I said, God can neither be disproved nor proved IMHO.
If an atheist or an agnostic wants to reject it, then that is his business and/or belief, and I respect it as such.

Honestly, I have not really much of an idea what the fuck you are arguing about, aside from your chest thumping. I haven't seen you make one.

[RandomGuy]

For what? So all the armchair scientist can try to discredit it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[RD2191]

There is more evidence on how we evolved from fish like creatures than magic healing creatures. It has met a burden of proof to a reasonable degree.

Do you think truth is important?
Of course, which is I am against people spreading lies like evolution.

[RandomGuy]

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.[4]

[RandomGuy]

Of course, which is I am against people spreading lies like evolution.

How do you determine what is true then?

[Blake]

Of course, which is I am against people spreading lies like evolution.

lol

[ChumpDumper]

I can give you an article on how he we came from fish. Would you believe that too?You can't even acknowledge the existence of a mudskipper.

[Bito Corleone]

I like where your reasoning is taking you on this, but the premise I disputed was the "burden of proof" premise.
The problem rests in who made the claims in the first place.
It's the old who came first, the chicken or the egg proposition.
Personally, I think it is a fruitless argument with no clear cut answer.
How was the question I posed for you not directly related to "burden of proof?"

It's not chicken or the egg. No one could really dispute the claim that God exists until the claim was already made - even if they hypothetically could, you know that's not the case here. The claim that some kind of God exists had to be made before others could dispute that claim.

The argument of "real vs not real" itself my very well be fruitless with no clear cut answer because no one can "prove" that something does not exist - as I pointed out in an earlier post, but no can truly claim that God does in fact exist either. Regardless of that, it is not what I asked you.

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who are supporting the original claim?

[RD2191]

How do you determine what is true then?
Scientific method:lmao

[xmas1997]

More circular arguments IMHO.
Where on earth did someone get the idea that evolution theory disproves the existence of God?
The bible?
Who, who has any sort of higher education at all, believes in a literal translation of the bible?
I appeal to some reasonableness here because we are discussing truth, not conjecture and here say.
Some on here arbitrarily set themselves up as authorities on the subject when sorry to say the truth is they don't know shit from shinola.
:lol


And if you just have to have a link then google "Who has the burden of proof when discussing God? It's all there on many threads in black and white, I didn't make it up.

[Clipper Nation]

Just watched my dvr'd episode from last night, damn Neil spray farted in creationists mouth :wow
Neil is on that LeBron no headband swag, while creationist Jeebotards are pulling a Lakers and getting blown out at home by 48 :lol

[RD2191]

So did anyone ever find proof of evolution? Oh no, you just believe some guy on television.:lol

[xmas1997]

How was the question I posed for you not directly related to "burden of proof?"

It's not chicken or the egg. No one could really dispute the claim that God exists until the claim was already made - even if they hypothetically could, you know that's not the case here. The claim that some kind of God exists had to be made before others could dispute that claim.

The argument of "real vs not real" itself my very well be fruitless with no clear cut answer because no one can "prove" that something does not exist - as I pointed out in an earlier post, but no can truly claim that God does in fact exist either. Regardless of that, it is not what I asked you.

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who are supporting the original claim?

I agree with practically everything you said.
But to answer your question as best I can, because we don't know who made the claims in the first place.
Thus we have a chicken and egg scenario IMHO.
It could easily be put on the pros side, but that is the easy way out, and that was then, and this is now.
And now, there are arguments pro and con. Were there arguments over it way back then?
Who knows?
Thus I am caused to focus on what is argued now.

And NOW, if someone claims the non-existence of God, then the BOP falls to him, and conversely, if someone claims the existence of God, then the BOP falls to him.

[ChumpDumper]

So did anyone ever find proof of evolution? Oh no, you just believe some guy on television.:lolSame could be said of you and god tbh.

[RD2191]

Can science prove love exist?

[ChumpDumper]

Can science prove love exist?Since there are several experiments describing love scientifically, sure.

[RD2191]

Since there are several experiments describing love scientifically, sure.
:lolbullshit

[TinTin]

:lolbullshit

What's your highest completed level of education?

[ChumpDumper]

:lolbullshitDo you think this is how you are supposed to make an argument?

Still waiting on your proof that God exists, btw.

[xmas1997]

There is a lot science has as of yet cannot answer such as love, gravity, time, etc., but they are working on it, as they are on God as well.

[xmas1997]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm


But has science tackled nachos yet?
That'll be a tough one.

[RD2191]

:lmaoI said prove Love exist, not what scientist think love is.

[TinTin]

but they are working on it, as they are on God as well.

That's interesting. Do you have any recent news, links of any studies, experiments etc. being conducted to prove the existence of God? Would love to read up on such said matters

[RD2191]

Do you think this is how you are supposed to make an argument?

Still waiting on your proof that God exists, btw.
Plenty of proof, you can find it on your own.

[RD2191]

What's your highest completed level of education?
5th grade

[ChumpDumper]

It's been done. Your denials won't change it.

Still waiting for you to prove God exists btw.

Why are you stalling?

You never said why God has nipples either.

[RD2191]

It's been done. Your denials won't change it.

Still waiting for you to prove God exists btw.

Why are you stalling?

You never said why God has nipples either.
Plenty of proof, look for it.

[ChumpDumper]

Plenty of proof, look for it.Tell us what proof you have.

And tell us why God has nipples.

[TE]

Knew this thread would turn to shit and robdiaz continues to show his trolling potential, tbh.

Anyway, the first couple of episodes are great. I'm glad the show is back.

[RD2191]

Tell us what proof you have.

And tell us why God has nipples.
Why should I, I know why I believe in God. Plenty of evidence. Why do you believe in evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should I, I know why I believe in God. Plenty of evidence. Like what?

[RD2191]

Like what?
Like everything that exist:fro

[RD2191]

Why do you believe in evolution? Lemme guess you read a book written by a man?

[ChumpDumper]

Like everything that exist:froSo you actually have no proof whatsoever.

OK, that's fair.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you believe in evolution? Lemme guess you read a book written by a man?Didn't you do that to believe in God?

[RD2191]

If you get cancer, would you pray or go get chemo. Easy question.
Both, tbh.

[RD2191]

Didn't you do that to believe in God?
Yes, didn't you do the same to believe in evolution?

[ChumpDumper]

Both, tbh.So you believe in science.

OK, that's fair.

[xmas1997]

Honestly I have nothing, sorry, wish I did.
I have heard they are studying Gods' existence, but I doubt there is anything of significance.
Science will study anything and everything.
That is what is so great about science and the human curiosity to know.
I'm sure if you google, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?", you will find a lot of studies so far.

But don't forget, according to 2120 God loves nachos, He told him so. :lol

[RD2191]

So you believe in science.

OK, that's fair.
Why would I not believe in science? I do not believe in evolution but I do believe in science.

[RD2191]

Guess which one works?
Both, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, didn't you do the same to believe in evolution?So you don't think there is anything wrong in believing things in books written by a man.

OK, that's fair.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would I not believe in science? I do not believe in evolution but I do believe in science.You tried to disparage science in this very thread independent of evolution.

[RD2191]

So you don't think there is anything wrong in believing things in books written by a man.

OK, that's fair.
Of course not, doesn't mean they're though. Which is the case with evolution.

[xmas1997]

I just googled what I told you to google and was very surprised to see so many scientific arguments for existence.
It was no surprise to find for non-existence.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course not, doesn't men they're though. Which is the case with evolution.You might want to believe in books by men about the English language.

[xmas1997]

Nice to have a decent discussion for a change without trolls running off at the mouths spewing their invectives just because they disagree and aren't smart enough to provide a coherent argument.

[RD2191]

You might want to believe in books by men about the English language.
typo

[ChumpDumper]

Of course not, doesn't mean they're though. Which is the case with evolution.Give it one more try.

[RD2191]

Give it one more try.
typo, did you ever find any evidence of evolution?

[xmas1997]

I for one go on record as saying that the theory of evolution most probably has a lot of truths and is somewhat reasonable, and even does not contradict anything connected with an existence of God.
But like most theories, they probably didn't get everything right either.
There is still much we don't know and much to still be proven, especially on the replication front.

[ChumpDumper]

typo, did you ever find any evidence of evolution?Sure. It's been presented to you over and over.

You asked specifically for a fish that walks on land. I posted a picture of one and you ran away like a little girl.

You are doing the same when asked for your proof of God.

I fully appreciate matters of faith, but don't pretend that belief in God consists of anything more than that.

[RD2191]

I for one go on record as saying that the theory of evolution most probably has a lot of truths and is somewhat reasonable, and even does not contradict anything connected with an existence of God.
But like most theories, they probably didn't get everything right either.
There is still much we don't know and much to still be proven, especially on the replication front.
The theory is full of flaws and zero evidence. Most people and even scientist are afraid to question it because they're afraid of being ridiculed and being called stupid. A quick Google search tells of the huge manipulation of fossils and how most of them are frauds. It really is fascinating. 1 problem with evolution is that there really is no clear definition of what it is. In other words anything and everything can fit into evolution. So even if someone gives a sound alternative theory it is simply molded to fit right into their theory of evolution. Epigenetics is 1 of many new discoveries that is now being molded to fit right into Darwins theory which is just a load of crap.

[xmas1997]

Sure. It's been presented to you over and over.

You asked specifically for a fish that walks on land. I posted a picture of one and you ran away like a little girl.

You are doing the same when asked for your proof of God.

I fully appreciate matters of faith, but don't pretend that belief in God consists of anything more than that.

There is a catfish that walks from pond to pond as it pollutes the pond it lives in. This is common knowledge.

[ChumpDumper]

There is a catfish that walks from pond to pond as it pollutes the pond it lives in. This is common knowledge.Not to everyone apparently.

[RD2191]

Sure. It's been presented to you over and over.

You asked specifically for a fish that walks on land. I posted a picture of one and you ran away like a little girl.

You are doing the same when asked for your proof of God.

I fully appreciate matters of faith, but don't pretend that belief in God consists of anything more than that.
Fish that walk on land exist today, fish that turned into birds and rodents do not and never have.

[ChumpDumper]

Fish that walk on land exist today, fish that turned into birds and rodents do not and never have.So now you're moving the goalposts.

OK.

Not unexpected tbh.

[RD2191]

So now you're moving the goalposts.

OK.

Not unexpected tbh.
I'm not, and where the hell is your link of imaginary half fish half mammals?

[xmas1997]

Actually there already are flying fish.
And now I hear they have found real mermaids.
They found the existence of what we call chupacabras.
And I heard they found a carcass of big foot near San Antonio.
What's next Nessie the Loch Ness monster?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not, and where the hell is your link of imaginary half fish half mammals?Of course you are.

Not every animal that ever existed became a fossil. You do know about that, don't you?

Not every fossil that ever formed has been discovered. You do know that, don't you?

So why does God have nipples?

Simple question.

[RD2191]

Actually there already are flying fish.
And now I hear they have found real mermaids.
They found the existence of what we call chupacabras.
And I heard they found a carcass of big foot near San Antonio.
What's next Nessie the Loch Ness monster?
Funny thing is they all have the same amount of proof as evolution.

[ChumpDumper]

Funny thing is they all have the same amount of proof as evolution.What's your proof of God?

[RD2191]

Of course you are.

Not every animal that ever existed became a fossil. You do know about that, don't you?

Not every fossil that ever formed has been discovered. You do know that, don't you?

So why does God have nipples?

Simple question.
I do know that no transitional fossil has ever been found, which Darwin himself said should exist in an abundant amount.

[xmas1997]

Well, flying fish do exist and are common, not extinct.
They now have chupacabra carcasses from Texas to Puerto Rico and film and DNA evidence.
Don't know about the big foot, yeti or whatever.

However, mermaids are another story altogether if that TV special can be believed.

[InRareForm]

How could anyone not like this show?

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[RD2191]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGC1MXDXCU4

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGC1MXDXCU4
when they realized the evidence was wrong, they retracted it

[RD2191]

Already have, and the point is how far scientists will go to try and prove that something exists or once existed. They still do it today. They find a piece of fossil and create entirely new species of animals from it. Complete with features and a background. Just ridiculous.

[spurraider21]

Already have, and the point is how far scientists will go to try and prove that something exists or once existed. They still do it today. They find a piece of fossil and create entirely new species of animals from it. Complete with features and a background. Just ridiculous.
unlike thumpers who look at every evidence in the contrary and say "oh this only reaffirms by belief in god" actual scientists are more than willing to be proven wrong

[Leetonidas]

Rob displaying his trolling prowess imo impressive :lol

[baseline bum]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

I love that video, since that banana is a product of artificial selection by man in growing them. LOL when Neils pointed out how most of our food supply is the result of evolution by artificial selection via man.

[HI-FI]

they cancel this shit yet?

[xmas1997]

Rob displaying his trolling prowess imo impressive :lol

Geez, a major troll accusing someone else of trolling?
How novel, and totally ludicrous and idiotic.
So we are to believe you, a major troll yourself, that someone else is a troll?
Good grief, the idiocy never ends. It is astounding!
Go back to kindergarten and try again with a bit of sanity next time.
Your lunacy and inanity won't fly here, or at least not with those of us who are reasonable, mature, and sane, no matter how much you wish it to the contrary.
:lol

[Bito Corleone]

Geez, a major troll accusing someone else of trolling?
Please read back through his responses in this thread. Diaz is trolling - quite successfully, but it's still easy to see. When presented with any form of evidence he either outright ignores it, or responds with something like "rofl scientist." He asks the same predictable questions over and over, and when someone responds, he just asks it again. You don't have to defend him, or call others trolls for pointing out his trolling, just because he's also supporting the claim that a deity exists. He even claims that he basically believes in literal interpretation of the bible, which you yourself in this thread have said that no one with any real intelligence would believe.

If it's not trolling, it's the pinnacle of willful ignorance.

[Leetonidas]

Geez, a major troll accusing someone else of trolling?
How novel, and totally ludicrous and idiotic.
So we are to believe you, a major troll yourself, that someone else is a troll?
Good grief, the idiocy never ends. It is astounding!
Go back to kindergarten and try again with a bit of sanity next time.
Your lunacy and inanity won't fly here, or at least not with those of us who are reasonable, mature, and sane, no matter how much you wish it to the contrary.
:lol

You're an idiot. Do not quote or directly respond to me, I have no desire to speak with a pea brained dipshit like yourself that literally has no idea what trolling is and slurps two of the biggest trolls on the site. Now fuck off, dumbass.

[Leetonidas]

also :lmao :lmao :lmao @ "mature, reasonable, and sane"

Yes, a mature, reasonable, and sane person makes it their mission to "bring this place down." a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends his entire day photoshopping pictures for 4 months straight of a random guy on the internet, a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends 90% of their day online in a forum they consider to be a cesspool, and a mature, reasonable, and sane person really engages in "troll bashing" to prove some kind of point and wage some kind of retarded war against the trolls :lmao


What's even funnier is that a nigga like Rob who is trolling this shit out of people, you actually agree with the angle of his trolling so you refuse to see what he is doing. :lol trolled again. You're not good at this at all. Now kindly go back to your chumpdumper photoshop topic or polishing sbm/sa210's ball sack because to everyone on this forum that isn't those two you are their personal bitch and lapdog :lol

[Blake]

Geez, a major troll accusing someone else of trolling?
How novel, and totally ludicrous and idiotic.
So we are to believe you, a major troll yourself, that someone else is a troll?
Good grief, the idiocy never ends. It is astounding!
Go back to kindergarten and try again with a bit of sanity next time.
Your lunacy and inanity won't fly here, or at least not with those of us who are reasonable, mature, and sane, no matter how much you wish it to the contrary.
:lol

Your selective scolding is unreasonable.

[Blake]

The theory is full of flaws and zero evidence. Most people and even scientist are afraid to question it because they're afraid of being ridiculed and being called stupid. A quick Google search tells of the huge manipulation of fossils and how most of them are frauds. It really is fascinating.

post these links.

[mouse]

when they realized the evidence was wrong, they retracted it

Who is "they"?

The Nebraska Man is still in many school text books.

Also why would the "smart" Scientists that know how old the earth is and how the universe was formed not have enough info on a fossil ? BTW it was a pig tooth they found and created a human being gave it a name and had it placed in the school textbooks in record time. I wonder what other lies they have in the textbooks.

[DisAsTerBot]

also :lmao :lmao :lmao @ "mature, reasonable, and sane"

Yes, a mature, reasonable, and sane person makes it their mission to "bring this place down." a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends his entire day photoshopping pictures for 4 months straight of a random guy on the internet, a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends 90% of their day online in a forum they consider to be a cesspool, and a mature, reasonable, and sane person really engages in "troll bashing" to prove some kind of point and wage some kind of retarded war against the trolls :lmao


What's even funnier is that a nigga like Rob who is trolling this shit out of people, you actually agree with the angle of his trolling so you refuse to see what he is doing. :lol trolled again. You're not good at this at all. Now kindly go back to your chumpdumper photoshop topic or polishing sbm/sa210's ball sack because to everyone on this forum that isn't those two you are their personal bitch and lapdog :lol

leet goin in hard!

[mouse]

So why does God have nipples?



So you know he hasn't turned his back on you.

[Blake]

Who is "they"?

The Nebraska Man is still in many school text books.

Name a text book that it's in.

[Bill_Brasky]

also :lmao :lmao :lmao @ "mature, reasonable, and sane"

Yes, a mature, reasonable, and sane person makes it their mission to "bring this place down." a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends his entire day photoshopping pictures for 4 months straight of a random guy on the internet, a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends 90% of their day online in a forum they consider to be a cesspool, and a mature, reasonable, and sane person really engages in "troll bashing" to prove some kind of point and wage some kind of retarded war against the trolls :lmao


What's even funnier is that a nigga like Rob who is trolling this shit out of people, you actually agree with the angle of his trolling so you refuse to see what he is doing. :lol trolled again. You're not good at this at all. Now kindly go back to your chumpdumper photoshop topic or polishing sbm/sa210's ball sack because to everyone on this forum that isn't those two you are their personal bitch and lapdog :lol

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Scientific method:lmao

So you don't have a way of determining what is true and what isn't.

Wow.

Do you believe in magic crystals and things like that too?

[RandomGuy]

There is a lot science has as of yet cannot answer such as love, gravity, time, etc., but they are working on it, as they are on God as well.

Science is working on God?

Do tell.

About all I am aware of is that they can test certain attributes of a potential God.

We can at least rule out that prayer works. It doesn't.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567


CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.


If there is such a thing as God, we can say that it does not answer prayers.

[RandomGuy]

Rob displaying his trolling prowess imo impressive :lol

I think he genuinely believes the bullshit he peddles. But then a good troll will get his marks believing that, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously you have a lot to learn, otherwise you would not have made such an offhand ignorant claim.
I did not make this up.
This came from authorized sources that I got off the internet who are considered the authorities on the subject.
You may of course believe whatever you want such as your 2 + 2 = 5, but I will stick with the truth which basically is 2 + 2 = 4.
Your argument will never be true except maybe in some alternate bizarro universe.
I prefer to stick with the truth and not fantasy. And when it comes to "burden of proof", I have given you the accepted and authority backed definitions.
It is what it is, regardless of what you wish it was.
Sorry, you lose this argument convincingly.

I am not now, nor have I ever wasted time, arguing over the non-existence or existence of God.
It is what it is, and has nothing to do with "burden of proof" in general.

(sighs)



It all depends on who is making whichever claim first. The burden of proof rests with that initial person.




It doesn't matter who says what first or second or what ever. The requirement for proof is not ordinal, and I would challenge you support that.


To wit:

The Philosophical Burden of Proof

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.



Or shall we talk about LEGAL burden of proof?
To wit:

The Legal Burden of Proof

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.


Or since we are on the subject of science,
to wit:

The Scientific Burden of Proof

In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.

Seems to be a bit of a miscommunication more than anything else. Although it is ironic that you think the quotes you gave somehow support your statement.

A claim is a claim, and it doesn't matter in what order it is presented it still bears a burden of proof before it is accepted.

If two people in a discussion make the following claims:

A: Banana's are good for you.
B: Apples are good for you.

Both bear a burden of proof, not just A, as is implied by the first statement you made.

Do you get it now?

[RandomGuy]

Who, who has any sort of higher education at all, believes in a literal translation of the bible?

Liberty university.. .cough cough

[Blake]

In this case I think it's more:

A: I don't believe that apples are good for you
B: Apples are good for you

"A" has no burden of proof unless the statement becomes "apples are not good for you"

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure if you google, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?", you will find a lot of studies so far.


I just googled what I told you to google and was very surprised to see so many scientific arguments for existence.
It was no surprise to find for non-existence.

I googled the term.

I found neither scientific studies, nor scientific arguments.

I highly doubt that the change in wording from "scientific studies" before you looked, and "scientific arguments" to after you looked was an accident. Gotcha.

That aside, give me what you found to be the most effective "scientific argument", or hell, give me a link to a "scientific study".

Bullshit has been called. Walk the walk or GTFO.

[RandomGuy]

In this case I think it's more:

A: I don't believe that apples are good for you
B: Apples are good for you

"A" has no burden of proof unless the statement becomes "apples are not good for you"

Yup.

Which is why the people who think that God exists work so hard to shift that burden of proof, and fail so hard by using strawman logical fallacies that they aren't quite smart enough to know they are using.

[RandomGuy]

I would put the burden of proof on you for stating the non-existence of God in the first place.
I only stated what I believed, and my beliefs come from experience that is "subjective" and as I said since they are subjective they are not replicable scientifically or in any other way, they are based on faith.
You and others are welcome to criticize that all you want to, but it just makes you look really foolish to criticize someone based on that someones' subjective experience.
Get it now?

Like you, I very carefully avoided making any concrete claim about God's existence or non-existence. Yet you keep insisting that I did.

Feel free to post a link to where I made such a claim at any time.

I will be happy to criticize faith. It is stupid.

Believing in something without a good reason leads one to all sorts of bad outcomes, as you don't take the time to examine if your model of reality is as accurate as it could be.

These two had faith, and that lack of examination of their faith caused the death of two children.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/19/us-couple-sent-to-prison-for-2nd-prayer-death/5612317/

These people had faith that their spirits would be carried up to a comet, and all died:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

The list of faith's victims is a long.

[SnakeBoy]

Historians of Science Poke Holes in New ‘Cosmos’ Series

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/historians-of-science-poke-holes-in-new-cosmos-series#ixzz2wQwbw6yg


Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

[SnakeBoy]

Which is why the people who think that God exists work so hard to shift that burden of proof, and fail so hard by using strawman logical fallacies that they aren't quite smart enough to know they are using.

One person misinterprets the concept of God and uses it as an argument against science, another person misinterprets science and uses it as an argument against the existence of God. I'm not sure how one is better, or even different, than the other.

[redzero]

Can science prove love exist?

This has to be one of the dumbest robdiaz questions ever, along with the "How much do you know?" question he asked Blake. This guy is really a complete fucking moron.

[RD2191]

This has to be one of the dumbest robdiaz questions ever, along with the "How much do you know?" question he asked Blake. This guy is really a complete fucking moron.

Answer the question, son.

[Leetonidas]

rob's tactics are subtle tbh but I've realized that while he most likely is a believer the way he presents his arguments and posts are in such a way as to troll and enrage atheists with ridiculous questions and dismissals...kinda respect the work he's put in imo he's gotten a lot of people incensed over time

[Blake]

Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

:lol all I see from that link is a bunch of ass hurt catholics.

[Blake]

One person misinterprets the concept of God and uses it as an argument against science, another person misinterprets science and uses it as an argument against the existence of God. I'm not sure how one is better, or even different, than the other.

which god do you believe in

[Leetonidas]

Pretty funny that a show intended to demonstrate fact based science gets it's facts wrong when taking a shot at religion.

Did you even read that article? :lmao cool story bro, doesn't detract from the validity of the show itself

[redzero]

Answer the question, son.

1.) Why would scientists need to prove that love exists in the first place?
2.) What does that have to do with evolution?
3.) Love is an emotional state produced by chemical reactions in the brain. If you took five seconds to actually search for an answer instead of asking another moronic question, you would have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

Now I await your handwaving my response away like you always do, while dodging anybody who asks you to defend your shitty religious beliefs that are based on zero evidence (otherwise known as "faith").

[Blake]

Answer the question, son.

when are you going to answer the ones asked to you

[RD2191]

1.) Why would scientists need to prove that love exists in the first place?
2.) What does that have to do with evolution?
3.) Love is an emotional state produced by chemical reactions in the brain. If you took five seconds to actually search for an answer instead of asking another moronic question, you would have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love.

Now I await your handwaving my response away like you always do, while dodging anybody who asks you to defend your shitty religious beliefs that are based on zero evidence (otherwise known as "faith").

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do. Why did Blake cry like a baby when his wife was getting smashed by another dude? Evolution? Nope. Its because he's a Human created by God.

[ChumpDumper]

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do. Sure it has. The mere fact science studies the effects of love and its manifestations proves it exists.

You really don't grasp much of anything, do you?

[RD2191]

rob's tactics are subtle tbh but I've realized that while he most likely is a believer the way he presents his arguments and posts are in such a way as to troll and enrage atheists with ridiculous questions and dismissals...kinda respect the work he's put in imo he's gotten a lot of people incensed over time

You would think they'd stop responding after I pull the same shit over and over.:lol

[Blake]

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do. Why did Blake cry like a baby when his wife was getting smashed by another dude? Evolution? Nope. Its because he's a Human created by God.

What a fine Christian you are.

Prove God created love.

Go.

[Blake]

You would think they'd stop responding after I pull the same shit over and over.:lol

why stop when it's this much fun to make fun of your intelligence.

[RD2191]

What a fine Christian you are.

Prove God created love.

Go.

It's in the Bible.:wakeup

[Blake]

It's in the Bible.:wakeup

Lol your low IQ




























That's fun. Do some more stupid for our entertainment.

Go.

[RD2191]

why stop when it's this much fun to make fun of your intelligence.

Lol, seeing as you have no idea who I really am there is no way to measure my intelligence. This could all be 1 big joke.

[Blake]

Lol, seeing as you have no idea who I really am there is no way to measure my intelligence. This could all be 1 big joke.

who you are off the board is irrelevant.

On this board, you're a complete retard.

Lol

[RD2191]

Lol your wife
Lol your life
Lol asking for marital advice on a spurs forum
Lol looking for some sort of reassurance to your beliefs in the club

[Leetonidas]

You would think they'd stop responding after I pull the same shit over and over.:lol

:worthy:

[RD2191]

Mars one though, lets go, Am I right?

[Leetonidas]

I'd rather see how the first settlers handle it before signing up for that one way ticket tbh

[Blake]

Lol your wife
Lol your life
Lol asking for marital advice on a spurs forum
Lol looking for some sort of reassurance to your beliefs in the club

you're just not smart.

[RD2191]

I'd rather see how the first settlers handle it before signing up for that one way ticket tbh

Sounds like a suicide mission to me. Who knows though. The isolation would be extreme, not to mention having to live with an asshole that you for some reason don't like. It's not like you could just go walk it off. I wonder if religious people are off limits, interesting to see what a colony of people whoe have never heard of God would be like. I wonder if they would eventually look for one or make one up.

[RD2191]

you're just not smart.

Says the dude who didn't know his wife was cheating on him.

[Clipper Nation]

You're an idiot. Do not quote or directly respond to me, I have no desire to speak with a pea brained dipshit like yourself that literally has no idea what trolling is and slurps two of the biggest trolls on the site. Now fuck off, dumbass.


also :lmao :lmao :lmao @ "mature, reasonable, and sane"

Yes, a mature, reasonable, and sane person makes it their mission to "bring this place down." a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends his entire day photoshopping pictures for 4 months straight of a random guy on the internet, a mature, reasonable, and sane person spends 90% of their day online in a forum they consider to be a cesspool, and a mature, reasonable, and sane person really engages in "troll bashing" to prove some kind of point and wage some kind of retarded war against the trolls :lmao


What's even funnier is that a nigga like Rob who is trolling this shit out of people, you actually agree with the angle of his trolling so you refuse to see what he is doing. :lol trolled again. You're not good at this at all. Now kindly go back to your chumpdumper photoshop topic or polishing sbm/sa210's ball sack because to everyone on this forum that isn't those two you are their personal bitch and lapdog :lol
http://giant.gfycat.com/AcclaimedOilyEland.gif

[TE]

Says the dude who didn't know his wife was cheating on him.
Nothing against Blake but :lmao

[RD2191]

Nothing against Blake but :lmao
:lol

[Blake]

Says the dude who didn't know his wife was cheating on him.

I learned my lesson and got a little bit street smarter.

But this is a book smart thread. You're not book smart. You have a low book IQ. You seem to lack the desire to want to be book smart.

[RD2191]

I learned my lesson and got a little bit street smarter.

But this is a book smart thread. You're not book smart. You have a low book IQ. You seem to lack the desire to want to be book smart.
You have no idea of ever knowing that. I graduated at the top of my class. Could of gone to any of the big 3 Universities in Texas but due to personal reasons decided to work and open up my own business. Anything else you wanna know?

[Blake]

You have no idea of ever knowing that. I graduated at the top of my class. Could of gone to any of the big 3 Universities in Texas but due to personal reasons decided to work and open up my own business. Anything else you wanna know?

I didn't ask for you to admit you haven't gone to college and I wouldn't ever because it's irrelevant to how stupid you are on this messageboard.

that said, I wish you would have bragged instead about being a science professor. That would have been so good.

[RD2191]

I didn't ask for you to admit you haven't gone to college and I wouldn't ever because it's irrelevant to how stupid you are on this messageboard.

that said, I wish you would have bragged instead about being a science professor. That would have been so good.
Took you that long, come on son. And calling me stupid ain't doing much. Step your game up, son.

[Blake]

Took you that long, come on son. And calling me stupid ain't doing much. Step your game up, son.

Took me that long for what?

Calling you stupid is all I need to do. I keep it simple.

[spurraider21]

Ha, I said prove love exist. Which science can't do.
wut? science is based on experimentation and observation. love can be observed.. thats more proof than any god you imagine

[RandomGuy]

One person misinterprets the concept of God and uses it as an argument against science, another person misinterprets science and uses it as an argument against the existence of God. I'm not sure how one is better, or even different, than the other.

(shrugs)

Define "God", and tell me how or why your definition is better than anyone elses.

[RandomGuy]

You have no idea of ever knowing that. I graduated at the top of my class. Could of gone to any of the big 3 Universities in Texas but due to personal reasons decided to work and open up my own business. Anything else you wanna know?

Why do you bother trolling on this topic. That has me a bit curious.

[xmas1997]

why stop when it's this much fun to make fun of your intelligence.


Lol your low IQ

That's fun. Do some more stupid for our entertainment.

Go.


who you are off the board is irrelevant.

On this board, you're a complete retard.


you're just not smart.


:lmao

You are hilarious!
You have no room calling someone else retard, or stupid, or less intelligent, or having a lower IQ than yourself.
This is a proven fact on here to be quite honest about it.
Go ahead and deny it, it still does not change this fact no matter how much you want it to.


Why do you bother trolling on this topic. That has me a bit curious.

:lmao

And you, a proven consummate troll, have no room accusing anyone else of being a troll, it just makes you look more foolish than you already naturally are.
And you can go ahead and deny it too, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

[Leetonidas]

lol the faggot brigade's jizzrag is at it again

[xmas1997]

lol the faggot brigade's jizzrag is at it again

And speak of inane trolls. Up pops another right on cue!
:lol

[Blake]

posters that are not trolls according to xmas:

Sa210/Chewbacca
SBM
robdiaz
avante
xmas

[Blake]

posters that are trolls according to xmas:

anyone picking on

Sa210/Chewbacca
SBM
robdiaz
avante
xmas

[xmas1997]

posters that are trolls according to xmas:

anyone picking on

Sa210/Chewbacca
SBM
robdiaz
avante
xmas

Well, right on cue you just showed how ignorant you are.
You actually have no idea of the "real" criteria, do you?
It is pretty obvious you don't.
But that is to be expected of a mentally challenged troll like you.
:lol

[Clipper Nation]

You actually have no idea of the "real" criteria, do you?
Those are the criteria, or are we supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that anyone who calls that group of posters out on their bullshit is a "troll" to you? :lol

In before more meaningless babble from the jizzrag :lol

[mouse]

wut? science is based on experimentation and observation.

Not evidence and facts?


love can be observed..

Don't confuse love with affection What if I love the Stars or if I love the air how can that be observed?

Maybe I even love you,

how can that be observed? Hell we might not even live in the same town.

[Leetonidas]

Those are the criteria, or are we supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that anyone who calls that group of posters out on their bullshit is a "troll" to you? :lol

In before more meaningless babble from the jizzrag :lol

lol at rob pretty much admitting he's trolling and this desperate old fuck trying to delude himself into believing otherwise :lol

[spurraider21]

Not evidence and facts?



Don't confuse love with affection What if I love the Stars or if I love the air how can that be observed?

Maybe I even love you,

how can that be observed? Hell we might not even live in the same town.
then you are misusing the word love, in either scenario, making this point moot

[xmas1997]

Those are the criteria, or are we supposed to believe that it's just a coincidence that anyone who calls that group of posters out on their bullshit is a "troll" to you? :lol

In before more meaningless babble from the jizzrag :lol


lol at rob pretty much admitting he's trolling and this desperate old fuck trying to delude himself into believing otherwise :lol


And on they come, two more time and post proven trolls make an appearance.
If you don't want to be considered trolls then try to act like decent individuals for a change.
Otherwise shut up and accept your fate.
:lol

[Leetonidas]

:rollin

[mouse]

this point moot

Translation: I'm not about to debate with someone who may have actually done some research on this subject.

[xmas1997]

:rollin


One of the two "lee" trolls, no more no less.
:lol

[Leetonidas]

:lmao

[xmas1997]

:lmao

:lmao

[Clipper Nation]

If you don't want to be considered trolls then try to act like decent individuals for a change.
Your idea of "acting like a decent individual" is sucking off Tino and Vaccine Boy all day while they make shitty photoshops :lol

[mouse]

they make shitty photoshops :lol


Post one.

[xmas1997]

Your idea of "acting like a decent individual" is sucking off Tino and Vaccine Boy all day while they make shitty photoshops :lol

Uh oh, troll alert.
You're just jealous they aren't trolls and choose to bash them, something you don't have the balls to do tbh.
:lol

[Clipper Nation]

they aren't trolls
http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/shaq-laughing-press-conference-shaq-gifs.gif










































































































































































http://i.imgur.com/sTfgUfc.gif

[xmas1997]

=Clipper Nation;7198753

We all know your schtick and it reeks of troll scent all over it, and has for a long time now.
This place would be a hell of a lot better without so many immature ignorant children like you around here tbh.
:lol

[Leetonidas]

>calls others immature
>wages an e-war against troll online
>laughs at immature photoshops all day long

[xmas1997]

>calls others immature
>wages an e-war against troll online
>laughs at immature photoshops all day long

No, get it right for a change, I laugh at idiots like you trying really hard but failing to be funny.
I only found a few of those photoshops to be funny, but most rather inane.
Don't lie, so did you if you're honest with yourself.

[Leetonidas]

[>says he laughs at idiots failing at being funny
>"laughs"
>dumbass

[xmas1997]

[>says he laughs at idiots failing at being funny
>"laughs"
>dumbass

This is supposed to be funny?
And you have the gall to call me dumbass?
Conditioned ignorance abounds!
:lol

[Leetonidas]

>thinks everyone's trying to be funny
>tries to be snarky in return
>fails miserably
>complete retard
>dumbass

[mouse]

We all know your schtick


:lmao

[mouse]

Leetonidas

Is a wannabee TRoll.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bored/firedevil.gif

[RandomGuy]

And you, a proven consummate troll, have no room accusing anyone else of being a troll, it just makes you look more foolish than you already naturally are.
And you can go ahead and deny it too, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.

(shrugs)

Define "troll".

Rob is a vacuous troll, unable or unwilling to even modestly defend the stupidity he spews. Seems pretty much like what most would accept as a troll.

I am happy to answer any question posed to me with intellectual honesty, and when asked, I gladly provide sources, links and reasoned arguments, which would tend to be the antithesis of what most would hold in their minds as "troll".

I do tend to smack talk, and even occasionally lose my temper. Mea culpa.

Your chest-thumping, e-peen measuring though, would seem to be a lot closer:


In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

The only way I could look foolish is to continue taking you seriously for much longer, given that you don't seem to be able to do much more than above.

[RandomGuy]

posters that are trolls according to xmas:

anyone picking on

Sa210/Chewbacca
SBM
robdiaz
avante
xmas

Bingo.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure if you google, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?", you will find a lot of studies so far.


I just googled what I told you to google and was very surprised to see so many scientific arguments for existence.
It was no surprise to find for non-existence.


I googled the term.

I found neither scientific studies, nor scientific arguments.

I highly doubt that the change in wording from "scientific studies" before you looked, and "scientific arguments" to after you looked was an accident. Gotcha.

That aside, give me what you found to be the most effective "scientific argument", or hell, give me a link to a "scientific study".

Bullshit has been called. Walk the walk or GTFO.

2nd time:
Give me what you found to be the most effective "scientific argument", or hell, give me a link to a "scientific study".

[xmas1997]

2nd time:
Give me what you found to be the most effective "scientific argument", or hell, give me a link to a "scientific study".


More BS. I just now googled, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?" and got over ten pages worth, pro and con.
So either you are lazy or incompetent. You tell me.
I'm not doing your work for you, especially since you prefer to, what did you call it instead of trolling, smack talk?
Very little difference in trolling IMHO because the result you are after is the same.
Do you deny this? Or are your baseless accusations just part of your natural character flaws?
Whenever you are willing to be, or at least act like, a mature respectable sensible intelligent adult in your discussions, you will find me a willing participant.
But if you choose to troll, smack talk, spam, whatever, it's all the same thing, then all you deserve is bashing IMHO.
What you definitely do not deserve is respect whatsoever.
:lol

[leemajors]

just because a page uses the term scientific argument in no way means there is one present on that page.

[xmas1997]

just because a page uses the term scientific argument in no way means there is one present on that page.

So you are basically saying that out of ten pages worth there is not one single article?
That is highly dubious at best.

[leemajors]

So you are basically saying that out of ten pages worth there is not one single article?
That is highly dubious at best.

Read it again.

[xmas1997]

Read it again.

I did, and right before I replied to your post.
And I never said there actually WAS proof, only that there were scientific studies of it, ten pages worth that discuss this very topic.
What more do you want, egg in your beer?
:lol

[leemajors]

Do you know how search engines work?

[xmas1997]

Do you know how search engines work?

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say what you have to say instead of beating around the bush?
If you have some legitimate arguments then I will sincerely check them out.
I have been wrong before, and I'm never too proud to admit it when I am.
However if you plan to troll or whatever you call it, then you can forget getting much cooperation and discussion from me.

[Joseph Kony]

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say what you have to say instead of beating around the bush?
If you have some legitimate arguments then I will sincerely check them out.
I have been wrong before, and I'm never too proud to admit it when I am.
However if you plan to troll or whatever you call it, then you can forget getting much cooperation and discussion from me.
translation: do the research for me so I can dismiss it anyway or call you a :cry troll :cry

[xmas1997]

translation: do the research for me so I can dismiss it anyway or call you a :cry troll :cry

Idiocy abounds.
:lol

[Blake]

I did, and right before I replied to your post.
And I never said there actually WAS proof, only that there were scientific studies of it, ten pages worth that discuss this very topic.
What more do you want, egg in your beer?
:lol

link one that you've actually read. Or just state the title and author of the article if you don't know how to copy and paste a link.

[xmas1997]

link one that you've actually read. Or just state the title and author of the article if you don't know how to copy and paste a link.

I guess you can't read. Not my fault, you should have studied while in school.
I told everyone how and where. This isn't rocket science.
Do it.
:lol

[Blake]

I guess you can't read. Not my fault, you should have studied while in school.
I told everyone how and where. This isn't rocket science.
Do it.
:lol

You said you found an article so post it. If you can't, then nobody believes you have one.

it's not rocket science.

[xmas1997]

You said you found an article so post it. If you can't, then nobody believes you have one.

it's not rocket science.

If it isn't equivalent to rocket science for you then you would have read that I said there were ten pages worth of articles, pro and con.
Pick one, any one, unless you can't read.
:lol

[Blake]

If it isn't equivalent to rocket science for you then you would have read that I said there were ten pages worth of articles, pro and con.
Pick one, any one, unless you can't read.
:lol
pros and cons? So it could be 9 con and 1 pro?

I'm not going to guess which one you read. Either you have an article or you're talking right out of your ass.

[xmas1997]

pros and cons? So it could be 9 con and 1 pro?

I'm not going to guess which one you read. Either you have an article or you're talking right out of your ass.


Pick any one your little mind desires, makes no difference to me.
But try to read it, or get your children to read it to you.
:lol

[DMX7]

I can't wait for the next episode. What can Neal possibly do for an encore short of just jizzing all over the faces of the creationists? He has dominated them so throughly, what else can he possibly do? Can the FCC even allow such full submission sodomization on over the air waves national tv?

[RD2191]

I can't wait for the next episode. What can Neal possibly do for an encore short of just jizzing all over the faces of the creationists? He has dominated them so throughly, what else can he possibly do? Can the FCC even allow such full submission sodomization on over the air waves national tv?
:lolFish turned into rat that turned into ape, rofl. What kind of idiot would believe that?:lmao

[DMX7]

:lolFish turned into rat that turned into ape, rofl. What kind of idiot would believe that?:lmao

God did it. :lol

[Blake]

More BS. I just now googled, "Is there any scientific proof that God exists?" and got over ten pages worth, pro and con.

Link #3:

"There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists."

http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm

[xmas1997]

Link #3:

"There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists."

http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm

Good for you!
:lol

[Blake]

Good for you!
:lol

so we're done here.

Good.

[xmas1997]

so we're done here.

Good.


We were "done" a long time ago, you just weren't paying attention.
:lol