Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[tlongII]

what the 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 s 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.

[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 s life has ever produced...to be quite honest

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 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 nipples

So why does God have them?

[Koolaid_Man]

So why does God have them?

jump off a bridge kid

[ChumpDumper]

jump off a bridge kid

Wow, that religious cer ude 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

[Blake]

Rofl scientists.

this explains much.

[tlongII]

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

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.

[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 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 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.