Cosmos on Fox & NGC

[tlongII]

Prove that we came from a fish.

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

[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.

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

[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 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...3Kruger_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?