This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, according to science, at a certain level of confidence, evidence = proof until other evidence comes up to contradict it.
I'd love to just take your word on that, but I'm not going to.
Hmmm? Read up on it yourself then.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, according to science, at a certain level of confidence, evidence = proof until other evidence comes up to contradict it.
I'd love to just take your word on that, but I'm not going to.
Hmmm? Read up on it yourself then.
I have, and what I read is different. Hence my lack of trust in your statement.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
the argument which you self quoted is the which came first, chicken came first or the egg added with god?
None of the argument I presented involve time.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
you're not a supporter of evolution?
And you got that idea from where?
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
you deny evidences of evolution?
And you got that idea from where?
You're not the only person who puts words in my mouth, but it's still annoying.
Personally, I don't know enough about genetics and archeology to deny anything.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
that was directed at HSR.
i hope he enlighten me on how did it become so widespread and approved.
Same way the theory of geocentricity did...through evidence.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Ughhh... this is why I hate when people try to keep running with skepticism. At the end of the day, skepticism would tell us we know absolutely nothing, which is theoretically true with well played logic, is pretty silly to most of us - we have faith what I eyes and hears tell our brain is true, just like its fair to say we have faith that certain evidence we have is proof of something until evidence arises that otherwise contradicts it. Hyperspacerebel is just being hypocrite and demanding an impossible level of confidence in our evidence to disprove his point (one can never be 100% sure of anything) , yet he accepts his own points without requiring that same level of confidence.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
whats your definition of proof?
Anything that provides certainty.
you believe the geological age because of its evidences.
No I trust. Belief is for things with no evidence.
you seem to disprove evolution
Again I ask you, where do you get that? Where have I disproved it?
what evidence can be trusted, what can't?
Any evidence
can
be trusted.
you mean to say evolution is as unreliable as geocentricity
You are very good (bad) I putting words in my mouth.
geocentricity, which draw its "evidences" from the bible?
Fail. You know who developed the Geocentric system?
Ptolemy
.
Post by
TheMediator
Anything that provides certainty.
AKA there is no such thing as proof, because nothing provides certainty.
Since we have no proof, we cannot prove anything. Since we cannot prove anything, we cannot know anything. Called it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyperspacerebel is just being hypocrite and demanding an impossible level of confidence in our evidence to disprove his point (one can never be 100% sure of anything)
Whoa where did I say that "we can never be 100% of anything." You people need to learn how to read.
I'm 100% sure of the Pythagorean theorem. I am 100% sure that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. I am 100% sure that both hydrogen and oxygen are flammable.
Post by
TheMediator
Hyperspacerebel is just being hypocrite and demanding an impossible level of confidence in our evidence to disprove his point (one can never be 100% sure of anything)
Whoa where did I say that "we can never be 100% of anything." You people need to learn how to read.
I'm 100% sure of the Pythagorean theorem. I am 100% sure that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen.
We already discussed that I argue with dumb people. You are not 100% sure, you have faith that the conclusions made are true.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We already discussed that I argue with dumb people. You are not 100% sure, you have faith that the conclusions made are true.
Nope, I have personally done all the necessary experiments to prove that water is hydrogen and oxygen. Same with the Pythagorean Theorem.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.