Today’s Teabagger News: Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

RStringfield said:
Do you understand why in courts the burden of PROOF must be beyond a REASONABLE doubt?

Of course, there are possible alternatives. It does not make it reasonable to believe those alternatives and it does not mean one can not form conclusions based upon the evidence.

Your notions would have science amount to "your guess is as good as mine."
Click to expand...

No, my notion is, evidence is not proof, it is evidence. Your notion is, evidence means proof always, because they mean the same thing to you. If I have evidence you stole my car, it means you did it, and we don't even need to give you a trial because I've proven it... that's what you are claiming. My notion is, I may have evidence you stole my car, but there could be other evidence to the contrary, like you were busy having butt sex with Onzies at the time my car was stolen. So a jury would hear the EVIDENCE and decide if something is PROVEN. My notion is, they are two different words for a reason, because they have two different meanings.
 
Yurt said:
o'rly...what else does a fetus require to become a human being then? too funny, you don't know the link between proof and fact, yet, you claim this is theoratical and tentative all the while insulting those who believe or even aren't sure whether man and dinosaurs roamed the earth when that conclusion is also theoretical and tentative....

i love your intellectually dishonest stances onceler, i think you try to hard to look smart and ultimately trip yourself up
Click to expand...

Someone came in late to the conversation.

You tend to respond in knee-jerk fashion. It's not the smartest move...
 
Yeah, you shut up Yurtle. You're late, I don't care what you say, I don't have to refute you because you're late and stupid Yurtie.
 
Yurt said:
translation, yurt once again has a good point, so i'll just make up some shit so i don't have to actually dialogue and look silly
Click to expand...

No translation required.

You responded to my post without reading through the thread (it's that weird obsession you have), and you stepped in it, yet again.

You look dumb.
 
Dixie said:
But it IS a human being. It can't be anything else, unless you want to change what we define as a human being. You admit it is NOT the mother, yet it IS a living organism of some kind. Well, what else can it be? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope, it is a living HUMAN organism. It is in the state of being, therefore, it is called a "human being" by practical application of the words we use to describe things. You just don't wish to acknowledge this fact, because it makes you uncomfortable to know you support killing human beings.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point, the definition of human being. You ask, "Well, what else can it be?" It can be a human embryo or zygote or fetus. That's what it can be and is.

What is a human kidney? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope. But it's not a human being either.
 
Onceler said:
No translation required.

You responded to my post without reading through the thread (it's that weird obsession you have), and you stepped in it, yet again.

You look dumb.
Click to expand...

look how much time you've spent babbling bullshit, why not take the time to explain exactly what i missed by being "late"....you obviously can't debate my point, i can tell, because when you feel you can, you actually debate, when you feel you can't, you spend all this time talking meadowmuffins....

o'rly...what else does a fetus require to become a human being then? too funny, you don't know the link between proof and fact, yet, you claim this is theoratical and tentative all the while insulting those who believe or even aren't sure whether man and dinosaurs roamed the earth when that conclusion is also theoretical and tentative....
Click to expand...

give it a shot big guy
 
RStringfield said:
There is nothing wrong with using proof and evidence interchangeably. Proof connotes something a little stronger than evidence and typically means that the weight of evidence is sufficient to form a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is something wrong with using proof and evidence interchangeably, they are two distinctly different things, as you go on to admit.

Can you name some of these facts?
Click to expand...

It's a fact that humans can't breath water because the evidence shows our lungs can't process water and we drown. It's a fact that gravity exists because the evidence shows when we drop something it falls to the ground. It's a fact that Earth revolves around the sun, because we've observed it doing this for many years without deviation in a regular orbit. How many FACTS do I need to present here? I am not understanding your point! You have presented NO FACTS pertaining to humans on Earth at the time of the dinosaurs. You have given us a speculative opinion on the matter, and that is fine, it's just not a proven fact.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's not a theory that sperm and egg combine to form human life, that is what happens in biological experiment after biological experiment since we've been studying it. In fact, the living organism produced has never been anything other than human. Because of this test and observation, we can conclude it as a fact, and not a theory.

You should really shut up before you embarrass yourself further!
Click to expand...

No, the weight of evidence leaves us with that as the reasonable conclusion.
It does not mean there is no possible alternative or other significant factors.
 
Yurt said:
look how much time you've spent babbling bullshit, why not take the time to explain exactly what i missed by being "late"....you obviously can't debate my point, i can tell, because when you feel you can, you actually debate, when you feel you can't, you spend all this time talking meadowmuffins....



give it a shot big guy
Click to expand...

Translation: I saw you posted on the thread, so responded immediately to that, without reading the rest of the thread. Now, that I realize I might sound stupid, I'd like you to do my homework for me, and explain what I missed.
 
apple0154 said:
That's exactly the point, the definition of human being. You ask, "Well, what else can it be?" It can be a human embryo or zygote or fetus. That's what it can be and is.

What is a human kidney? Is it a dog, a tree, an apple? Nope. But it's not a human being either.
Click to expand...

Those are all designated terms for various stages of a human being. Are you NOT a human because you are an ADULT? That is what you are saying here!

A human kidney is not an independent living organism, it is a part of the human organism. We've already established (you made the point) that a fetus/embryo is NOT the mother, so you can now drop the kidney analogy as it is irrelevant.
 
Dixie said:
Those are all designated terms for various stages of a human being. Are you NOT a human because you are an ADULT? That is what you are saying here!

A human kidney is not an independent living organism, it is a part of the human organism. We've already established (you made the point) that a fetus/embryo is NOT the mother, so you can now drop the kidney analogy as it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Its also kind of evil.
 
Onceler said:
Translation: I saw you posted on the thread, so responded immediately to that, without reading the rest of the thread. Now, that I realize I might sound stupid, I'd like you to do my homework for me, and explain what I missed.
Click to expand...

knew you would wuss out, yet again

apparently you have already backpeddled from your post and realize your intellectual dishonest stance
 
Dixie said:
No, my notion is, evidence is not proof, it is evidence. Your notion is, evidence means proof always, because they mean the same thing to you. If I have evidence you stole my car, it means you did it, and we don't even need to give you a trial because I've proven it... that's what you are claiming. My notion is, I may have evidence you stole my car, but there could be other evidence to the contrary, like you were busy having butt sex with Onzies at the time my car was stolen. So a jury would hear the EVIDENCE and decide if something is PROVEN. My notion is, they are two different words for a reason, because they have two different meanings.
Click to expand...

Listen dumbfuck. I am not getting into your hair splitting over word definitions. I use proof to mean evidence sufficient to form a conclusion. That is what it means.

If your evidence is sufficient to gain my conviction then the jury has decided that it is proof.
 
Yurt said:
look how much time you've spent babbling bullshit, why not take the time to explain exactly what i missed by being "late"....you obviously can't debate my point, i can tell, because when you feel you can, you actually debate, when you feel you can't, you spend all this time talking meadowmuffins....



give it a shot big guy
Click to expand...

I am too big for you little boy. I don't have to debate with little boys like you. I can by hypocritical because you're a hack! I am seriously just way to smart to have to explain myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top