Izzy

Again, that is a form of evidence*, not a proof. I just went over that. *Not all evidence is real evidence, of course. But regardless, personal experiences are evidence, not proofs.

Dath, see my post here (in another thread on this site) to understand what qualifies as a proof. If you have a proof, bring it forth. If you have any evidence, bring it forth. However, do not just claim that there's "A LOT" of proof out there for something, and then bring forth nothing compelling to justify your allegations.

ADParker, I love how you have all the common fallacies memorized. Awesome post (as usual).

Gah I need to sleep. Should not be posting. Bad Izzy. Grah. Dude, I really want you to look into this forum. Post an intro thread, the above will do fine. I don't want this to come off the wrong way and discourage you from showing up, but we can help. The fear and concept of Hell is probably the most disgusting thing to do with Christianity, and from what I understand in the above, is the only thing keeping you Christian. *Needs sleep* Bah.

Absence of belief does not require proof of absence. There seems to be a general mix-up with 'proof' and 'evidence'. Contrary to misguided belief, they are not the same thing. The only real proofs are mathematical ones, anyway. In math, after the system has been formed, deductive reasoning (rather than inductive or empirical) is applied to accepted premises, and a conclusion can be formed. A deductive argument is always either true or false, and its conclusion is always a bi-conditional statement. If all premises of a deductive argument are true, then the conclusion will be true as well. But for the deductive argument to be valid, all conclusion must be necessarily true. Here are three examples of deductive arguments. 1. A quadrilateral has four sides. (True) 2. A square has four sides. (True) 3. Therefore, a square is a quadrilateral. (True) In bi-conditional form: A square is a quadrilateral if and only if it has four sides. (If I recall correctly, for a bi-conditional to be true, the inverse, converse, and contrapostive of the bi-conditional must be true as well.) 1. Sarah is a girl. (True) 2. All girls like boys. (False) 3. Sarah likes boys. (False) Though it is possible for Sarah to still like boys, it isn't necessarily true, and therefore this is a fallacious argument. 1. All men have moobs. (False) 2. All people with extra chest blubber wear bras. (False) 3. All men wear bras. (False) I'm sure you can see the problem with this one for yourself. An example of a mathematical proof would be one of the many out there for the Pythagorean Theorem. Here's one we had to prove in math yesterday. From my book: James Abram Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, discovered a proof of the Pythagoren Theorem in 1876. His proof involved the fact that a trapezoid can be formed from two congruent right triangles and an isosceles right triangle. Use the diagram at the right to write a paragraph proof showing that a2 + b2 = c2. What I did was set up the area of the trapezoid using 1/2h(b1 + b2) equal to the area of the three triangles added together. Basically: 1/2(a+b)(a+b) = 1/2ab + 1/2c2 + 1/2ab (Substitution) 1/2(a2 + 2ab + b2) = ab + 1/2c2 (Simplify) a2 + 2ab + b2 = 2ab + c2 (Multiply both sides by 2) a2 + b2 = c2 (Subtract 2ab from both sides) That's a proof. Evidence for the Pythagorean Theorem would be pointing out that with all the variations you've tried with angle measures and side lengths of a right triangle, you always seem to get a2 + b2 = c2. Clearly you haven't tried every combination, and though evidence is helpful, it isn't in upon itself proof. I'm not asking for proof of mythological creatures, but some evidence (your word, I'm sorry, means nothing to me) would be much appreciated. I mean, if you don't have any evidence, why should I give your (extraordinary) claim any more credence than I would any other random assertion? I was going to use magic, extraordinary healing, and astrology as examples of 'random assertions', but I forgot you probably believe in them too...

Basically the only difference is that mitosis 'daughter cells' are identical to the original 'parent cell', and in meiosis, the chromosomes, after being split, come back together in different arrangements, hence genetic diversity.

Man, you guys have no idea what nun jokes I'm suppressing right now. That was good btw, Period Table! (Yes, calling you that from now on. )

Because religion is important? Eh, gods count as mythical creatures. We're on topic.

I vote the second one. Most religions, according to their definitions, are incompatible with one another.

I haven't even started with what's wrong with Islam. For starters:

SG, I think there's a point to ridiculousness when certain claims can just be dismissed. The human imagination is a fantastic thing, and as social creatures that strive for a life of contentment, God, Allah, Mohammad, magical fairies, tree spirits, etc. are all imagined to comfort someone in some sort of way. Magic Luver and CSG were saying this pages ago: Belief makes them happy. I think, that for the amount of time these silly claims were going on, at least 2009 years on the Christian scale, there should be some sort of compelling evidence to suggest something is there. There has been none. None. I think this guy I know sums it up quite nicely in his response to the Deen show on YouTube. "Ultimately, there's no convincing argument for God, because there's no means of distinguishing your god from an imaginary one. And the best explanation for that is that he's imaginary. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. If you think you can prove differently, then by all means do it, but if you're just going to rely on misrepresentation and "Ooh, I find this difficult to understand, therefore it might be God!", don't bother."

Ah, I blame the internet. Fair enough. Though, I don't see why if you were certain you saw/heard/whatever them in the first place..

Aww, you changed it. That's adorable. Nick liking some online women?

My apologies. Apparently sarcasm is hard to pick up over the internet. I just think it's hilarious that people, specifically believers in things like this, constantly claim how 'open minded' they are, and how they like to use 'common sense'. ...Common sense would involve taking evidence seriously. Form the conclusion of this post for yourself.

... ... ... ... :lol: :lol: /spam Sorry, I couldn't control myself..

..Because you clearly have.

Yeah.

A quick run through without actually looking anything up: 2)Who introduces herself as “hi... it's just me! P.M. me, cuz I like to chat!”? 3)Who “thinks online relationships are stupid”? 6)Who tells you “I am a guy...who likes pie.”? 10)Who “is currently renting a small portion of Blade's about me page, for the hefty rate of ¥0 per month.”

Oh man, I remember this joke from my kindergarten days. Different version though. I cba to type it all out, but here's the convo bit: Teacher: Okay, let's see what you've learnt. Boy: Shut up! Teacher: Who do you think you are young man?! Boy: Na na na na na Batman! Teacher: That's it, you're going to the principle's office! Boy: Yes!!!!! Teacher: Okay mister. The was the last straw. (At this point she spanks him.) Boy: My buns are on fire, my buns are on fire!

What does 'Floor {.5 + i5}' mean?