The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 07:04 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:40 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
Your turn.
Lack of evidence is not evidence

Yes but you said you are going to "prove" it. Which would require you to supply the evidence.

Proving isn't asserting then telling someone else to provide evidence against it.

Oddly, I'm still not certain I'd want to go into it but the things I'm actually more interested about in your proclamations are things like your proclaimed pattern of proof and the things you said in there still. As well as the supposed claim about some man wrote down that a god told him he created the earth in 6 days... because what? Who is that, what is that? There are so many off hand comments that lack sense and connection to anything. (because if, and this is an if, if that's supposed to describe Moses, that doesn't actually fit. If it's someone else, I have no clue who this other man allegedly is)
This is my evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

If you don't wish to read the evidence I provide, then provide irrefutable evidence of your own and I lose.

So far no one has provided evidence except the guy who also posted this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.
I have read his evidence.
One of the evidence he has provided shows that light in a vacuum does not experience time.
His evidence actually supports my story.


I haven't read anything in his evidence that disproves my story so far.

If he wishes to call it a draw between us then I don't mind.
Please don't close the thread as I am still debating others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:54 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If I fail to provide evidence and you fail to provide evidence then the debate ends in a draw.
No side wins.

That's not even remotely how the burden of proof works and this has been explained you multiple times.
Nice try cunt.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 07:01 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes but you said you are going to "prove" it. Which would require you to supply the evidence.

Proving isn't asserting then telling someone else to provide evidence against it.

Oddly, I'm still not certain I'd want to go into it but the things I'm actually more interested about in your proclamations are things like your proclaimed pattern of proof and the things you said in there still. As well as the supposed claim about some man wrote down that a god told him he created the earth in 6 days... because what? Who is that, what is that? There are so many off hand comments that lack sense and connection to anything. (because if, and this is an if, if that's supposed to describe Moses, that doesn't actually fit. If it's someone else, I have no clue who this other man allegedly is)
This is my evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

If you don't wish to read the evidence I provide, then provide irrefutable evidence of your own and I lose.

So far no one has provided evidence except the guy who also posted this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.
I have read his evidence.
One of the evidence he has provided shows that light in a vacuum does not experience time.
His evidence actually supports my story.

Next?

What part is evidence? This isn't "providing" evidence. If you were quoting someone, would you cite the lines relevant to the passage you're supporting or would you just quote the entire body of work by that person. If I was saying Harper Lee was using the character of Boo Radley as a message that the unknown shouldn't be written off because it is unknown, would it be providing support and proof to you if I quoted. -Harper Lee to kill a mocking bird? Is that providing proof?

I can't find the evidence of a story of a man that was told by the catalyst of the universe that it created the universe in 6 days... where is that? I don't see it provided.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
22-01-2016, 06:59 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:54 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If I fail to provide evidence and you fail to provide evidence then the debate ends in a draw.
No side wins.

That's not even remotely how the burden of proof works and this has been explained you multiple times.
Nice try cunt.
Agreed? What does that have to do with proving me wrong and winning the debate?
Here is my evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.

Rebutt my evidence or provide your own.

I can call it a draw if you like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is my evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

If you don't wish to read the evidence I provide, then provide irrefutable evidence of your own and I lose.

So far no one has provided evidence except the guy who also posted this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.
I have read his evidence.
One of the evidence he has provided shows that light in a vacuum does not experience time.
His evidence actually supports my story.

Next?

What part is evidence?

I can't find the evidence of a story of a man that was told by the catalyst of the universe that it created the universe in 6 days... where is that? I don't see it provided.
If you cant provide evidence or disprove my argument the best you will get is a draw.
You won't win with that attitude Mr.

You wish to call it a draw between us?
Still debating others so please don't close thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes but you said you are going to "prove" it. Which would require you to supply the evidence.

Proving isn't asserting then telling someone else to provide evidence against it.

Oddly, I'm still not certain I'd want to go into it but the things I'm actually more interested about in your proclamations are things like your proclaimed pattern of proof and the things you said in there still. As well as the supposed claim about some man wrote down that a god told him he created the earth in 6 days... because what? Who is that, what is that? There are so many off hand comments that lack sense and connection to anything. (because if, and this is an if, if that's supposed to describe Moses, that doesn't actually fit. If it's someone else, I have no clue who this other man allegedly is)
This is my evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

If you don't wish to read the evidence I provide, then provide irrefutable evidence of your own and I lose.

So far no one has provided evidence except the guy who also posted this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.
I have read his evidence.
One of the evidence he has provided shows that light in a vacuum does not experience time.
His evidence actually supports my story.


I haven't read anything in his evidence that disproves my story so far.

Next.

No Yo Yo you did not present evidence, none nada zero zilch. You babbled like a kid just learning to talk without saying shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 07:11 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

Um.... you haven't provided evidence.... nor have you directly posted science.

You've posted words then posted links.


You have still failed to post anything remotely like you said you would in you opening post as well as people pointing out pretty directly where your words contradict (Are wrong) in all ways pertaing to any form/dream/whimsy of or about science.

So, you're still posting, still failing and still avoiding pretty much every thing you started/stated that you would do.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 07:05 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:54 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's not even remotely how the burden of proof works and this has been explained you multiple times.
Nice try cunt.
Agreed? What does that have to do with proving me wrong and winning the debate?
Here is my evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science.

Rebutt my evidence or provide your own.

I can call it a draw if you like.

You can call it anything you like, but that doesn't make it that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 07:07 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 07:03 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 06:56 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What part is evidence?

I can't find the evidence of a story of a man that was told by the catalyst of the universe that it created the universe in 6 days... where is that? I don't see it provided.
If you cant provide evidence or disprove my argument the best you will get is a draw.
You won't win with that attitude Mr.

You wish to call it a draw between us?
Still debating others so please don't close thread.

I can't find the evidence of a story of a man that was told by the catalyst of the universe that it created the universe in 6 days... where is that? I don't see it provided.

I have looked in the entirety searching the link you provided. I don't see any hint or reference to it. Not one. So where is your evidence of it?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
22-01-2016, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 07:15 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 06:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The ABSENCE of evidence against your story is not evidence for it.
YOU said so yourself.

And I just gave you the reason why the laws are irrelevant.
They break down at a singularity.

You lose.
My rebuttal is:
What you have posted is not science. It is unproven by science. The very article you linked states that it is possible, not that it is proven.
We are looking for evidence here to win this debate. Not theories.

I have no issues calling it a draw between us but you haven't provided evidence to prove me wrong.
Please don't close the thread as I am still debating others

I also do not wish to debate someone that provides unproven theories as scientific evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: