(April 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm)IATIA Wrote: Standard basement.

Compsognathus (/kɒmpˈsɒɡnəθəs/;[1] Greek kompsos/κομψός; "elegant", "refined" or "dainty", and gnathos/γνάθος; "jaw")[2] is a genus of small, bipedal, carnivorous theropod dinosaurs. Members of its single species Compsognathus longipes could grow to the size of a turkey.

Yay! Dinosaur farm! Cha-CHING! $$$$$

(April 5, 2016 at 1:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 1:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Did you read the whole thing?  I would also say, that without proof does apply to each of my statements above, however without reason does not. 

I also apologize, I screwed up in answering your question.  You had stated "no evidence" and I asked about the evidence.   The answer is no.... however I think that you are also redefining evidence.  If the evidence is the word of one person... probably not.

Are you responding to me, or min here?  So, it's a numbers issue?  How many people would have to corroborate my claim about the two headed dinosaur in order for you to believe it without any other evidence?  

Just to clarify...when I say evidence I mean it in a scientific sense; demonstrable, repeatable, testable...ect, and personal testimony falls pretty low on the ladder there.

There are a number of factors that come into play.... if you want to present your evidence go ahead.  

Well according to your criteria, apparently I would have to do some demonstrable, repeatable, testable sciencey type thing on the dinosaur. And so would everyone else, who is to believe it.

I don't know about other people but...

I consider I have evidence of something if I can be reasonably confident I can demonstrate this evidence to be sufficient to a random, reasonable person (who is suitably qualified, where appropriate).

This standard is important to me. If I can't manage this, I don't consider I have evidence. I am as sceptical of my own personal experiences as I am of other people's. This seems to me to be the big difference between a sceptic and a non-sceptic: the desire to try and objectively assess one's own experiences and memories.

(April 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah really, I'm not even going to reply to this stuff about evolution.

It's kind of a prerequisite that the people involved understand what it is they are even discussing. If they don't, their opinion isn't of much importance. I've never heard a single person who can demonstrate they understand what evolution is, and then go on to say they think it doesn't happen. So among those informed enough to hold a sensible opinion, there is virtually no disagreement.

I could say that about a number of the theological arguments against Christianity here.... you digging yourself deeper, and avoiding the question at that.

(April 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah really, I'm not even going to reply to this stuff about evolution.

It's kind of a prerequisite that the people involved understand what it is they are even discussing. If they don't, their opinion isn't of much importance. I've never heard a single person who can demonstrate they understand what evolution is, and then go on to say they think it doesn't happen. So among those informed enough to hold a sensible opinion, there is virtually no disagreement.

And it's useless to try and talk people through it in hopes of getting beyond that point...most of the time anyway...as we saw here with Atlas. If they don't want to see it, it simply won't ever be there.

(April 5, 2016 at 1:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 1:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Are you responding to me, or min here?  So, it's a numbers issue?  How many people would have to corroborate my claim about the two headed dinosaur in order for you to believe it without any other evidence?  

Just to clarify...when I say evidence I mean it in a scientific sense; demonstrable, repeatable, testable...ect, and personal testimony falls pretty low on the ladder there.

There are a number of factors that come into play.... if you want to present your evidence go ahead.  

Well according to your criteria, apparently I would have to do some demonstrable, repeatable, testable sciencey type thing on the dinosaur. And so would everyone else, who is to believe it.

I just want to know what it would take for you to believe my claim.

I'm not avoiding the question RR, I don't want to debate you anymore. I have decided it is not productive.

(April 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah really, I'm not even going to reply to this stuff about evolution.

It's kind of a prerequisite that the people involved understand what it is they are even discussing. If they don't, their opinion isn't of much importance. I've never heard a single person who can demonstrate they understand what evolution is, and then go on to say they think it doesn't happen. So among those informed enough to hold a sensible opinion, there is virtually no disagreement.

I could say that about a number of the theological arguments against Christianity here.... you digging yourself deeper, and avoiding the question at that.

Except that theologians cannot demonstrate that a God exists, so it's not a good analogy.

(April 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah really, I'm not even going to reply to this stuff about evolution.

It's kind of a prerequisite that the people involved understand what it is they are even discussing. If they don't, their opinion isn't of much importance. I've never heard a single person who can demonstrate they understand what evolution is, and then go on to say they think it doesn't happen. So among those informed enough to hold a sensible opinion, there is virtually no disagreement.

I think you should get out more!  Or is your criteria, that all that disagree don't understand, or aren't real scientist?

(April 5, 2016 at 1:27 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah really, I'm not even going to reply to this stuff about evolution.

It's kind of a prerequisite that the people involved understand what it is they are even discussing. If they don't, their opinion isn't of much importance. I've never heard a single person who can demonstrate they understand what evolution is, and then go on to say they think it doesn't happen. So among those informed enough to hold a sensible opinion, there is virtually no disagreement.

I think you should get out more!  Or is your criteria, that all that disagree don't understand, or aren't real scientist?

If you reject evolution you are not a "real" (intellectually honest) scientist. End of story.