Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By demonstrating that when animals die the flesh is removed through a process of decomposition and other animals eating it. What is left after is bones. Over times the bones get buried under dirt and debris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Then go ahead and ask your question. Don't be afraid.
There is no logical reason to ask. One can't prove the existence of a deity.
By demonstrating that when animals die the flesh is removed through a process of decomposition and other animals eating it. What is left after is bones. Over times the bones get buried under dirt and debris.
All your explanation proves is that some bones in the ground may have come from dead animals. It does not prove that all bones in the ground have come from dead animals.
All your explanation proves is that some bones in the ground may have come from dead animals. It does not prove that all bones in the ground have come from dead animals.
Well, the fact that we can observe the process gives much more proof than the belief that "God dunit". Since every instance of decay that has been observed happens the same it's logical to conclude that that applies to all bones. There is however no proof for the concept of a non proven deity placing bones in the ground. Science is grounded in fact, God is grounded in human imagination.
Yes, that is true, but we can draw some conclusions that are incorrect, as I pointed out a few posts ago.
That is why we should not say that our logical conclusions are facts. They are just theories that make sense to us.
I fail to understand why the argument persists that the methods and results that are considered reliable enough to send someone to jail (or release them without charge) when applied to a matter regarding which some religious people have a beef, are regarded as merely 'theories that make sense to us'.
All your explanation proves is that some bones in the ground may have come from dead animals. It does not prove that all bones in the ground have come from dead animals.
"The fact that many bodies have bullets in them may prove that some of them were fired by human assailants, but it doesn't prove that all of them were. It cannot be proven, therefore, that the bullet was fired by my client. It could have been placed there by Satan, or God. I wouldn't presume to say. Therefore the argument that the victim was shot by my client is merely a theory that makes sense. it is not proof and there is reasonable doubt."
Like Bill O'Reilly, I am a simple man who asks simple questions and hopes to receive simple answers.
But it has been proven that he's a liar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
