If everyone had to have incontrovertible proof for everything he or she said, there would be no conversations, only a bunch of guys in lab coats scrutinizing everything a person said and bidding him/her not to talk until the first statement had been proven or disproven. Needless to say, conversation would proceed at a snail's pace and bizarre, unspoken hierarchies of credibility would arise and again we would have chaos, albeit a slow, academic kind.
2007-02-04 03:35:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Black Dog 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is no proof either way.
Lack of evidence is not proof in itself. Neither does lack of proof allow a 50% chance of existence.
"There is a chocolate teapot in orbit around Saturn but it is too small for any of our current instruments to detect."
Just because the fossil records are incomplete does not disprove natural selection, neither does it give credence to intelligent design as an alternative.
*I think a lot of people have been reading Dawkins on here!*
2007-02-04 11:35:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by psicatt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
When has proof been required in religion and spirituality?
2007-02-04 11:55:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by guhralfromhell 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Forget proof, I want my pic back.
Hi!
2007-02-04 11:34:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by GODZILLA 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
How can YOU say THAT, where is YOUR proof?
Where on earth is that monkey man you promised??? I haven't seen him yet!!!
2007-02-04 11:31:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by . 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
my proof may not be proof enough for you
but it doesnt make it untrue :o)
2007-02-04 11:30:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Peace 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
Does anyone know where the bathroom is?
2007-02-04 11:37:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Satan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I thought I just did?
2007-02-04 11:31:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by Eso_ uk 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
in the pudding. Mmm, pudding.
2007-02-04 11:31:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
What are you talking about?
2007-02-04 11:30:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bronx B 2
·
1⤊
0⤋