Whatsupall/Muscleman:
"YOUR CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN WORDS... "
You said that you have seen many people with ears and some people without ears (i guess...). SO, you can apply that PERCENTAGE to the rest of the world. You can say that MOST people have ears (not just most people you have seen, but that fact is part of it), and that SOME people do not have. If you have seen many people with ears and some people without ears, you DEFINATELY cannot say that all people do not have ears, that is shit worthy logic.
I know you aren't good with parallels, but ill try this on you: IF you see ONLY people with ears (no people without), THEN you CAN say that all people have ears (or at least most people have ears). IF you test ALL rocks on earth to be 4.55 bil. years old, THEN you CAN say that all rocks on earth are 4.55 bil. years old (or at least most rocks are). This is called inductive reasoning, it means taking a specific point (people we have SEEN, soil we have TESTED) and applying it to construct a general point (all people have..., all rocks on earth are..., etc).
"HOW MANY TIMES DID I PROVE YOUR WORDS WRONG?"
Seriously, the only one who thinks you proved me wrong is YOU, yourself. Don't go throwing around insults and CAP LOCKS again k? Remember I can just as easily ignore you completely as read your posts, so if you WANT me to read your stuff, be nice and try to comprehend...
"YOUR SELF CONTRADICTORY..."
Show me exactly where I am self-contradictory and tell me your reasoning for that. I am not going to just take your word for it.
"TESTING A FEW SPOTS OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES IS "TONS OF EVIDENCE"? "
If thousands of tests is what you consider "few" than YES, it is "TONS OF EVIDENCE". Have you ever heard of something called a representative group? This uses that premise.
"YOUR JUST SPECULATING OK CHILD? "
FUCK YOU.
"IF SOMETHING THAT IS PHYSICAL DOESNT HAVE TO BE DETECTED, THEN HOW CAN YOU MEASURE SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT DETECT?"
Oh my god. IT CAN'T. My POINT was that you don't NEED to detect/measure/touch it for it to be tangeble. It only needs to be POSSIBLE TO detect/measure/touch it at any later date.
Whatsupall, I have never seen you admit you are wrong in any way shape or form. Can you please try to understand something and tell us you were wrong, I think I've seen something like that out of everyone on here but you.
"YOUR CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN WORDS... "
You said that you have seen many people with ears and some people without ears (i guess...). SO, you can apply that PERCENTAGE to the rest of the world. You can say that MOST people have ears (not just most people you have seen, but that fact is part of it), and that SOME people do not have. If you have seen many people with ears and some people without ears, you DEFINATELY cannot say that all people do not have ears, that is shit worthy logic.
I know you aren't good with parallels, but ill try this on you: IF you see ONLY people with ears (no people without), THEN you CAN say that all people have ears (or at least most people have ears). IF you test ALL rocks on earth to be 4.55 bil. years old, THEN you CAN say that all rocks on earth are 4.55 bil. years old (or at least most rocks are). This is called inductive reasoning, it means taking a specific point (people we have SEEN, soil we have TESTED) and applying it to construct a general point (all people have..., all rocks on earth are..., etc).
"HOW MANY TIMES DID I PROVE YOUR WORDS WRONG?"
Seriously, the only one who thinks you proved me wrong is YOU, yourself. Don't go throwing around insults and CAP LOCKS again k? Remember I can just as easily ignore you completely as read your posts, so if you WANT me to read your stuff, be nice and try to comprehend...
"YOUR SELF CONTRADICTORY..."
Show me exactly where I am self-contradictory and tell me your reasoning for that. I am not going to just take your word for it.
"TESTING A FEW SPOTS OF THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES IS "TONS OF EVIDENCE"? "
If thousands of tests is what you consider "few" than YES, it is "TONS OF EVIDENCE". Have you ever heard of something called a representative group? This uses that premise.
"YOUR JUST SPECULATING OK CHILD? "
FUCK YOU.
"IF SOMETHING THAT IS PHYSICAL DOESNT HAVE TO BE DETECTED, THEN HOW CAN YOU MEASURE SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT DETECT?"
Oh my god. IT CAN'T. My POINT was that you don't NEED to detect/measure/touch it for it to be tangeble. It only needs to be POSSIBLE TO detect/measure/touch it at any later date.
Whatsupall, I have never seen you admit you are wrong in any way shape or form. Can you please try to understand something and tell us you were wrong, I think I've seen something like that out of everyone on here but you.