atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I understand that, and in many cases it is true ... But, i still disagree.

Although "in many cases it is true", you "still disagree"? To what do you attribute such recalcitrance?

Originally Posted by Halcyon

For example, there is not actual proof for the existance of dark matter, yet there is a need for it ...

First, I'm becoming more than a little tired of the sloppiness and semantic slight-of-hand by which a discussion about evidence is morphed into statements about proof. Second, there is never, never, a "need" for a scientific postulate in the total absence of evidence suggesting the postulate.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

... is the absence of evidence for dark matter evidence of its absence?

Good grief ...

Dark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe: The evidence for Dark Matter.

Observational evidence for dark matter

More Evidence that Dark Matter Rules the Universe

New evidence for a Dark Matter Galaxy

What are you talking about?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Although "in many cases it is true", you "still disagree"? To what do you attribute such recalcitrance?

"and in many cases it is true - afterall in life we must operate on such assumptions"
We operate on the assumption that a lack of evidence is evidence of absence, if we didn't we'd be paranoid head-cases. You originally said;
"The absence of evidence is, in all cases, evidence."

And i disagree, i said in many cases it is true, but not all. And then i gave examples, of which you ignored the second - presumably because you could not counter it?

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

First, I'm becoming more than a little tired of the sloppiness and semantic slight-of-hand by which a discussion about evidence is morphed into statements about proof. Second, there is never, never, a "need" for a scientific postulate in the total absence of evidence suggesting the postulate.

I never use slight-of-hand, i don't understand it. Evidence/proof, explain the difference in the context of this discussion please...

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Good grief ...

Dark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe: The evidence for Dark Matter.

Observational evidence for dark matter

More Evidence that Dark Matter Rules the Universe

New evidence for a Dark Matter Galaxy

What are you talking about?

The first three links i've already discussed, and pointed out that it is not evidence for dark matter - it is evidence of something, you and others are simply postulating that it is dark matter.

The fourth article i was unaware of, and is interesting. But yet again, show me the dark matter. For all i know it could be an enormous herd of invisible pink unicorns, after all they're invisible so the evidence fits.
It could equally be an unknown force or hyperspacial anomaly. We don't know what it is, we can only guess. Dark matter is a guess, a single theory to explain something that shouldn't be. But it is not the only theory (see here and here) and it is certainly not an identified substance.

Personally i believe the dark matter theory is probably true, but that is not the point, the point is that there is no more evidence for dark matter than there is for invisible unicorns - we have evidence for something, nothing more.

Is the lack of evidence of sub-surface life on Europa evidence of absence?
Is the lack of evidence of life in distant galaxies evidence of absence?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Let me ask you something. Do you see evolution as evidence for or against God's existence?

No, I don't.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

No, that would by hypocritical of me, i can't claim to believe in one form of deity without clear proof and reject another.

I suppose it would be. It seems much more reasonable, to me, to tentatively reject the entire range of mythical and supernatural until evidence is forthcoming, but having made the leap you have I can understand your unwillingness to contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

But i can prefer to believe in one form over another, even if it is based on intuition alone.

IAbsolutely fine by me, I was just curious.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Personally i believe the dark matter theory is probably true, but that is not the point, the point is that there is no more evidence for dark matter than there is for invisible unicorns - we have evidence for something, nothing more.

Foolish scientists.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Is the lack of evidence of sub-surface life on Europa evidence of absence?

What is the expectation of evidence?

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Is the lack of evidence of life in distant galaxies evidence of absence?

What is the expectation of evidence?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Foolish scientists.

Lol, yeah.
Go ask a cosmologist for some evidence in favour of dark matter over say, nonsymmetric gravitational theory. Tell him/her that some idiot at RF says dark matter may not exist, see what they say.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What is the expectation of evidence?
What is the expectation of evidence?

Well, Europa - if it has oceanic volcanic vents - is a plausible place for life to develop. Unfortunately that thick ice crust stops us from collecting evidence to prove or disprove the theory, my question to you in light of this comment;

"The absence of evidence is,in all cases, evidence."

is why bother to send a probe there, if we already know that we will find nothing?

Same goes for the second example. Why SETI, if we already know there is no-one else out there?

[Tiberius]

And evidence is the same as PROOF since when?

Besides, the Bible says exactly where such evidence should be located. Noah's Ark, the tomb of jesus, etc. And yet we have never been able to positively identify these places, even though the Bible gives us information on WHERE to find it.

SETI, however, does not give us a location.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in cases where such evindece should exist.

Evidence of the Bible should exist, yet there is nothing verifiable.

But there is nothing that says that Humanity must have already been exposed to evidence of alien life.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And evidence is the same as PROOF since when?

Oh, will you please forgive my dreadful common tongue! How can i ever live with myself for using proof instead of "conclusive evidence", oh woe is me

Jesus Christ, talk about getting caught up in the little things...

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Besides, the Bible says exactly where such evidence should be located. Noah's Ark, the tomb of jesus, etc. And yet we have never been able to positively identify these places, even though the Bible gives us information on WHERE to find it.

SETI, however, does not give us a location.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in cases where such evindece should exist.

Evidence of the Bible should exist, yet there is nothing verifiable.

But there is nothing that says that Humanity must have already been exposed to evidence of alien life.

I don't believe in the old testament as literal truth.

Since no-one seems to have figured it out yet , what i'm trying to suggest is that the evidence for deity is not non-existant, we simply don't have the understanding to see the evidence for what it is.
Just like the evidence for the existance/non-existance of extraterrestrial life is not non-existant, its just unavaliable to us at this time. Therefore lack of evidence is not evidence of absence in all cases, get it?