Welcome to Gaia! ::

http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece

Originally thought up by Richard Dawkins, he points out in a witty little saying how ridiculous it is to believe things exist simply because no "proof" (whatever that means) has been found for their non-existence.

Au contraire, a healthy belief system would not believe in X given no proof of X's existence, NOT that there's no reason to believe X doesn't exist since there's no proof it doesn't.

It seems to me the only difference between believing in leprechauns, fairies in your garden, invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible space cups and things like spirits that give off energy and follow your car is the relative frequency of belief in the rest of the population.

However, to seriously consider something as plausible, no matter how ridiculous it is, simply because "other people" believe in it is no reason at all to hold that thing's existence as plausible. If you look back in history and see all the beliefs people held because other people held those beliefs, you'll see quite a lot of erroneous worldviews. In fact, it doesn't take much to convince a group of people with mob mentality of pretty much anything.

To sum up, the burden of proof is not on the person who claims something doesn't exist, but on the person who claims it does. You can't* ask someone to provide proof for something's nonexistence; you must provide proof that it does exist.

*without looking like a retard

EDIT:

Forgot to mention something. This deals with philosophical provability, logical possibility, and physical possibility. Strictly speaking, anything that is not logically possible is neither philosophically possible or physically possible; but logic doesn't say something like a flying spaghetti monster isn't possible. Likewise, to prove philosophically the existence of something in the real world is impossible. It's akin to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" argument - he wasn't sure that anything else existed except himself. Yet there is no good reason to believe the chair you're sitting under isn't truly there. Because something is not philosophically provable does not mean there is good reason to not believe it exists. Therefore, in any ontological debate, the rhetorical retreat to philosophical existence of objects is both cowardly and ignorant, and the hallmark of someone who is willing to use his higher faculties to only half of the existence problem and no more. Sure, you can't prove the chair doesn't exist. But does that mean we should go about our lives pretending it doesn't?

Blue is calming probably because it reminds us of the sky, or in my case, the ocean.

I dunno if you know this, but salt lowers water temperature. So if anything, it's making the fish colder.

According to most people who believe in intelligent design, evolution doesn't exist.

We are all randomly generated blob things in a randomly formed planet. Basically anyway. The reason we look the way we do is because we evolved from very tiny blob things. Evolution works by survival of the fittest. I raise a lot of animals, so one thing I know about is genetic mutations, and how if something works, then that's what will most likely be passed on. We got helpful mutations and they passed on.

Look at mice and rats. Very close, but not the same thing. Why did rats evolve to be bigger and a lot more intelligent? They're very good at figuring things out themselves, and they even have emotions. Mice don't. Why did rats get that way, but mice stayed the same?

That's just the way things are. Everything is chance.
If you really want answers, then study everything yourself. Don't ask other people to do it for you.


Also: I once asked a sunday school teacher about that. Even the church admits that Adam and Eve is just a story. What they don't admit, is that the rest of the bible is too.

I dont know why you are talking about the sly being blue. Or why you think there is a purpose to it but, the blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering.

As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

Much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Its just light reflecting.

To that horrible question about why there are still monkeys.

If Protestantism evolved from Catholicism, Why are there still Catholics?

or

If God made man from dirt, why is there still dirt?

also

If mammals came from reptiles, why are there still lizards? If reptiles came from amphibians, why are there still frogs? If amphibians came from fish, why are there still fish? If birds came from dinosaurs, why are there still… , never mind.

Seriously though. Just because one line of evolution from single-celled organisms resulted in us, that doesn't mean that no other lines of evolution could exist. Some apes evolved in a line that became us. Others branched off to chimpanzees, others branched off to gorillas, others branched off to orangutans, and so forth.

Its wrong to assume that evolution moves in a line form from lower to higher. Once a "higher" organism exists, there is no reason for a "lower organism to not exist.

The online line that exists is from one adaptation to another. We are not higher the anything else. We are just more adaptive and better suited to more environments then others. Our brains and ability to change our surroundings change the environment to suit our needs. The one best able to survive is just the one that does survive. Not any sort of higher species.

Congrats, you can tell HOW the sky is blue, but not why.

Once again, that's really more how than why.