Originally posted by Mindset
Umm, you realize those are completely different things, right? Evidence and proof are synonymous.
One implies the other. P=>Q doesn't mean P=Q.
Evidence by definition isn't proof. Proof is undeniable, evidence isn't.
I can mathematically prove many things. But I sometimes can't prove someone committed a crime even if I had great evidence supporting it (people have being falsely convicted before).
Originally posted by "Id"He didn't bring up the subject. Mindset did.
Mindset is on the right track.What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. We acknowledge that Dr. Manhattan can make clones, however the moment someone claims these “[b]are
” perfect clones. Burden of proof sit squarely on their shoulders. It’s their obligation, to submit evidence to back up his claim.Simply stating “there isn’t any proof that they aren’t” isn’t enough. Following up with “prove that they are”, is the direct moment when the failing debater attempts to shift the burden of proof by asking to prove a negative.
In lame terms. Because its you bringing up the subject, and claiming that they are. Its not our job to prove that they aren’t. [/B]
The other poster provided evidence that they are. Mindset is demanding proof though. That's not how debating always work. When given evidence to support that they are, the burden is now transfers to Mindset to provide evidence that they aren't.
With that said, the burden of proof lies
typically falls more heavily on the party that makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts. It is generally accepted (without making a claim) that the clones are equal in power. Mindset first made the negative claim against the extraordinary. Although he had the burden, the other and me provided evidence and proof. Now the burden now lies on Mindset (even if it didn't at first).
I provided proof that they are.
Him being able to recreate his body doesn't imply he can make clones with the exact level of power as his original self, you have neither proof or evidence or any other word you want to use.
Proof isn't undeniable.
ev·i·dence
   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
proof
   /pruf/ Show Spelled[proof] Show IPA
–noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
"Truths" have later been found out to be false. Anyway, good day.
Originally posted by h1a8Actually, I brought up the question if they were shown to be equal in power to the original, I never made any claims.
He didn't bring up the subject. Mindset did.
Mindset made an implied claim that the clones are not necessary equal to Dr. M in power.The other poster provided evidence that they are. Mindset is demanding proof though. That's not how debating always work. When given evidence to support that they are, the burden is now transfers to Mindset to provide evidence that they aren't.
With that said, the burden of proof lies
typically falls more heavily on the party that makes a claim more "extraordinary", that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts. It is generally accepted (without making a claim) that the clones are equal in power. Mindset first made the negative claim against the extraordinary. Although he had the burden, the other and me provided evidence and proof. Now the burden now lies on Mindset (even if it didn't at first).I provided proof that they are.
So, you're wrong.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
he can duplicate with each copy as powerful as himself
The claim that was made that you and BBZ were supporting. 🙂
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Not shown?He did read silk spectres mind.
It was proven that Surfer can assault enemies within the Astral Plane and destroy them there. This was proven thru feats on-panel.You now need to prove via feats that Dr. M has feats that would protect him from extradimensional attacks of a similar nature. Barring this, then you MUST concede that he has not shown any defenses in this area.
Get it now???
Originally posted by iceman24567Well I don't.
Nah i see Surfer bfring DM to the ****ing stone age
Originally posted by 753No and he never will.So lets just drop it.
What? How does this show resistance against TP/soul attacks?
Originally posted by "Id"Well based and well reasoned.Good.
Your taking a distinctive account, to bring up a flawed point of reference. It bottles down to; “because Dr. M can reconstruct himself, then his clones are perfect copies or equally as powerful as the original“.I don’t understand, how one ties in with the other. What I do understand is that Dr. M is energy based, keeping this in mind its my theory that if Dr. M is creating copies of himself (since they sprout out of the Original) then Dr. M must be exerting energy to create them.
Since the book never established how much energy was invested, then we can only make second hand guesses but nothing concrete.
Originally posted by the ninjakWell how does multiple mans powers work? Does he extend his conciousness into them?
It is possible that the clones are extensions of a "true" Dr Manhatten. But I see DM being able to project his full consciousness into one. And leaving it upon destruction into one of the other clones.
Originally posted by Black bolt zNo, they manifest different aspects of his personality and he can't take conscious control of their actions, although in certain stressing situations they all behave as one, probably because MM's entire being is completelly focused on something. Still, they can think by themselves and often rebel against him.
Well how does multiple mans powers work? Does he extend his conciousness into them?
Originally posted by MindsetBad definition. Sometimes dictionaries give inaccurate definitions. Check American Heritage.
Him being able to recreate his body doesn't imply he can make clones with the exact level of power as his original self, you have neither proof or evidence or any other word you want to use.Proof isn't undeniable.
ev·i·dence
   /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.proof
   /pruf/ Show Spelled[proof] Show IPA
–noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."Truths" have later been found out to be false. Anyway, good day.
It is common sense that evidence is not proof. Why am I even arguing this? Otherwise, why have people many times came to false conclusions based off true evidence? Evidence supported scientific theory such as in Newtonian Physics. This doesn't mean Newtonian Physics is the absolute truth. Relativity is supposed to be more accurate. Evidence supports convicting someone in court of Law. Many books on God's existence are titled Evidence or speaks about evidence that God exist. Proof is undeniable, as in mathematical proof. Evidence in math gives rise to hypothesis (not theorems). Proof gives rise to theorems. Having evidence that God exists is not the same as having proof that he exist. Even with evidence there is still a chance that he don't exist.
Being able to recreate his body perfectly from nothing except the energies of space-time does imply that one can create a clone of the same makeup. This is common sense. If not then give an counterexample of how the conclusion wouldn't follow.
Originally posted by 753And why would manhattan be any different?
No, they manifest different aspects of his personality and he can't take conscious control of their actions, although in certain stressing situations they all behave as one, probably because MM's entire being is completelly focused on something. Still, they can think by themselves and often rebel against him.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210I was talking about his mind if for some odd reason surfer brings them to an astral plain.
And this protects his SOUL how? :-/
Originally posted by Black bolt z
I was talking about his mind if for some odd reason surfer brings them to an astral plain.
If you read the issue on Surfer's Astral form attack, it's a SOUL attack and not a mind attack.
And don't you think you're logic here is a bit reaching??? It's like saying that since Gladiator's power has a psionic element attached to it, then he's resistant to psionic attacks...