209
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 262:
Line 262: +
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 19:17, November 16, 2009
, 19:17, November 16, 2009→Open mindedness
::There is a very odd definition of open-mindedness being applied here. James is holding just as much to his own view as you are Karajou. Surely the statement 'you've already made up your mind that the Bible is true, and nothing that we can say or do will change that position' applies to you as much as the reverse does to James. No one has provided satisfactory answers about the ark since such statements remain pure conjecture since most go well beyond any available evidence, including what is actually stated in the Bible. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 07:42, 16 November 2009 (EST)
::There is a very odd definition of open-mindedness being applied here. James is holding just as much to his own view as you are Karajou. Surely the statement 'you've already made up your mind that the Bible is true, and nothing that we can say or do will change that position' applies to you as much as the reverse does to James. No one has provided satisfactory answers about the ark since such statements remain pure conjecture since most go well beyond any available evidence, including what is actually stated in the Bible. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 07:42, 16 November 2009 (EST)
:::DWiggins, you're missing the central point here. The user came to this site with an agenda in mind, a declaration that the article was a parody, and a demand that we prove our position to his satisfaction, when the burden of proof was on him. He failed, with an attitude. As far as available evidence goes, he could have that ark set down right in front of him, but he still wouldn't change his mind; his refusal to even look at the answers above - let alone answer them - proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 16 November 2009 (EST)
:::DWiggins, you're missing the central point here. The user came to this site with an agenda in mind, a declaration that the article was a parody, and a demand that we prove our position to his satisfaction, when the burden of proof was on him. He failed, with an attitude. As far as available evidence goes, he could have that ark set down right in front of him, but he still wouldn't change his mind; his refusal to even look at the answers above - let alone answer them - proves it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 16 November 2009 (EST)
If you refer to the claim that this article is parody then maybe the onus was on him to prove it. But the question of parody went out the window a while back and the discussion had refocused onto the actual details of the Noah's Ark story itself. You said earlier that you would not be satisfied with his view that it is fiction unless he actually scoured every corner of a certain region for evidence. In this case the burden of proof lies with you, and it would be a case of you providing evidence to back your claims, not the other way around. Most of what has been said is purely conjecture. Even if the story is real we have no actual way of knowing the finer points of how animals and food were stored etc. so we should stop debating this as if we can. They are theories, and as things stand they are not falsifiable. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 14:17, 16 November 2009 (EST)