1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 263:
Line 263: − ::::No, the burden of proof lied with him, period. And we do know the finer points of the storage of animals and food; this was detailed in my statements above, as well as the documented experience of zoologists, farmers, and anyone else involved in animal husbandry and animal behavior. They are not theories; they are facts, but apparently these facts are conveniently set asside by so-called professionals at the mere mention of two simple words: "Noah's Ark". And if you cannot ''falsify'' this subject, then it must be ''true''.+ − ::::As requested, this debate is stopped. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:24, 16 November 2009 (EST)+ + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 13:43, November 17, 2009
, 13:43, November 17, 2009no edit summary
:::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)
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)
::No, the burden of proof lied with him, period. And we do know the finer points of the storage of animals and food; this was detailed in my statements above, as well as the documented experience of zoologists, farmers, and anyone else involved in animal husbandry and animal behavior. They are not theories; they are facts, but apparently these facts are conveniently set asside by so-called professionals at the mere mention of two simple words: "Noah's Ark". And if you cannot ''falsify'' this subject, then it must be ''true''.
::As requested, this debate is stopped. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:24, 16 November 2009 (EST)
::::Just because something cannot be falsified does not mean it is true, as Bertrand Russell wrote:
::::''"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."''
::::As you see it would be absurd to equate in-falsifiability with truth otherwise you would have to accept the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or any number of ludicrous things. [[User:RuairidhM|RuairidhM]] 08:43, 17 November 2009 (EST)