nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 362:
Line 362: + + + +
→Evidence?: That's not the logic.
Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
Much of your evidence functions on the basis that people have reported seeing it therefore it exists. This logic is flawed with examples such as Big Foot, the Lochness Monster and many other creatures of Urban Legend. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:18, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: Are you saying that claimed sightings of Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Tasmanian Tiger, and so on are to be totally ignored? Then why have various authorities spent considerable sums of money looking for those things (the Loch Ness monster, at least)? It's because claimed sightings, although certainly not conclusive ''proof'' by themselves, are valid ''evidence''.
: And no, the article does not say "people have reported seeing it therefore it exists" or anything amounting to that. Rather, it says that creationists have a range of arguments, one of which is that various sightings support that they have existed in human history.
: I will concede, however, that the arguments other than reported sightings are only briefly mentioned, compared to the sightings which are covered at some length.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:26, 12 November 2008 (EST)