Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs ark is a physical impossibility
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 71 (32435)
02-17-2003 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
02-17-2003 10:02 AM


Percy,
quote:
Back In Black/Zephan/Apple Toast: My point was to help you see the issue clearer since you failed to provide peer reviewed literature to back up your unsupported beliefs.
It was this snippet that made me realise I'd heard this line before. Apparently we must provide scientific peer reviewed papers to show that something isn't linked to something else (ie prove a negative) when no one suggests that they are anyway. Methinks the burden of proof is the other way around, or if it isn't, I want scientific peer reviewed articles that show that apples aren't oranges.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 02-17-2003 10:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 22 of 71 (32437)
02-17-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Admin
02-17-2003 12:05 PM


More faces than the church clock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Admin, posted 02-17-2003 12:05 PM Admin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024