The stupidity inherent in your post makes my head hurt.
Mylakovich writes:
That's not how this works. If you assert something, the burden of proof lies upon yourself.
To which you reply:
Oh it's not? I'm sorry mr. science "know it all". Please do tell me how you would like me to prove this scientifically? I was under the apparently false assumption that NOTHING was provable in science.
I mean, WTF??? What the hell does this have to do with what he said? Where did he mention scientific proof? "Burden of proof" is a well known English expression and does not contradict in any way the evidence-based nature of science. If the "burden of proof" is upon you, then it is up to you to bring forth evidence. Only soneone utterly unaquainted to the English language, or a dribbling idiot would misconstrue this to claim that scientific "proof" was being demanded. I'm assuming you fall into the former?
™ Version 4.2