The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Gentry claims that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Where is his evidence?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.
I agree, I say that Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster and the tooth fairy all exist, unless you can prove that they don't,actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.
actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.
that would be an ad hominem, attack on character and not the evidence of what was said.
I must admit that I wouldn't know whether at some point the papers get some substance. I didn't encounter any, but I didn't read the whole paper. I might try again this weekend.That would be grammar. And the papers have no substance to avoid.
I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break. Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.
edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.
edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.
What does your brother say?I agree, I say that Bigfoot, the Lock Ness monster and the tooth fairy all exist, unless you can prove that they don't,
the jury awaits.
What does your brother say?
Then it looks like ET is being selective in even what his brother says.If he is a scientist, he will say something along these lines: "there is as much evidence supporting the existence of these creatures as there is supporting Thor or a global flood".
Who's his brother you are talking about?
That is the original anasema wewe.
Y'all talk way over my head here too much
anasema wewe - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were no results matching the query.
The page "Anasema wewe" does not exist
.
Hi TGTry "translate: anasema wewe" in google.
Y'all talk way over my head here too much
anasema wewe - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were no results matching the query.
The page "Anasema wewe" does not exist
.
That's "kusema nini?"say what?
actually the burden of proof lies in the defence, now that an argument has been made. The jury awaits.
that would be an ad hominem, attack on character and not the evidence of what was said.
Originally Posted by TLK Valentine
The Institution rejects lots of papers -- did they mention why?
No less blind than rejecting it as biased without investigation.
There is no scientific evidence for creationism -- Gentry's "evidence" consists of so much whining that even other creationists are getting sick of him.
Originally Posted by Tomk80I started reading the second of his 10 "censored" papers in my lunch break.
Really couldn't get through it, gave up after the first two pages. The first two pages are basically self-congratulatory whine fests with no substance whatsoever. Really, if I dared to send something like that to my supervisor I'd get a strong reprimand from him. If I continued, I don't think I'd ever get my PhD, unless I'd find a different professor who revels in self-congratulatory whine fests.
edited to add: Seriously, read one of those articles, the writing is really, really, really crappy.
edited because I can't get over how crappy: yes, really, extremely, horribly crappy.
I have no idea what you just said, but, it sounds interesting....logical fallacies are in question in your reply, mainly a red herring. To avoid the topic of substance for grammer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?