You can just as much disprove creationism as you can disprove the statement 'Jesus was gay'.You can never wholly disprove something, but that's irrelevent, that is not how burden of proof is.
As it stands there is evidence besides theory for the Big Bang (the residual energy), there is none for creation theories besides writing (most of which is actually copied from early Persian beliefs).
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:42,
archived)
As it stands there is evidence besides theory for the Big Bang (the residual energy), there is none for creation theories besides writing (most of which is actually copied from early Persian beliefs).
The burden of proof rests entirely on the delivery.If I want you to believe that Jesus was gay then I need to provide evidence.
If you want me to believe that he is straight then you need to provide me with evidence.
To be fair, I see no evidence against initial creationism.
(If you want me to believe that he is straight then you need to provide me with evidence.
To be fair, I see no evidence against initial creationism.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:46,
archived)
You don't need evidence against creationism.Otherwise I could spread libelous bollocks about anything or anyone and order them to give me concrete proof to the otherwise, but that is not how burden of proof works. You have to have evidence for your claims, other people don't have to provide evidence to contridict your baseless assertions.
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:04,
archived)
Are you saying Science should sue Religion for defamation?
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:06,
archived)
sounds reasonable to methe royal society vs the church of england, at the old bailey. tickets only £400 a place. it'd be a killer.
(
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:08,
archived)
I think women should sue religion for demation of character!And maybe the Fruit Marketing Board.
(,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 16:09,
archived)
You are wrong.How burden of proof works is something you should research.
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 18:59,
archived)
given the bits in johnabout the "most beloved disciple" (implied to be john) lying on jesus' bare breast, there's actually some evidence for the "jesus was gay" argument.
except... oh, that damned catholic church, replacing the name "mary magdelene" with "john". i knew they were up to something!
(except... oh, that damned catholic church, replacing the name "mary magdelene" with "john". i knew they were up to something!
boris the spider,
Sun 30 Aug 2009, 15:46,
archived)