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)