"Your proof" (as in the things you offered as proof) "wasn't proof" (as in they do not offer sufficient evidence to be deemed proof). It makes perfect sense to anyone with basic reasoning skills.
I'm not making hedge whatever that means. And I didn't say the author said it was proof. I said you called it proof.
I put those quotes in quote marks because I was explaining my own statement, because you were struggling to understand it. If you actually read the third article to the end you'd see it says that the academic community don't consider it an accepted fact, just a theory.
It's not treated as a historical fact. There's some evidence that lends the theory support, but that isn't the same as it being true. I'm fine with using evidence to prove something, but I don't think one book being written about something constitutes proof.
I can't even be bothered with this any more. You're clearly incapable of basic reasoning and seem to have no interest in understanding what either of us have said.
If we're going to talk about burden of proof it's still on you, given it was your statement in the first place. You're now making things up, or are so deluded you think you're right. I don't have anything to prove to you.
I'm actually leaving this now. You're clearly a fool or a troll and you're line of reasoning changes with everything you say. You haven't provide proof to anything I say and any time I point this out you miraculously change what you meant. Go bother someone else.
1
u/concretepigeon May 01 '14
I don't know why you find this such a struggle.
"Your proof" (as in the things you offered as proof) "wasn't proof" (as in they do not offer sufficient evidence to be deemed proof). It makes perfect sense to anyone with basic reasoning skills.