View Single Post
Old 15th December 2015, 09:49 AM   #2035
Membership Drive
Russell's Antinomy
Slowvehicle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?
My Dear Mr. Savage:

You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct.

On the one hand, you have two renown fabric authorities, who examined the CIQ in situ and found not a skerrick of evidence for any "...patching".

On the other hand, you have a group of committed sidonists, who, needing to explain away the "wrong" date provided by the most observed bit of 14C dating ever, have conjectured that there "may have been" "...some patching", without ever once finding any actual evidence that such exists.

There is no evidence, none, of the "...patching" you need to shore up your faith.

Trough it all, I remain,

Patiently yours, &ct.
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top