It’s a feel-good article that misses the point that, if you can’t prove that it can be a by-birth condition, you also can’t prove that it can never be a by-birth condition. If you claim that someone must submit proof for their theory, then it is not unreasonable that you should also bear the onus of providing proof for your theory that says their theory is bunk. This guy tries to eat his cake and have it too.
RE: It’s a feel-good article that misses the point that, if you can’t prove that it can be a by-birth condition, you also can’t prove that it can never be a by-birth condition. If you claim that someone must submit proof for their theory, then it is not unreasonable that you should also bear the onus of providing proof for your theory that says their theory is bunk.
If I say and insist that MH370 is in an airport hangar in Pakistan and someone asks me where the evidence is of that, on WHOM is the burden of proof? Me or the questioner?
If I cannot show positive evidence that the plane even flew to Pakistan, why is the burden of proof that it did not fly to Pakistan on the one questioning my assertion?