>>77
No. You're being a wiseass
[1]. Animals that were described with similar features to the mythical unicorn have been postulated, discovered, and examined, however the image of what a unicorn is, is of man's imagination.
But, we're not talking about unicorns, I'm talking about the fallacious claim
>>31 made in this thread that there never was a civilization without proof to back his claim.
[2] He made a claim about it, I never did, and that's the only thing I've been arguing about from the start.
[3]
>>73 stated
We are really talking about whether or not there was one, not whether we could possibly find one.
To which I would suggest the creation of a new thread to argue on that point, as it seems this argument and its objective has shifted inadvertently somewhere in this thread.
[4]
And that's all I'm going to say on that.
[5]
_____________________
Footnotes:
[1] I apologize for the snide comment, but you're really being absurd.
[2] Sorry, "indirect proof", or lack of, is not the burden of proof.
[3] Had I also made a claim in this thread, I too, would be obligated to provide burden of proof.
[4] Though if it's to be continued in this thread, that's fine. A new thread would be a bit more orderly and actually have a topic. I'd be more than happy to debate it as well, even though this wasn't the objective of my original argument. This thread has spun into something completely different it seems.
[5] I'd hate to be rude, but it is become a bit tiring to explain what my argument is for the past seven times and having only one person in this thread that understood it, and probably IHBT. In that case hats off to you, good sirs.