What evidence would Magic Unicorns leave? Skittles… 

A story perhaps to help Mel and Tyler understand

Two people encounter a big jar of multicolored skittles. One says to the other…

Mel: I think that there are more Green Skittles in the jar than any other color. 

JZ: Why would you believe that? What evidence do you have to support that claim? 

Mel: I just think it’s intuitive that if there is one color of Skittles that is more numerous in the jar, that it would just have to be the Green ones. 

JZ: Well Mel, I’m not sure that we can determine that by just intuition or looking from the outside of the jar without investigation and actual evidence. I just don’t believe that.

Mel: So what you’re really saying is that you believe there are NOT more Greens, but instead there are more Reds. 

If you can’t prove there are not MORE Greens and instead there are more Reds, then there must be more Greens than any other color.

Mel is attempting to shift the burden of proof to distract JZ from seeing that Mel is unwilling or unable to fulfill his burden of proof. Mel is attempting to change JZ’s Unbelief in Mel’s claim into a Positive Claim for the opposite. 

Mel probably understands that what he is doing is dishonest. He’s a reasonably intelligent and rational guy, but he’s on a Mission to Defend the Indefensible, and this is the only way he can do so. 

“If you can’t Dazzle them with Details, Baffle them with…” – My Mom

How would you respond? Leave your answer Inn the comments below. Thx. -kia 


7 thoughts on “What evidence would Magic Unicorns leave? Skittles… 

  1. Realizing at this point that trying to reason with Mel is an exercise in futility, I would find a chloroform-soaked rag and hold it over his face until he drifted off into Fairyland where he is free to dream of the superiority of green Skittles to his heart’s content.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A few years back the Scottish Secular Society lodged a petition in the devolved Scottish Parliament, calling for clear guidance to be given to teachers on the teaching of creationism, which would have effectively banned it.

    In protest, John Mason, a Scottish National Party (SNP) Member of the Scottish Parliament, and a devout Christian, tabled his own ‘amendment’ that science could not prove that the Earth was not created by God in six days, and as such creationism should be allowed in the curriculum. Basically Mason was arguing for science to prove a negative, which of course is an exercise in futility. You may as well say that science cannot disprove the existence of fairies, Santa Claus, or other mythical creatures. Science would not bother even trying – it is a complete irrelevance.

    Thankfully, sanity won the day. Mason’s own party, who make up the Scottish Government, threw out his amendment, implemented the arguments of the Scottish Secular Society, and creationism is now banned in Scottish state schools.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sounds fantastic. Although not too long ago I would have been on the side screaming ‘persecution’ and anti religious bigotry. Neither ID or So called ‘scientific creationism’ such as theistic evolution or Hugh Ross’s progressive creationism are actually science. They have been ‘weighed and found wanting’ by both the courts and the scientific community at large. For the most part, stastically speaking, most Christians around the world accept science and evolution and reject the biblical literalism that continues to defend the genesis creation account.
      More religious people overall accept evolution than not

      Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s