This is what happens when you enter into a debate halfway through without understanding the positions or arguments.<quoted text>The Dude wrote:
The fact is no-one could prove bacteria in 1000 AD because bacteria aren't real.
Dude is pointing out the error in Skippy's logic, in that Skippy has declared that if there isn't any scientific evidence for something then it doesn't exist.
In 1000AD, there was no "scientific evidence" for bacteria, therefore _by Skippy's argument_ bacteria didn't exist in 1000AD.
Dude is lampooning Skippy.
You would know that if you had read ANY of the last 250 pages.