Quote:Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents.
Oh no, are you busting out Ken Ham's 'historical science versus observational science?' Please...just don't.
I'm saying that historical documents ALONE (I find it laughable that anyone could consider the bible an accurate historical document in the first place, but nvm) are not SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to support claims of angels flying around, talking donkeys, and people coming back from the dead. The bible may very well be evidence, but it's certainly not evidence of what you THINK it is.
Quote:what event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'?
I'm sorry...have you heard of fields like archeology and paleontology?
Quote:you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?
Pick one, dude. It really makes little difference to me as far as "compelling" goes, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
