(December 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: You can trust historians with proof that they are historians from an eyewitness account of evidence. But claiming that a historian is a historian because you heard so is not an eyewitness account. Debunked again.
You aren't making any sense. Like, ANY. Should I even respond to this? You are saying now that people lie about being historians, and that we need eyewitnesses to somehow verify that they are? But if we 'heard so', even if it is from an eyewitness (eyewitness of what, I wonder) then it is not accurate?
