-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Burden of Proof is on Atheists
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I just answered that in the post you're responding to???HERE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you can, for god's sake...emboldened in red for you, which bit of read slowly and carefully was unclear?
Just answered you in the post you're responding to, and have clearly not read, so here is my answer again:
Someone's claim that he heard that someone else had dug up a stegosaurus -- with no other corroboration -- would be hearsay.
Someone claiming he had dug up a stegosaurus would be 1st person, but uncorroborated, testimony.
The actual stegosaurus in the museum would be empirical evidence.
As far as I know, ours is the common understanding of the term -- something "heard said."
So how do you define it?
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. says:
hearsay
noun
- Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
- Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.
- Information communicated by another; report; common talk; rumor; gossip.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Those are not historical facts? Even conservative historians like Bart Ehrman will say we know very little about the actual life of Jesus. If he was killed as a punishment then as Ehrman explains, bodies were left on crosses for a period of time. But it's also known in historicity that there is no event that is certain. Mark is the source and is written as a parable (in many ways). Savior demigods were already happening among all local religions as the were all becoming Hellenized - baptism, eucharist, national God becomes supreme God, souls once fallen can be saved and go to heaven, all races welcome, individual salvation, a general resurrection after a war and much more.
So Jesus being mythicized as the Jewish version of the savior means he also has to undergo a passion and die/resurrect. Inanna was hung on a tree for.......3 days and nights, then arose in a new body. The savior myth requires a death so baptized members can attain salvation. So while Jesus may have been a teacher who was killed it's a huge coincidence because the mythotype he belongs to also requires a death. This myth being pre-Jesus along with most Christian ideas are actually historical facts. Known and easy to demonstrate facts. Yet most Christians will not accept that? But then they want to call anonymous stories that read like fiction historical facts? Something is a bit off here?
But Mark is not writing history. He doesn't give sources like history, he has improbable events without explanation, he uses ring structures, chiasmus and not only has the character tell parables but has the character explain he teaches in parables. This is the author explaining the story is a parable.
Historical facts are compared with many sources from many places and historians of the day. The gospel narratives are not found in any Roman records, historians only ever mention Christians who follow the gospels. The only people who consider things like a missing body to be history are apologist fundamentalists. This is clearly motivated by an emotional need to ignore normal methods of historical fact checking and just forcing something into existence by denial and being backed by other people with the same cognative dissonance.
Of course the same is done in Islam and Mormonism and JW. While you may laugh at the idea that Joseph Smith received golden plates from the angel Moroni they believe it is actual history. And Islam considers it historical that the angel Gabrielle visited the prophet and the moon split in half one day. Their source? Well, it's written in scripture.
That is not history and neither are anonymous gospels using older stories (Psalms, Kings, a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative, Jesus Ben Damius, Pauls letters..)
One of the current best works on NT history is How Jesus Became God which is fairly conservative by one of the top historians Bart Ehrman. A list of "historical facts" by a known radical fundamentalist is a bunch of crank.
If you care at all about what is actually true you need to learn history from historians.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Are the gospels accurate historical records - NO. All words are from Bart Ehrman
- written at least 40 years after the supposed events
- Paul references the resurrection 20 years later
- No eyewitnesses. Paul was not an eyewitness. The gospels are anonymous non-eye-witness, writen in 3rd person.
- Jesus followers spoke Araimaic or were illiterate
-gospels written by highly trained in rhetoric, fiction, mythology (not followers of Jesus)
- the stories were in oral circulation for 1 human lifetime, how much was changed? What happens to oral reports over decades?
Mark and Matthew contain stunning differences. The day Jesus died is not even in agreement. The time Jesus died is not in agreement in Mark and Matthew.
- These stories were changed as Christians used them to convince outsiders. For over 35 years.
The Epistles may speak to Jesus being an actual man. The gospels are myth -
"I regard the Epistles as the only useful evidence worth debating on the question of whether Jesus existed. The Gospels are pedagogical myths and propaganda tracts, with no known sources, and no plausible reliability, written in a foreign language, in a foreign land, and so far as we can tell when no one who was there was any longer alive. "
Dr Carrier
Now the same historian on a person believed to have existed.
A common issue in apologetics is complaining about how the evidence for any historical character is as bad a sJesus so should we consider everyone to be myth? Obviously when the claim is a God we would need better evidence. But let's look at evidence we have of someone considered historical to put this ridiculous apologetic to bed. The gospels are mentioned above.
Now onto Caesar from a response from Richard Carrier to an article by Darrell Bock called “Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared,” where he suggests Jesus and Caesar have the same amount of evidence.
"So take note: we have actual coins and inscriptions dating from Caesar’s time and the time of his contemporaries. None for Jesus. We also have several eyewitness accounts. Caesar’s own, as Bock mentions (although he omits the most important one, the Civil War) and Cicero’s and Sallust’s, as Bock also mentions (although he omits the most important one, Cicero’s Letters). But also Pompey (surviving collections of Cicero’s letters include letters from Pompey) and Augustus (Caesar’s adopted son and successor, who commissioned many inscriptions and coins). And Livy, a contemporary of Caesar, covers Caesar in his histories—and in their poetry, so do contemporaries Virgil, Ovid, and Catullus. The Gospels are not eyewitness sources, name no eyewitness sources, and have no verifiable eyewitness sources. There are no eyewitness sources for Jesus. There are at least nine for Caesar. Bock mentions but does not make anything of this crucial distinction. It seems to be irrelevant to him. But I’m here to tell you, it isn’t to historians."
Bock wants to reject the proposition “the evidence for Caesar’s life is better attested than for Jesus’s.” As worded that looks like a con. Either Bock doesn’t realize this is not the same proposition as “the evidence for Caesar’s life is better than for Jesus’s” or he must think his readers won’t notice the difference. Because he never points that difference out, acts as if there is no difference, and after arguing the evidence (not the man) is better attested, concludes (fallaciously) “If we believe what the best sources say about Julius Caesar, then we should believe what the best sources say about Jesus Christ.”
Even if the evidence was better attested, that conclusion cannot follow. Because what we need to know is not whether the evidence is better attested, but whether it is as reliable. An urban legend can be superbly attested (we can collect thousands of primary source documents containing the legend), yet 100% bogus. Because even though the story is superbly attested, it’s still made-up. Bock does nothing to establish that the Gospels are as reliable as the sources he cites for Caesar (see below). Even if we had what the original Gospel authors said to 100% accuracy (and we don’t; I document several examples in Hitler Homer Bible Christ), that tells us nothing about their reliability as sources.
In other words, having an accurate text is of no use in comparing source quality. Bock shows no awareness of so basic a point, yet this is fundamental to any schooling as a historian.
Bock doesn’t just fail at the logic of his own argument. He also fails at the facts. His premises are thus false. And therefore his argument would be unsound even if it was logically valid.
Bock claims “in regard to Julius Caesar, the key sources are his own accounts of the Gallic Wars, the speeches of Cicero, Sallust’s account of Catiline’s War, Suetonius’s section on Caesar in Twelve Caesars, and Plutarch’s section on Caesar in Plutarchs’s Lives.” Um, no. First of all, we don’t trust all that they say, either, so by transitive logic Bock must agree the Gospels can’t be trusted any more than they are. But more importantly, we trust what those sources say mostly in respect to what we can externally corroborate in eyewitness and archaeological sources."
And of course Bock ignores scholarship:
"At most Bock tries to claim the Gospels are eyewitness sources by just handwaving to the opinions of conservatives, and gullibly trusting the report of Papias, which we know is false because it contradicts all the data. Hence his attempts to assert the Gospels are eyewitness sources I refute, and document all mainstream scholars balk at, in Chapters 7.4 and 8.7 of On the Historicity of Jesus. He has no other arguments. He doesn’t interact with mainstream scholarship or the abundant refutations of this claim in the literature. He just vaguely alludes to the fact that his claims contradict the mainstream consensus, and with that fine confession, tries a Plan B by naming some books that argue the Gospels nevertheless must contain reliable oral tradition, even though other than books he wrote or co-wrote himself, the authors he names (e.g. Dunn) do not in fact come to that conclusion (they conclude, instead, that some of what’s in the Gospels might go back to eyewitness sources through considerably distorting lenses, a fact Bock seems not to know, or else suspiciously forgets to mention)."
joelr
Well-Known Member
Another apologetic tactic. "Oh you wouldn't ever believe in supernatural stories, so that's why you can't accept the gospels..."
It would be great if the supernatural could be shown to be possible. I have studied psychics, cold readers, ESP, the LOA and religion. The last religion I studied was a version of Hinduism a type of Vedic school with Brahman as the force behind reality. While it is interesting I still cannot find reason to believe consciousness is more fundamental than a materialist view. I am trying, I'm not done with it.
Christianity is a Hellenistic/Pagan myth. Judaism is a different older mix.
In fact I just read another paper:
The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:
A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist
showing baptism/eucharist to come from Greek religions as well as savior Gods who bring salvation. Also early Christian apologists like
Tertullian actually told people that the reason Jesus was so much like the other saviors that Satan went back in time to make them look that way.
"
It is interesting to note that the early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 160-225CE) would not have agreed with this appraisal. Not only did he believe that certain of the Mysteries practiced baptism, but also that they did so in hope of attaining forgiveness of sins and a new birth. This was so striking a similarity that it clearly demanded some form of explanation. Not surprisingly, demonic imitation was the culprit."
Several apologists spoke about Satan attempting to fool Christians by making older cults look exactly like Jesus. Including Martyr. An apologetic that worked then but now it just demonstrates that this was just a copy-cat version of myths already going around. Unless you accept the demonic imitation idea?
So according to you, you are in no way a believer in the existence of God since you are a disbeliever of no gods exist.
Or how about the reverse? You are a believer of no gods exist since you are a believer that God exist. Now that is an example of a contradiction.
Recalling the name of the law not the same as recalling the law itself. And you claiming to understand logic while demonstrating that you don't, does not mean that you understand logic.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
You have discovered logical paradox, which has no solution. This is definition of absurd.
Your absurdity, not mine. See
One does not easily see the absurdity in one's argument until it's presented by someone else while not realizing that it's actually one's own argument that is being demonstrated.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Disbelievers are Atheists. Atheists have nothing to do with Beliefs.Your absurdity, not mine. See
One does not easily see the absurdity in one's argument until it's presented by someone else while not realizing that it's actually one's own argument that is being demonstrated.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
So now you identified yourself as an atheist as well? Or are you saying that you're a believer of no gods exist?
Then why are you associating atheists with god beliefs?
So again, you're identifying yourself as an atheists since you have a disbelief of atheists? Make up your mind.
Can you then please try explaining that to the ignorant person who made that comment below about atheists believing in a god. Also please let him know how much of a fool he is to be claiming that atheists believes in what satan had told them, "that there is no slightest evidence for God or satan."
Would you please be so kind as to put that fool in his place. Thank you.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Much analysis can be spent on the source gospel Mark. The Greek rhetoric style is highly mythic and almost every story can be linked to a source including the OT narratives or a transfiguration of the Romulus narrative.
Jesus scores 20, an almost perfect score on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. This, the literary devices employed, the parables, and more demonstrate this is definitely a work of fiction and not history. It's also not written as a history, improbable events like fishermen suddenly leaving families are always explained and sources are always given in 1st century histories. This is religious fiction and not reliable as fact. Apologetics that says otherwise is literal pseudo-science crank.
Some points from Carriers article on the empty tomb, more points are covered these are just a few basic ideas.
Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier
- Finding a tomb empty is conspicuously absent from Paul’s account of how the resurrection came to be believed (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
-Mark 16:1-8 no one was told about this....uh, so why does Mark know? Maybe because he's making it up? Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
-It clearly hadn’t occurred to Mark when composing the empty tomb story that it would invite accusations the Christians stole the body. So Matthew had to fix this by adding guards at the tomb. But Matthew’s stated excuse for introducing guards into the story of the empty tomb narrative reveals a rhetoric that apparently only appeared after the publication of Mark’s account of an empty tomb, and this exposes the whole tale as an invention.
-On top of that, is the fact that the earliest Christian history shows no knowledge of there having been any empty tomb story at any point in the religion’s first three decades. Though claiming the body was gone would peg Christians as suspects in a capital crime of grave robbery, an obvious boon their enemies would not fail to exploit, and though the book of Acts records case after case of Christians being interrogated at trial before both Jews and Romans on other offenses (e.g. Acts ), never once in this entire history of the church are they ever suspected of or questioned about grave robbery. It’s as if there was no missing body to investigate; no empty tomb known to the authorities. Which means the Christians can’t really have been pointing to one.
-Worse than that, the Romans would have had an even more urgent worry than body-snatching: the Christians were supposedly preaching that Jesus had escaped his execution, was seen rallying his followers, and then disappeared. Pilate and the Sanhedrin would not likely believe claims of his resurrection or ascension (and there is no evidence they did), but if the tomb was empty and Christ’s followers were reporting that he had continued preaching to them and was still at large, Pilate would be compelled to assume an escape had occurred, and would have to haul every Christian in and interrogate every possible witness in a massive manhunt for what could only be to his mind an escaped convict
Yet none of this happens. No one asks where Jesus is hiding or who aided him. No one is at all concerned that there may be an escaped convict, pretender to the throne, thwarter of Roman law and judgment, dire threat to Jewish authority, alive and well somewhere, and still giving orders to his followers.
Where did Mark get the idea of an empty tomb, and what did he intend his empty tomb narrative to mean?
- Mark may have had some inspiration from Homer. Dennis MacDonald made a good case in “Rescued Corpses” (pp. 154-61) and “Tombs at Dawn” (pp. 162-68) in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale 2000). Mark was transvaluing Greek “scriptures,” creating a superior Judeo-Christian analog meant to replace them, and in the process criticizing their messaging by contrast with his.
- But Mark needn’t have had so specific an inspiration. Lots of saviors and heroes got empty tomb stories. So of course Jesus should have been given his too. We see many examples from ascension mythology (Pagan and Jewish) that would have been well known to Mark, wherein the absence of a hero’s body is taken as evidence of his ascension to heaven and concomitant deification. Empedocles being a famous example (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.67-69, quoting the pre-Christian writer Heraclides), and something akin was claimed of the Roman King Numa. But even some legends about Moses involved a disappearing body as evidence of his ascension (e.g. Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.48).
But Mark’s most likely inspiration were the Psalms,
- Many Jews held a belief that “until three days” after death “the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking it will go back” into the body, “but when it sees the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it” (Midrash Rabbah Genesis 100:7, based on Job 14:20-22)
-This third-day motif was certainly widespread, and may be very ancient. In Jewish tradition it could lie behind the prophecy of Hosea 6:2 that “He will revive us after two days, He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before him.” The Jewish belief that corruption sets in on the third day might even have entailed the savior’s resurrection then, to fulfill Psalms 16:9-11 that the savior’s body would not see corruption.
-The same idea was popular long before Judaism. The first recorded myth of a crucified and resurrected deity, that of the Sumerian goddess Innana, relates that after her naked, murdered corpse is nailed up, her minions come to feed her the food and water of life and she is raised back to life “after three days.” Many pagan legends of resurrection feature rising “on the third day,” including that of Aridaeus, Timarchus, and Rufus of Philippi
-
Mark drew upon the Psalms. He consciously modeled his crucifixion narrative on Psalm 22, adapting phrases directly from the Septuagint text thereof (as countless scholars have long noted), including Christ’s cry on the cross, the taunts of the onlookers, and the dividing of garments by casting of lots. Crucifixion also calls up that Psalm’s image of the messiah’s pierced hands and feet. This begins a logical three-day cycle of psalms: Psalm 22 marks the first day (the crucifixion), Psalm 23 the next (the Sabbath, during which Christ’s body rests in the grave), and then Psalm 24 predicts and informs the resurrection on Sunday, the third day.
The middle one, Psalm 23, corresponding to the Sabbath, the day of rest, is the Funeral Psalm (“The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want…Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death…”) and thus represents Christ’s sojourn in the realm of the dead. That Psalm also concludes with what can be taken to be a prediction of a Pauline resurrection: “And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” just as Psalm 22 concludes with a prediction of salvation for those who believe in the Christ.
Then Psalm 24 proclaims God’s Lordship over the universe and anticipates a new era, which a Christian would understand began with Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven.
-Even the names of the women in Mark’s empty tomb tale are likely symbolic. Salome is the feminine of Solomon, an obvious symbol of supreme wisdom and kingship. Wisdom was often portrayed as a feminine being.
So these two Marys in Mark represent Egypt and Israel, one literally the Mother of Israel; the other, the harbinger of escape from the land of the dead. Thus they represent (on the one side) the borders of the Promised Land and the miraculous defeat of death needed to get across, and (on the other side) the founding of a new nation, a New Israel—both linked to each other, through the sister of the first savior, Moses, and Aaron (the first High Priest), and mediated by Wisdom (Salome). (Sophia), so to have her represented here behind a symbolic name rich with the same meaning is not unusual. Mariam (the name we now translate as Mary) was famously the sister of Moses and Aaron, who played several key roles in the legendary escape from Egypt,
-Just as reversal of expectation lies at the heart of the teachings of Jesus—indeed, of the very gospel itself—so it is quite natural for Mark to structure his narrative around such a theme, too. This program leads him to ‘create’ thematic events that thwart the reader’s expectation, and an empty tomb is exactly the sort of thing an author would invent to serve that aim. After all, it begs credulity to suppose that so many convenient reversals of expectation actually happened. It’s more credible to suppose that at least some of them are narrative inventions; and probably, all of them. One such invention could easily be the empty tomb
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well it proves that Jesus died before any resurrection claims where made, / this disproves any hypothesis that states that Jesus never died in tje first place and fulled everbody pretending he resurrected.
Well if Jesus wasn't burried an emty tomb would have not been surprising
This article lists 8 lines of evidence in favor of the emty tomb so ether :
1 explain why this evidence is not good enough
2 accept this evidence
3 or you can simoly repeat like a parrot "there is no evidence " without any justification
Its a correct prediction, if Jesus rose from the dead we would expect to have an emty tomb.
.
Yes perhaps perhaps perhaps.... but of all those alternatives whicone do you think is more likely to be true ? Build your case, if you afirm that it was all made up then provide a detailed explanation of how you think these lies flurished. Who lied originally? The disciples, the authors of the gospels, Paul?...... build your case,
This article provides 6 lines of evidence that support the claim that the disciples saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus
The Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection, Part 5: Fact (3) The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples
So ether
1 explain why usent this good enough (explain why lies is a better explanation)
2 accept the fact that the disciples saw something (or that they thought to have seen something) that they interpreted as g
Having seen the risen Jesus
3 or repeat like a parrot "there is no evidence " without any justification
As a side note almost 100% scholars accept this , so why do you think they are wrong?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Atheists can believe, they just dont believe in God, religion or spiritual topics.
But they can believe a car is blue.....
It proves nothing of the sort. It's just part of the narrative sequence of the story. It's remains a story just like any other.
???? -- not following.
Cause it's not evidence. It's a story, with no empirical, first person or disinterested corroboration. All religions have such stories.
Huh --????
There's no parroting. There really is no real evidence.
Providing actual evidence for such a fantastical claim is your burden, and you have not met it.
It's not my burden to disprove your extraordinary claim, and even if I did disprove it, it wouldn't be evidence for the veracity of your claim.
And an empty tomb, conversely, would not be evidence that the inhabitant had risen from the dead.
Well, the Son of God and savior of mankind rising from the dead I don't see as likely. It's a fantastic religious myth, propaganda, unlike anything anyone would believe had it been claimed to have happened today.
It's an unsupported religious narrative like any other religion's mythology.
Folk tales like this flourish all the time. They're behind all sorts of different religions, cults, folk tales, and political propaganda. All it takes is a narrative supporting preëxisting biases. Why do you think the Q-anon conspiracy is believed by so many millions, with no actual supporting evidence whatsoever?
Again, you're the one making the extraordinary claim. It's your job to support it, not mine to disprove it.
You're doing it again; presuming unsupported premises. We don't know who the authors of the gospels were, and Paul? How is he any different from any true believer of any religion or conspiracy theory, with a pen?
The narratives and their authors are not evidence. All religions have them. Without better evidence, they're just stories.
These are not lines of evidence. They're just more stories, justified by other stories, by witnesses described in yet other stories.
it's not good enough because it's unsupported by empirical, first-person, or disinterested evidence. It's no different from any other religions folklore.
OK -- provide some real evidence that any of this actually happened.
Did Orpheus really put the sleepless dragon to sleep, allowing Jason to snatch the golden fleece?
Did Odysseus really blind the cyclops Polyphemus to escape his cave?
Did Aslan really allow himself to be sacrificed to save Edmund, and later rise from the dead? There were witnesses...
These are just stories, written down and with witnesses cited. But without actual supporting evidence they're no more "proved" than the Jesus myths.
With perfect justification, since no real evidence has been adduced.
Biblical scholars do not believe this. Biblical theologians believe this.
Last edited:
leroy
Well-Known Member
Most biblical scholars accept these 5 facts. The empty tomb is accepted by 75% of scholars that the rest is accepted by virtually all scholars.
So why is it that they see enough evidence and you don’t?
related to the emty tomb...
Lets focus on 2 lines of evidence
1 we have multiple independent early sources confirming the empty tomb so unless you want to claim that a big massive conspiracy where the authors of the gospels and Paul had a secret meeting where they decided to create the story, the empty tomb is likely to be a historical fact………
2 the empty tomb was common knowledge, if the tomb would have been occupied then it would have been very easy for romans and Jews to expose the body and destroy resurrection claims. Romans and Jews where trying to destroy the Christian movement, exposing the body would have been a god thing to do.
But I am open to any alternative explanation…… who invented the lie ? Paul, the authors of the Gospels, Peter, the catholic church ? Elaborate your hypothesis
Yes it´s empirical evidence, you can test empirically if the sources are early and independent for example
How do you know? More likely than not, the empty tomb was common knowledge and therefore the authors of the NT had firsthand knowledge…………worst case scenario Paul Knew James the brother of Jesus, so he had access to reliable information about the body of Jesus (presumably his brother would have known about Jesus body)
Well according to you who invented the lie and what was his interest in inventing the lie? Early Christians would have been ok with a spiritual experience (Jesus talking in a dream for example) which woudlnt require an emty tomb…a bodily resurrection (whch requires en emty tomb) was not expected nor necessary for the apostles to believe in Jesus any other miracle woudl have been equaly efective…. But the burden proof is on you, you are claiming that “someone” invented the lie of the empty tomb because he had some special interest, so who invented the lie and what was his interest?
Or to put it this way, if the tomb was not empty why inventing a miracle that requires an empty tomb? If the guy who invented the lie had the freedom to invent any miracles and any lies, why not inventing a miracle that is hard to disprove?
Last edited:
leroy
Well-Known Member
This is boring repetitive and tedious, I am not talking about your definition of hearsay, I am talking about the other definition provided and accepted by Valjean and KWEDYou're priceless.
Still untrue, and I even linked the NHM website showing the extensive list of expert palaeontologists and the universities they worked for, that the museum employs to validate fossils and exhibitions, and to peer review the research validating them. So this is rank dishonesty, yet again.
They know what hearsay means, you have consistently shown you do not, even here again, despite it being explained innumerable times.
Hearsay
noun
I can't dumb down the bit you're either ignoring or not grasping, anymore than that (it's in red emboldened letters for you).
- information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
I also linked (right at the start) a website listing the methods science uses to substantiate the authenticity of fossils, (you waved it away) I linked the NHM's website which showed the extensive list of experts in the field of palaeontology they use to substantiate their fossils and exhibits, and their credentials and the various prestigious universities across the UK they work for, (again you ignored these facts) Yet you rehash the same tired old canard, your dishonesty on this is manifest to any remotely objective reader.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well my alleged strawman was a honest mistake, why didn’t you correct my mistake by explaining what your actual claims are?,
leroy
Well-Known Member
I am asking a yes or no question.
Asking “given the evidence we have to date do you think that any of the 5 facts is more likely to be wrong than true?” this is a yes or no question concerning your own personal views.