Creationists: Here's your chance

[McBell]

Because you claim to be atheist, I believed your motivation was in denying the existence of God

You do know that there is a difference between denying the existence of god and not accepting the existence of god, right?

 

[McBell]

If you really want to know where I stand then let's take the scale laid out in the book The God Delusion



I consider myself a 6 on that scale, so if I were going to use the correct term for my religion I would use "De facto atheist".

I wonder where I would fit in....

Apathetic Agnostic: I do not know if god exists and frankly I do not care.

 

[McBell]

Codswallop Jose Fly.
I hold that we have no conclusive evidence about the two first causes - and therefore the various models of the first causes are beliefs.

We cannot observe the two first causes and we cannot measure them, nor can we reproduce them - hence no conclusive evidence, hence a belief.

I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.

I hold you are trying, albeit subtly, to get us to accept the smoke you are blowing out your backside.

FACT is that there is all manner of evidence to support the Big Bang Theory.
FACT Creationism (I won't play the Intelligent Design charade) has absolutely no evidence to support it.

So every single post where you imply that they are on equal footing is nothing more than an attempt to blow smoke up our arse.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Codswallop Jose Fly.
I hold that we have no conclusive evidence about the two first causes - and therefore the various models of the first causes are beliefs.

We cannot observe the two first causes and we cannot measure them, nor can we reproduce them - hence no conclusive evidence, hence a belief.

I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.

There you go again. Throwing "causes" around like it is some sort of scientific "belief".

Tell me, what were you taught was the "first cause". Specifically, what does science say was the cause of the Big Bang?

 

[Jose Fly]

Codswallop Jose Fly.
I hold that we have no conclusive evidence about the two first causes - and therefore the various models of the first causes are beliefs.

We cannot observe the two first causes and we cannot measure them, nor can we reproduce them - hence no conclusive evidence, hence a belief.

I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.

And there's your problem. It turns out, we do know quite a bit about those things, just not everything about them.

So your framework of "Either you know everything, or you just have a belief" is nothing more than absolutist, all-or-none, black/white thinking.

 

[painted wolf]

The "big bang" is not a cause... it is the first event. Science does not say what caused the event to happen.

Abiogenesis can be tested and is getting a lot of experimental evidence to back it up.

How does one test for god? (and isn't such a thing blasphemous to by its very nature?)

wa:do

 

[Peacewise]

I was taught that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe, hence the teaching was that the Big Bang is the first cause... now if this not the correct interpretation of the model, then fair enough, that is merely another example of the fallibility of human reasoning or perhaps memory, whether scientist, school boy, or forummer.

Jose Fly's
It turns out, we do know quite a bit about those things, just not everything about them.

No human or instrument of humanity has observed the big bang, hence the Big bang is a theoretical model. I agree a useful model that fits a particular set of observations about the universe today, and can provide some consequences for the universe into the future that can be measured and this adds much weight to the validity of the model, but it does not mean that it is absolute proof of how the universe begun, and hence in my opinion remains a worthwhile belief.

Why is it that when a scientist cannot provide absolute proof or direct observation of an event that's just fine and dandy, yet when the religious cannot provide direct observation or absolute proof of an event this is an argument to deny religion's view point?

Now having had this argument before, my intuition reminds me that an atheist will claim that there is no proof and no observation for God, and to this my reply is that there is no proof and no observation of God to that atheist... to this well I can't really be arsed chatting about it because I know the consequences of revealing that my knowledge of God is subjective rather than objective, my knowledge of God is non reductionist and non deterministic and hence is not based in science and therefore discussing it with atheist scientists or similar becomes worthless, not because it is to me, but because it is to you - my theory on that discussion has been well tested and its predictions have been confirmed numerous times.

So I got no problem disagreeing with you guys, nor your disagreement with me and I thank you for the discussion.

I've settled my matter with the OP conditions, which was my intent on entering this thread.

 

[Autodidact]

Why is it that when a scientist cannot provide absolute proof or direct observation of an event that's just fine and dandy, yet when the religious cannot provide direct observation or absolute proof of an event this is an argument to deny religion's view point?

Because science is empirical and deductive. It's about evidence, not proof. All scientific knowledge is provisional, including the conclusion that the earth is round. that's how science works. And work it does.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I was taught that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe, hence the teaching was that the Big Bang is the first cause... now if this not the correct interpretation of the model, then fair enough, that is merely another example of the fallibility of human reasoning or perhaps memory, whether scientist, school boy, or forummer.

You have been corrected.

No human or instrument of humanity has observed the big bang,

Incorrect, it was the instruments of humanity and Edwin Hubble that first observed the remnants of the Big Bang. Predictable and falsifiable evidence has confirmed.

hence the Big bang is a theoretical model. I agree a useful model that fits a particular set of observations about the universe today, and can provide some consequences for the universe into the future that can be measured and this adds much weight to the validity of the model, but it does not mean that it is absolute proof of how the universe begun, and hence in my opinion remains a worthwhile belief.

Only in the sense that you could call Gravity a "belief"

Why is it that when a scientist cannot provide absolute proof or direct observation of an event that's just fine and dandy, yet when the religious cannot provide direct observation or absolute proof of an event this is an argument to deny religion's view point?

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution conform to verifiability in accordance to the scientific method.
Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design do not conform to the scientific method, and are therefore scientifically invalid.

Now having had this argument before, my intuition reminds me that an atheist will claim that there is no proof and no observation for God, and to this my reply is that there is no proof and no observation of God to that atheist... to this well I can't really be arsed chatting about it because I know the consequences of revealing that my knowledge of God is subjective rather than objective, my knowledge of God is non reductionist and non deterministic and hence is not based in science and therefore discussing it with atheist scientists or similar becomes worthless, not because it is to me, but because it is to you - my theory on that discussion has been well tested and its predictions have been confirmed numerous times.

Yet the OP is not about your faith in God. Nor is it about disproving God, or atheism. It is about the literalistic interpretation of Genesis as scientific fact. Specifically, Creationism.

What I would like is for creationists to post their evidence that creationism is true.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was taught that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe, hence the teaching was that the Big Bang is the first cause... now if this not the correct interpretation of the model, then fair enough, that is merely another example of the fallibility of human reasoning or perhaps memory, whether scientist, school boy, or forummer.



No human or instrument of humanity has observed the big bang, hence the Big bang is a theoretical model. I agree a useful model that fits a particular set of observations about the universe today, and can provide some consequences for the universe into the future that can be measured and this adds much weight to the validity of the model, but it does not mean that it is absolute proof of how the universe begun, and hence in my opinion remains a worthwhile belief.

Why is it that when a scientist cannot provide absolute proof or direct observation of an event that's just fine and dandy, yet when the religious cannot provide direct observation or absolute proof of an event this is an argument to deny religion's view point?

Now having had this argument before, my intuition reminds me that an atheist will claim that there is no proof and no observation for God, and to this my reply is that there is no proof and no observation of God to that atheist... to this well I can't really be arsed chatting about it because I know the consequences of revealing that my knowledge of God is subjective rather than objective, my knowledge of God is non reductionist and non deterministic and hence is not based in science and therefore discussing it with atheist scientists or similar becomes worthless, not because it is to me, but because it is to you - my theory on that discussion has been well tested and its predictions have been confirmed numerous times.

So I got no problem disagreeing with you guys, nor your disagreement with me and I thank you for the discussion.

I've settled my matter with the OP conditions, which was my intent on entering this thread.

Once again you display absolutist, black/white thinking. It's either "absolute proof" or "no better than religious belief".

Apparently any sort of area in between those two extremes is beyond your abilities.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Yet the OP is not about your faith in God. Nor is it about disproving God, or atheism. It is about the literalistic interpretation of Genesis as scientific fact. Specifically, Creationism.

Bingo

 

[painted wolf]

I was taught that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe, hence the teaching was that the Big Bang is the first cause... now if this not the correct interpretation of the model, then fair enough, that is merely another example of the fallibility of human reasoning or perhaps memory, whether scientist, school boy, or forummer.

Sorry you had a poor scientific education.

No human or instrument of humanity has observed the big bang, hence the Big bang is a theoretical model. I agree a useful model that fits a particular set of observations about the universe today, and can provide some consequences for the universe into the future that can be measured and this adds much weight to the validity of the model, but it does not mean that it is absolute proof of how the universe begun, and hence in my opinion remains a worthwhile belief.

Gravity doesn't have a cause and is still considered more than a worthwhile model.

Why is it that when a scientist cannot provide absolute proof or direct observation of an event that's just fine and dandy, yet when the religious cannot provide direct observation or absolute proof of an event this is an argument to deny religion's view point?

Why is it when it happens with something like gravity it's fine... but if scientists have a theory without absolute proof (which you can never have in science anyway) that makes some religious people squeamish ... suddenly Science is bad and can't be trusted/is misguided.

I won't get into the atheism stuff... I'm not an atheist and IMHO atheism is a red herring in these discussions.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

you do know that there is a difference between denying the existence of god and not accepting the existence of god, right?

oooooook

 

[McBell]

oooooook

Is that a: "No, I do not that there is a difference."?

 

[Half Asleep]

oooooook

Denying God's existence: Believing, firmly, that there is no God.
Not accepting God's existence: Not believing in God because there is, as of yet, no sufficient reason to.

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

Circular argument much?

One thing at a time. So is there or is there not a single source other than the gospels and their derivatives for the supposed resurrection?

I asked a question “Plus again, the mass persecution the church underwent, why would they make up propaganda and die for things they made up?” and you did not answer the question. All you say is that “circular argument much?” but that does not answer the question. You made the assertion that the church made up propaganda, so if you’re going to say that, then I have a question for you, why would they die for things they made up?

Also yes there are non-Christian sources that talk about Jesus and the apostles and what they believed. But of course these non-Christian sources will not say that Jesus rose from the dead because they are enemy sources. Are you trying to say because the enemies of Christianity did not agree with the Christians back in the day that means the Christians were mistaken or made up lies? That makes no sense at all because of course enemies of a religion are not going to speak FOR the religion. But the fact that the enemies of the religion SPOKE ABOUT the religion and its followers, SHOWS its historicity!

And you’re dodging the question, why would they make up lies and die for it? Both the apostles, church fathers and many multitudes of people who made up the church?

The link I provided you was a SMALL article that outlined all the quotes from non-Christian sources. I am not lazy, but why should I work at typing it all out and the time take longer to respond if I don’t need to do it, when I can provide a SHORT article that outlines it quite well?

http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern.html

Just to give you a tid bit in case you don’t want to click on the link and read it. Here is a quote from ONE of the sources in the SHORT article
“The Roman historian and orator Tacitus (c.55-120 AD) is acknowledged as one of the best historians of his time. He writes of the sequel to the Fire of Rome in 64 AD:
"Therefore to squelch the rumour that Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians," (a group) hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated." (Annals 15.44)”


The link I provided you gives ALL the sources and it’s a short article.

I would not give you a HUGE article, I want to be more courteous then that, being that this is a debate and not a “go read a mountain of stuff and leave me alone”.

The apostles were not witnesses. The church fathers heard about someone who knew someone who said that their father had told them that someone he knew saw it--is closer to the truth.

Wrong, that is not accurate at all. Of course that would be true with SOME people, as the word got passed along within the far society, but that is not true for the LEADERS of the Christian movement at the time. Paul got acquainted with peter (peter was a witness) and James (Jesus brother, obviously would be a witness) and John (another witness). Also the people could go to the synagogue and see the witnesses preach themselves. And that very thing did happen a lot. Also Paul was acquainted with mark and Luke, writers of both mark and Luke’s gospel (2 Timothy 4:11 Philemon 1:24 Galatians 1:18-19) Also the early church strongly held that Matthew wrote Matthew and Mark wrote mark, ect.

Let me get this: first they died, then they wrote about it? Did you read that before you hit send?

No, no, no, you misread what I said. The apostles (witnesses of Christ’s resurrection) wrote (or dictated to someone else who wrote) the New Testament, and they wrote about some of their sufferings and persecutions, however they did not write about their own death (if they did that, you know then that they would be lying, unless of course they heard they were going to die and then wrote that there pending death is coming, but that is how they would have to word it of course, but regardless they did not write about their own death). The church fathers WROTE about the apostles’ death. The church fathers also died martyrs, but they like the apostles did not write their own death, their deaths were recorded by someone else. This makes sense that it was done that way.

The BIG question is, why would they make up lies and die for them? Not believe lies, MAKE UP LIES, there is the difference. Those that make up lies are not confused, they KNOW it’s lies, so why would they go ahead and die for those things they KNOW are lies?

Tough question for you, isn’t it?

 

[Jollybear]

Why not? If Jesus performed the amazing miracles reported in the gospels, and the sky went dark, and all those other things, surely other people would have written about it.

And….other people DID write about it.

Sky went dark was written by a non-Christian source here

“Thallus in 52 AD, wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the
Trojan War to his day. Although much of his work is lost, Julius Africanus writing in
221 AD quotes Thallus. Regarding the death of Christ Thallus wrote,
“One the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were
rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown
down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to
me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. (Julius Africanus, Chronography 18.1)”

“Just after this passage Africanus also makes mention of another historian, Phlegon, who wrote his chronicles (known as the 'Olympiads') about 140 AD. Phlegon is also cited by Origen, as follows:
'And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.' ('Against Celsus' 2.33.)”

This shows historicity.

Also the miraculous works of Jesus are implied by Jewish sources (non-Christian) here

“Josephus was a member of the Pharisees who became a historian for the Roman
Empire after the Roman and Jewish war. His major work the Antiquities was written
between 90-95 AD.
“Now there was about that time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,
for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth
with pleasure. He drew to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles.
He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men
amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not
forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning
him; and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3)”

And here “The Jewish Talmud records the oral traditions of the Jews. This compilation
began in the first century AD and was completed by 200 AD. In Sanhedrin 43, a
reference is made of Christ.

“One the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the
execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be
stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one
who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’
But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of
the Passover.”

Notice they say he practiced sorcery; that implies it appeared he did miracles and wonders. But of course his enemies are not going to speak well of him, so they say it was sorcery (miracles from the devil, rather than from God). Even the bible itself corroborates this when it says the Pharisees accused Christ of casting out devils by the power of devils.

There you have it, non-Christian sources that speak about the historicity of Christ, his apostles and his miraculous works.

There may be a couple of sources that seem to imply that there may have been a preacher, and that he had followers. That's it, Jolly--that's all there is.

No, that is not all there is; it gives details who those followers were (Christians) and who the leaders were, Christ, and the apostles after him.

No thanks. If you have an argument, make it.

Ok, if you won’t read the link, no matter, I posted the quotes in this post for you, although not all of them, to read all of them in the SHORT article I provided, they are in the link. It’s not like I did not provide the non-Christian sources for you, right?

How do you know? You don't know who wrote them. It's third, fourth or fifth hand hearsay by anonymous dudes. That's it. That's what you base your religious belief on, Jolly.

I know because names are mentioned in some of the new testament writings and parts mention who the witnesses were and Paul who obviously wrote many letters in the New Testament talked about being acquainted with the witnesses. Also the church fathers mention the witnesses and they were acquainted with them.

My belief is based on witnesses who died for their witness, and on people who knew the witnesses who also died for their faith in what the witnesses said, and then people who knew those who knew the witnesses and also died for their faith.

So the question is why would they make up lies and die for what they know is a lie?

Sorry, you're mistaken. Unless you want to challenge the scholars in the field with your firsthand research into the documents?

Yes I would challenge them. Also not all scholars agree with each other. Not all biblical and extra biblical scholars agree that they did not exist.

 

[Jollybear]

You don't know who they were.

I don’t know them personally, but I know who they are based on the record(S)

Sorry, bald assertion doesn't cut it. Support or retract.

No it’s not a bald assertion; I have given some quotes from the church fathers who said the witnesses died for the cause of Christ. Also the witnesses themselves even mention some of their persecutions. Also other church leaders after the church fathers mention the church fathers martyrdoms.

It’s not a bald assertion; it’s a bald assertion that you call it a bald assertion.

Yeah, well so did a few hundred people at Jonestown. Your point?

1 the people at Jonestown did not die willingly.
2 the leaders at Jonestown died for what they BELIEVED was true and not what they KNEW was true.
3 the church fathers who died martyrs did so because they knew the witnesses who died martyrs and to them it made no sense that someone would die for a KNOWN lie (the witnesses were in the position to know if it was a lie or not, because well, they were witnesses) therefore they would die for this claim as well.

There is the difference.

You keep saying that, but you're simply wrong.

No you’re simply wrong. I gave you quotes, why would they make up lies and die for it?

You have writings decades after the events they purport to relate, based on nothing but mere rumor.

Yes decades after, NOT GENERATIONS after though. And they were written by witnesses or people helping some of the witnesses write; so, no it’s not mere rumor, your wrong there.

Tell you what. Pick an apostle, any apostle, and we'll got through what we know and what we don't, o.k.?

Awesome, let’s do it. Let’s pick Peter.
You tell me what we DON’T know of Peter?

Except that it isn't.

It’s not recorded as history huh? Than what is it recorded as?

What recorder?

What recorder? The person who wrote the gospels and the letters. How do you know there lying? What would there motive be?

Really? What?

I mentioned the early accounts. And I gave a link listing more that give corroboration.

What witnesses?

What witnesses? There you go again with that. Explain to me using the sources we have that there was no witnesses?

Well millions of Jews have died at the hands of Christians; does that make Judaism correct?

You’re not understanding, the early Christian church knew the witnesses, had their letters read to them in the synagogues and heard them preach to them face to face in the synagogues. The early church was willing to die under Nero. That is the difference. Some people die for what they believe in is true, and others die for what they KNOW is true. Those that die for what they know is true, there death’s hold more weight than those who die for what they believe is true, but don’t know is true.

 

[Jollybear]

Easily. They weren't there.

Wrong, they were there, if they were not there, then they LIED, so why would they DIE for a KNOWN lie, a lie they made up?

They don't know anyone who was there.

The witnesses were there, the church fathers knew those who were there, the witnesses.

The church fathers were not there, but they knew those who were there.

People told people, who exagerrated, and told other people, until a few decades later it was distorted beyond recognition, incorporating many elements of the local mythology, at which point it finally got written down. Kinda like most myths in the world.

This is ignorantly wrong. Those who were witnesses WROTE it down, or dictated it as someone else wrote it down for them.

We have accounts of Krishna and Ehecatl--that doesn't make them real.

Many writings of events were written generations after the events, in the case of Christ it was written in his generation. Also in the cases of other writings that are written in their own generation, ok, great. But you’re still left to answer this question. Why would they die for a known lie?

You're mistaken. That's what I keep telling you. The gospels are not eye-witness accounts.You're mistaken.

I want that claim backed up. Tell me why they are not eye witness accounts?

Really? Who did Paul know who witnessed the resurrectino?

Peter, James, John and the other apostles. He also had his own apparition from Jesus. He also said there were 500 witnesses. He died for his witness. Why would he be lying?

Nope. They''re not even a tiny bit independent. In fact, scholars believe they're all based on each other and on a missing first version.

Yea and scholars also disagree amongst each other too. Also if some things were quoted from other parts, still the rest of what they wrote is independent. Also there is no evidence of a missing first version. Also if there was a first version, that one would be even earlier, dating even closer to the time of Christ’s death and resurrection.

And there isn't.

All the New Testament books are not ONE book, they are many books, they were independent books and letters circulated among the ancient world. Later they were compiled and put together into one book. Therefore, they are independent sources, the bible is not ONE source, it is independent source books and letters. Therefore it’s not using circular reasoning to use the bible as evidence of historicity. Yes you would have a point IF it was from the start ONE source, or one book or one big letter, but it was not so, therefore you have no point.

And not to mention the church fathers writings that did not get compiled into the bible, they are also more independent sources. And not to mention the enemies of Christianity offering more corroboration of it’s historicity.

So you give the same credence to the fathers of all the other churches? Think, Jolly--they were trying to spread a religion.

Yes, I give the same credence to the church fathers of all the other churches, yes. What does your question suppose to prove?

Also I am thinking, ok, they were trying to spread the religion of Christianity, and your point is? Of course they were trying to spread it, they believed in it, and why? Because of the witnesses and there martyrdoms, if that was not there, they would have just stuck with the modern day Judaism that was present.

Again, let me ask you the question that you keep dodging, why would they make up a lying religion and DIE FOR IT?

 

[Jollybear]

There are no witnesses. That's your problem. There are no eye-witness accounts, no even second hand accounts.

This is delusional, account for the points I made and account for where the records came from and account for the corroboration that show’s historicity. And back up that claim that there were no eye witness accounts and no second hand accounts?

There are no witnesses. How could non-existent people be persecuted?

Who wrote the accounts? Why did they die, and why did the church fathers die and many others for a made up lie?

I realize your pastors have fed you this crap, but it's still crap. It's just not correct. Sorry.

You can claim that if you want, back it up though.

No, I didn't. btw, what was the motive of Joseph Smith and his many followers who died in the early days of the LDS church for lying?

So you’re not saying they lied. Wow. Ok, if they did not lie, then they told the truth, ha ha! You just defeated your own case right there. Great job.

As for Joseph Smith he did not die for his faith or things he possibly made up, he died because others did not want him having no shot at being president. It’s not like he was there and the people told him “recant or else you die”. In the case of the apostles, they were jailed, and threatened, and still continued on. But regardless, we are not talking about Joseph Smith, we are talking about the case with the apostles and the church fathers. You still have to answer the question based on case by case. In this case, why did the apostles die for what they knew was a lie? Forget Joseph Smith for the moment, that is another case entirely and if we get into that, that will take up more posting space and time.

Obviously--they weren't there. YOu have to remember, this is before the internet, before books, before newspapers. If you weren't there, you missed it. You don't have a clue what happened. YOu just do what everyone does, and pass on what you've heard to the best of your ability.

They WERE THERE. Also SCROLLS were written (may not be a book, but it still does the job). And in the ancient world there was more stress on remembering things accurately if they passed it on through word of mouth.

Tell me how you know they were not there, using the records that we have.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. No, they did not die for a known lie. They probably died in their sleep, or because they believed things that were false. Unless you're now Mormon, Jewish, and every other religion with martyrs?

It’s very apparent you don’t understand the magnitude of the problem you’re in. First you say they did not die for a known lie, then you say they died for beliefs that were false. You don’t understand that they were in the position to KNOW if these things were true or false.

You keep saying they were not witnesses, that is such a WEAK, WEAK argument. I have read a quote from a famous atheist from a book who does not even believe that. He says that he just has to admit they witnessed what they THOUGHT was the resurrection, but they were hallucinating. This was his argument. But it’s interesting that even he thinks they witnessed something, but to justify his stance, he says they hallucinated.

Back up your claim that they were not witnesses.

And don’t turn the tables and ask me to back up my claim that they were witnesses because I did back it up, I gave you quotes and the record and explanations, deal with them, address them. And then back up your claim.

Wow, you're really repetitive.

I will stop being repetitive when you start giving back up for the claim there was no witnesses and not even people who knew them. I want that claim substantiated and then rebut my backups.

And slow to comprehend. I never said they were lying, although some lies probably entered into it as well.

Ok, if they were not lying, then they were telling the truth. Great job, you just helped my case. Also if there was lies put in it, that means they died for a known lie, why would they do that?