Joined: Jan. 2009
|Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 14 2012,11:47)|
|Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 14 2012,09:30)|
You mean stuff like this:
|“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”|
Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
followed by this:
|I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.|
A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry? This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?
So... if I say a thousand people saw Arrington raping a duck, that's exactly the same as a thousand people saying they saw him raping a duck. Good to know.
|That record, which was written during the living memory of those who saw the events in question, is the only record we have, and there is no good reason to disregard it.|
Apparently it helps if you make your claim during the lifetime of the alleged witnesses of the alleged duck-raping episode.
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. Okay? So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L