If I'd known all we had to do was talk shit about that charlatan
just goes to show that whatever you have, whatever you believe is false and is nothing. whenever i have proven mypoint, provided quotes to support myposition you have been unable to respond credibly, scientifically, or even archaeologically.
you find some other method to avoid dealing with the issue that you are wrong, like running to michelle to complain when your own posts violates the rules far more than i would even dare.
you can't even abide by the rules in your responses which indicates to me that you are dishonest, closed-minded, biased, not here for a real discussion, not accepting of alternative theories or points of view. you only want to hear what you want to hear and that in and of itself is not scientific nor archaeological. neither is it truthful.
all of which discounts what you say, undermines your point and shows the folly in what you believe. if you noticed, i rarely quoted scripture but for the majority of time, i used your own people to bring my point across. one of the few times i used a christian which was del ratzsch, he was a scientist and professor of philosophy of science and if you take the time to read his book, you would see that he had no agenda, no ax to grind but was very objective in his thesis.
i happened to learn a lot about both sided by reading it. yet he is fully qualified to speak but you reject him because of his religion which again states that you are not interested in the truth, just your own point of view. it also points out your own hypocrisy thus you are not qualified to speak.
do not use the term 'scientific' as i have pointed out how arbitrary that term is and the definition changes with who uses it and what agenda they have. it cannot be exclusive for then it would not be able to define what is true and what is false. the termis just a figmentof the imagination in the heads of those who refuse to consider anything beyond the natural world.
they are the losers in the long run.
