Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

What an odd thing for them to come up with!Since all of Christianity is based only on history written down in a form separated from input by any eyewitnesses. It means that they are invalidating their own beliefs. That seems odd to me.In addition, we know that, of all forms of evidence, eyewitnesses are about the very least reliable (with secondary sources taking eyewitness accounts being the worst).

Who were the writers? When did they live? When did they do the writing? How do you know any of the answers to these questions?

Like much else you may not be aware of the actual facts.Eye witness capabilities and accuracy has been tested many times. The point of the note was that we know that it is unreliable.Why do you wish to attach an emotional term like "despise" to that? It is simply the nature of our cognitive abilities.

No of course not always wrong. But when in opposition to other evidence it is not a good idea to let the eye witnesses trump that other evidence. How can you call the "pronouncements" dogmatic if you don't have any idea about the nature of the tests? You attitude is the one that is dogmatic. You are coming to a conclustion, again, without knowing the facts of the matter.Pehaps I am wrong? You have done some study on the various tests that have been done. I've even been a guinea pig in such things and it can be a bit unsettling to realize just how easily you can be wrong.

For many Biblical claims it isn't clear there is even eye witness testimony. I'm thinking particularly of Genesis.In any case there is not ONLY witness testimony. There is other evidence that contradicts what some people interpret the Bible as trying to say. When we have eye witness testimony that contradicts other more firm evidence we have reason to doubt the witnesses a priori from our knowledge of human failability. It was attempted in discussing geology. It seems that you proved to be remarkably resistant to learning much and that was coupled with explanations that I think were less than steller.In the meantime you have already said you will not give up your existing ideas so I don't see that others should waste time going over it. Or have you now decided you might be willing to learn something. There are? Perhaps you would like to give more details. I think that a few 10's of individuals might be all that one could stretch to.The conclusions that are most reasonable to draw from the tests that you don't want to learn about is that even many witnesses can be wrong. In fact there are psychological effects that can force a few correct witnesses to believe something different if they are outnumbered by others.

Good! Maybe that will give you time to answer Jazzens questions to you in the sedimentation thread? Message 98

LOL, translated: When it doesn't have me totally stumped. You have become more amusing than anything else. Keep it up!