Adamah Says:
Where'd you get the incorrect idea that science requires replication?
So just change the definition when it suits you? Information is not simply a tool to attack opponents so long as the end justifies the means. That's unacceptable, to me at least..
UNDERSTANDING HOW SCIENCE REALLLY WORKS - UC Berkley
Scientists aim for their studies' findings to be replicable — so that, for example, an experiment testing ideas about the attraction between electrons and protons should yield the same results when repeated in different labs. This goal of replicability makes sense. After all, science aims to reconstruct the unchanging rules by which the universe operates, and those same rules apply, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from Sweden to Saturn, regardless of who is studying them. If a finding can't be replicated, it suggests that our current understanding of the study system or our methods of testing are insufficient. ... The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section.
Adamah,
Opponents to your views are going to ignore your posts that are formulated in this manner. Most people don't want to win an argument as much as just sift through some facts and make their own conclusions. Without challenges, You just end up with others with the same mob mentality that agree with you. This is intellectual isolationism.
You said:
MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence exists to disprove the Bible
Really? I've heard similar statements numerous times over the last 13 years on this discussion board. But, I've never heard one convincing argument. I'm willing to give you the opportunity. Instead of a MOUNTAIN, can you just provide one example?