Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Enkidu" <Enkidu@spam.me.not>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
References: <mIHxb.54581$t01.19729@twister.socal.rr.com> <Xns94415E80B11E8Mekkala@199.45.49.11> <bq7qnb$avh$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <ghlfsvcaauecq1bsgtp4tk3u833pprd3jc@Pern.rk> <Q2Rxb.55764$t01.47832@twister.socal.rr.com> <3iqfsv07nflh5aabnbngaq966ga3j7jdus@Pern.rk> <q7Sxb.56720$t01.27199@twister.socal.rr.com> <ce8gsv87hj3akk3liq5qh18k3o3a891kgu@4ax.com> <2nlgsvgd1rduii8sedvn173q8mkejpugbc@4ax.com> <yYYxb.57848$t01.43279@twister.socal.rr.com> <54rhsvop7bj0occ9u54j4mha76foret0bq@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: The Bible vs. the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh
Lines: 38
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <Gl7yb.53$yf.30@fed1read01>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:30:33 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.105.74.43
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: fed1read01 1070137830 68.105.74.43 (Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:30:30 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:30:30 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:896
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:54rhsvop7bj0occ9u54j4mha76foret0bq@4ax.com...
> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:41:02 GMT, a stranger
> called by some "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> came forth and
> told this tale in alt.atheism
>
> >Douglas Berry wrote:
> >> Lo, many moons past, on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:35:09 GMT, a stranger
> >> called by some Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> came forth and told
> >> this tale in alt.atheism
> >>
> >>> Jason is right. He has four eye witnesses and in a court of law
> >>> their testimony would be considered true. It only takes two.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but an eye witness must be present in court for
> >> cross-examination, or deposed by both prosecution and defense, before
> >> their testimony can be entered into the record.
> >>
> >> Obviously, all we have are their alleged writngs.
> >
> >Written testimony is admissible in court; especially if the writer is
dead.
>
> Only when it can be verified as the actual writings of that person, by
> handwriting analysis for example. Otherwise, it's hearsay.
Evern then, it can be excluded, as the accused cannot cross examine the
dead.
Enkidu
--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine, in "The Age of Reason"
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 |
|