Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid

[Hardcore Newbie]

because in the same way you could verify the facts from madd you can verify the facts in there and for your information madd and various other groups are who started the gov. tracking of numbers on the topic and there numbers on there site are accurate as are these very bad example

You don't think that MADD has a different definition of "drunk" driver, "accident" and other words that people take for granted so they can skew things to make their message seem more legitimate?

and byt the way the sight links to all there information sources and the source are backed in many other places this is just a site that complied the evidence, every statement on those sites is sighted and as I said above

The whole site basically links to itself for it's proofs. The only outside recommended reading comes from yet more sites dedicated to "proving" that God exists. I did look for their sources, which I would have looked at. I found none.

... and then you can go to those independant sources listed there and see for yourself I should not need to do the work for you do this next time before writing a discrediting statement, that is called indepentdant research do you know what that is or how to do that?

You're assuming I didn't look for the sources, which is actually the first thing I looked for. Something I did find interesting though, was this quote, directly from Archaeological , bold italics and all.

It should be noted that Christianity is a religion based upon relationship, not knowledge. It is a religion of faith not logic. The information provided is to help answer questions, but ultimately you must believe in the Bible by faith. Because of who God is, we will always have questions. In order to have eternal life, we need to believe the words of Jesus that we are sinners and are in need of a Lord and Savior.

Science literally means knowledge. Without knowledge, there is no proof. Thanks for playing.

Hardcore Newbie Reviewed by Hardcore Newbie on 09-14-2007. Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't Rating: 5