Why There Is Not And Never Will Be Consensus

[MrMacSon]

@MrMacson,

You are about as sincere and knowledgeable about the scientific method as bear scat.

My salient points about the scientific method were separate to my barbs. I repeat -

• 
  
  Falsification is not part of the scientific method; it was a philosophy espoused by Karl Popper.
  
  The scientific method is underpinned by testability, and reliability of repeated testing - ie. repeatability.
  
  

... I can't help but notice you still didn't address the dilemma.

You hardly outline a dilemma.

This?

Let's see if any mythicist will answer the question: If 1st century bones are proven by DNA to be from Jesus would the mythicist admit that Jesus was indeed real and not a myth?

My answer was

• 
  
  [that] allows for Jesus to have not bodily ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of god?
  
  

Moreover, wrt my point about testability,

• where would one get DNA from the alleged-Jesus's alleged-relatives to verify that question????

.

[John T]

@MrMacSon,

If you really want to debate how to verify the scientific method please start a new thread on: "Nowhere in particular".
I will join you there.

But as far as this thread, let's get back to how Peter would score Craig and Carrier using his matrix.
Don't you think that would be interesting?

Sincerely,

John T

[Clive]

I would give more weight to tradition, but not for an obvious reason. It probably needs a lot of sifting, but I would argue there probably is some useful archaeology there that would help with some attempting to get to grips with the literature.

And like Bible Unearthed, firm up minimalist, OK, no kernel, positions!