Prophecies in Religious Books do not prove Religions True

1. Again, We really should stay on topic. I have seen no research into it, And it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand particularly when you have given no prophecies for me to invalidate, And none that prove your religion valid. 2. It is easy to argue against. Feel free to send me a challenge after this. Also, Irrelevant to the current discussion. 3. Archaeologists and historians have field days over much less than an ancient census. It'd be critically important to many fields, What on earth do you mean? You've linked me an apologetics website and an article written by a clear christian apologist who got his degree from a "christian university. " How impressed should I be? I can give you articles by conspiracy theorists for hundreds of different things written by Ph. D holders. When we present evidence for an argument we tend to link sources that are as neutral and as absent conflicts of interest as possible. If I link you a study from a Ph. D holder who is employed by the sugar industry that says "sugar has no relation to fat gain. " How seriously can you take this article? To fail to understand what makes evidence strong versus what makes for poor evidence is a critical failing of anyone who is trying to stand on any position. On top of this, Your own source denies that sufficient proof has surfaced: "It is true that thus far no historical record has surfaced to verify either the governorship or the census of Quirinius as represented by Luke at the time of Jesus" birth prior to the death of Herod in 4 B. C. " (Dave Miller on opponent's source) Did you even read the article you linked? 4. We aren't debating other things that may or may not validate religions. Prophecies do not help them. Prophecies are the resolution of this debate. 5. That's fine. Again, That is not the topic of this discussion. I'm not seeking to disprove God's existence with this resolution. I'm seeking to prove that prophecies that people use to try and validate their religions are meaningless. Debates have topics. If you want to debate another topic you can do so in another debate. Am I allowed to make a specific debate on prophecy alone or no? 6. Great, Then we don't disagree. If you aren't using prophecies as evidence for your religion then we agree on the subject and you've forfeited. There are plenty of Christians who do use prophecies as a form of validating their religion to themselves. Perhaps you could have let one of them take up the stand? I conclude this debate by stating what should appear clear based on my opponent's R2. He does not believe prophecies prove religions true. He has offered a summary of a prophecy, Not an actual prophecy. The wording of prophecy is important. His interpretation is not important. Prophecy that is so open to interpretation as to have thousands of different ways of seeming 'fulfilled' is meaningless when it comes to the validation of a religion. From the looks of things, My opponent does not even disagree anymore if he did in his R1. He has fallen back on "but that's not all of the proof of my religion. " I hope it is clear to the debate community that this is not a defense against the resolution. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht