Proving the Bible is Questionable in Court

An interesting thing that I've just stumbled upon: We can test in the courts whether religious texts are reasonably questionable.

Look at s144(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), below. If we were to argue something in court, using statements of fact from the bible to back up claims, then the judge would either have to accept it, showing a religious slant to the court, or ask for proper verification, verifying what should be the court's secular stance.

So, either make some claim relating to how the entire world was once under water, or about how it is possible to survive in the belly of a fish for three days and three nights, and watch the court's reaction.

What stories can you come up with that would weave religious texts' "facts" into them to get a response from the courts?

Evidence Act 2008 - SECT 144

Matters of common knowledge

144. Matters of common knowledge



(1) Proof is not required about knowledge that is not reasonably open to
question and is-

   (a)  common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held
        or generally; or

   (b)  capable of verification by reference to a document the authority of
        which cannot reasonably be questioned.

(2) The judge may acquire knowledge of that kind in any way the judge thinks
fit.

(3) The court (including, if there is a jury, the jury) is to take knowledge
of that kind into account.

(4) The judge is to give a party such opportunity to make submissions, and to
refer to relevant information, relating to the acquiring or taking into
account of knowledge of that kind as is necessary to ensure that the party is
not unfairly prejudiced.