Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[Mister Agenda]

I think you got two lists I gave confused: The things I said were mandated by the Bible are those I listed above and gave chapter and verse for. That list, as it says, are evils caused directly by religion, but I think you got the lists confused. 

Your definition of a Christian may be clearly laid out to you, but from an outside perspective there are so many hundreds of denominations and sects as to make it really, really hazy. 

Why would anyone only care about just the New Testament? Jesus clearly states that "not one jot or tittle of the law can change until all has come to pass" and "I have not come to replace the law but to fulfill it" - IE If you throw out the Old Testament you lose Biblical authority. and you're just picking a la carte from the Bible, plus you loose the 10 commandments and the prophecy that makes Jesus the Messiah in the first place, so I find your exclusive focus on the New Testament odd. You can't have the new Testament without the old without going against what Jesus explicitly instructed in the New. "He does not observe the law shall be considered least in the kingdom of heaven."

ID is creationism in a cheep suit, it's the same pseudoscientific unfounded rubbish than runs contrary to ALL of science. The harm is that there are teachers who talk about Evolution as though it's some conspiracy, when it is scientific fact, stultifying the minds of thousands of children. They might as well be teaching children in Geography class that the world may in fact be flat.

Sorry if I was confused with your lists.

Differences among denominations are not necessarily weaknesses. Differences come from cultural, social, and doctrinal variations but you are going to have to adhere to the basic NT teachings to be called Christian. Anything added on top of that is man-made.

The reason I mention the NT most is because it is 1) evidence that God exists, 2) provides everything you need to live worthy of God and 3) is what the entire OT was looking forward to and preparing for. 

You seem convinced that evolution has answered everything. It has big gaping holes that you can drive a truck through but it is your only option since it is the best naturalistic explanation. Theism has the flexibility to go where the science leads us no matter what and I think that is the far better position to be in.

If you shared one of these holes and it was shown not to exist, would you then accept evolution? Or would you just move on to the next hole? And the next one, and the next one, until you're back to the first one, pretending you weren't there the day it was refuted?

Lay out what you think is the biggest flaw in the theory of evolution. And when we carefully explain it to you, please have the grace to accept as a result that you don't understand the theory well enough for us to have any intellectual obligation to go through the same process with you again on a different 'flaw'.

If, on the other hand, you school us by demonstrating that there is a flaw in the theory that is so significant that it can be reasonably described as 'a hole big enough to drive a truck through', I will start a thread solely for the purpose of promoting awareness of that flaw. Deal?