One question for Christians

[Esquilax]

I agree, however when someone continually runs down what is being said without evidence shows ignorance, and ignorance breeds one's unwillingness to learn.

Well, you know, as the hallowed saying goes: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If you want us to start supplying evidence (though we already do, but hey) then you'll need to provide some to support your initial claims. The irony here runs deep.

I submit to you that you can not recognize sensible statements, so stop ridiculing until you can.

Sensible statements about magical men in the sky, and genocide that isn't genocide, stuff like that?

When you can show me that you can breed a dog to be something other than a dog I'll believe in evolution. No one has ever demonstrated that one species can become another, like atheist say only seeing is believing. no atheist can bring proof there's none.

Oh man, I swear; ever since coming here I end up posting the same few links every few weeks. It's like you guys never learn.

First of all, a little biology lesson; evolution would not permit a dog becoming something other than a dog. The nonexistence of this isn't an argument against evolution; if we did see a dog breeding something other than a dog, that would break evolutionary theory entirely. You're ass-backwards from the first objection.

Now, what does evolution actually propose? Well, a gradual change; dogs becoming slightly different dogs due to genetic diversity, generation by generation, until eventually... a new species. Incidentally, you probably could have done better than picking dogs, because dogs are selectively bred, evolved wolves. And different dog breeds? That's proof of evolution. That's legit all evolution proposes.

Meanwhile: Here's a list of creatures transitioning from one species to another. Here's some silver foxes that have been selectively bred into a new kind of fox. Here's an explanation of ring species, a live action example of the genetic drift that prompts evolution. And here is a list of the evolutionary process in observable, demonstrable action.

Now, see how I provided evidence there? The same evidence you accused us all of not providing in your post? And notice how you didn't extend the same courtesy with regards to your objections to evolution, even to the extent that you don't even know what evolution is?

Really puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

---

Maelstrom and you are both lost.
The bible did not come around for till about 300 years after Christianity had already been established. The reason it was brough around was because there were too many different version of Christianity. We were making the same mistakes 300 years after the first church had already made them.
But, what you two seem oblivious to is that the church was, before the written story was.

Okay... and you understand that I'm an atheist, yes? I don't, you know, believe that the magical claims in the bible are real? They're all just stories? And so critiquing them on a literary level, as I was, is entirely justified no matter how those stories are conceived?

So what did they do the 300 or so years before the bible was compiled?

I don't care; none of this is germane to my initial point.

EXACTLY!!! I can almost hear your hamster turning in the wheel.
That is why there was such a strong dependancy on the oral tradition for the first 300 years. You all point to the 300 year gap as some sort of comfirmation that the bible could not be reliable, or has been changed. when in fact the gap points the truth that because the people were illterate the church did not have any need to record events as we do now. That when the oral traditions were in place the written word was considered to be unreliable as anyone could write anything and no one could hold them to account, not to mention readings were also scrutinized as the oritor could be making things up.

Oh, so you do understand the reasoning behind why we think the bible is an unreliable source of information. You just don't care; you'd rather practice the monumental cognitive dissonance it would take to believe that regurgitated oral stories transcribed by possible liars in an age of majority illiteracy are somehow filled with truth.

Do you need me to explain further?

Yeah: you got anything relevant to say? Or are you going to keep proclaiming victory over arguments I haven't even made?