Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Brakeman]

Let's get this straight..

If I claim that the Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox story is just a fable and not historical, how much is my position eroded by the finding of a Canadian genealogy that mentions a man named Paul C. Bunyan 1788 - 1849? How much does it change the debate if the Paul Bunyan believers conceded that the Ox wasn't really blue? If Paul was huge, but not really 40 feet tall, maybe only 12 or 15?

Well if you found a genealogy that Paul C Bunyan existed, and he was a lumberjack, I would suspect he told a lot of tall tales and was a good liar if he was in fact the source of the fables. However there is no comparing a genealogy to the bible, the genealogy is way more trustworthy However none of this is any sort of an argument against some guy living at one time or many people who later formed the composite of a self serving myth.

It wouldn't matter that there was a lumberjack who told stories, it would be much too far removed from the original story for him to be the character, despite being the muse or the author.

The real lumberjack Paul would have to be "The Character" in the story with substantially the same history. As it would be, a possible "real" Paul Bunyan would not have had any history of the life told in the story but rather a completely different one. Thus he is not the "character" in the story. The story remains non-historical, just like Jeebus!