The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Clearly you don't understand the Christian faith. The sacrifice of Christ was not made so that we could go on sinning, it was made so that we could be reconnected to God and to be empowered to overcome sin.

Yeah, it just doesn't matter if you sin, so long as you believe, since sin is inescapable anyway. Use all the positive spin you like, your religion still teaches that there's no accountability so long as you commit to the group's rightthink.

You make it sound like the Christian faith ignores the rest of the world. Atheists, as a subset of our community are a million miles behind what the Church does, and has done for the poor for centuries. When you catch up, feel free to criticize. BTW, can you give me a list of atheist charities?

The majority of the church's "charity" is in fact just tithes, and the rest generally come with strings attached. Atheist charities do exist- incidentally, did you even bother to search that before deciding none existed, or did you just go with what you want to be true again?- and the upside of them is that, no matter how small, none of them will commit any of the abuses that christian charities do. You won't find an atheist charity, for example, turning away vulnerable homeless women with children because they don't want to risk any unapproved sex going on under their roof, which is a thing that literally happened recently. Not to mention all the lives lost due to christian missionaries and their "charity" in foreign countries; I read a story recently where these great bastions of christian goodwill carried beating sticks on their time abroad, so as to physically assault the natives if they didn't want to go to church, or were anything but deferential during. Shit like that, you will not find among the atheist charities, if you really want to get into a pissing contest.

Atheist charities might not be as large as the church, but they're a million times more effective at their charity.

Can you give me a reference for the proof of these other dimensions?

So you won't give a single reference for you claims of intelligent design, but you'll happily demand them from others?

 Failed intermediates may not be the best terminology. I was wondering why we don't see a stack of weird half breeds or transitional species in the fossil record. Given that there are so many thousands of different species that presumably evolved from one life form, why don't we see an abundance of evidence for species transition?

Again, your problem is with fossil formation, not evolution. Fossils rarely form, that's in the nature of fossils. Not really our problem: the problem is that you're not familiar with fossils before you decided what their deal is.

"The term “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance and rapid diversification of most major living animal body plans (phyla) in the fossil record within an interval of perhaps 20 million years or less, a relatively short period in evolutionary history." http://biologos.org/common-questions/sci...-explosion

We are expected to believe that thousands of different species evolved in a massive explosion of life in the relatively short time frame, 20 million years. Now if man kind has been around for 200,000 years, which is 1% of the time to go from pond slime to a huge number of advanced life forms, why no new species, and why hasn't man changed much?

I pointed this out to you the last time you asked, are you just ignoring rebuttals in favor of repeating yourself, now? Evolutionary stasis is a thing, it happens when an organism is well suited enough to its environment that there are no selection pressures selecting for new traits at a sufficiently high level. It happens with sharks, it happens with crocodiles, and it happens with man at a way crazier rate because man, unique among the animals, is a complex enough apex species to completely change their own environment to best suit them. Humans aren't cranking out new species because all of human technology is based around removing hostile selection pressures from our environment.

... In addition to, you know, 200,000 years being the blink of an eye on an evolutionary timescale. Also, I object to you characterizing life before the Cambrian Explosion as "pond slime," because... no, that's not anywhere near true. There were Trilobites during the Precambrian phase, in addition to the common ancestor of molluscs and arthropods, and a number of other hard-bodied creatures. "Pond slime" it was not, and in fact, I'm not even certain you understand what the Cambrian Explosion actually did, since what diversified was physiological distinctions, not clear cut new animal life. Seriously, do your research for a change, instead of stopping at the question you think can stump us.