[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric We know that they had no clue about evolution. We're talking about a people who thought the entire animal kingdom lived within walking distance of Noah's ark. We're talking about people who were too busy murdering non-believers to study organisms enough to know that life evolves into other life.

The authors of the Bible were busy murdering people? I'm interested to see what historical evidence you base that upon. Or are you just drawing on accounts in the Bible to arrive at that belief? Because that would sure be ironic, wouldn't it?

No. I don't know specifically what they were thinking, but if you think that evolution is an option then you're too far gone to be arguing here. Maybe you think they knew who would win the 18th world series, too?

They probably weren't thinking of the origins of life in terms of evolution, like I said, they took their best guess and got it wrong. It doesn't cause a conflict between Christianity and evolution, because Christianity doesn't require a disbelief in evolution or ascription to the book of Genesis.

That's about as far as I made it into your asinine red herring. The issue isn't who wrote the bible or how many people had a hand in it. The issue is modern people deciding "Well, science has proven that this part of the bible is impossible (genesis), but even though science proves this other bit impossible (the resurrection) I'm going to believe in it anyway." That's a double standard which is a fallacy.

No,it isn't. They are two separate cases. Disproof of one event in a broad collection of works spanning thousands of years does not lend any credence to disproof of some other event.

Assuming for the moment that both things you think are "proven" are actually proven, it is nonsensical to lump them together. Science has dis-proven the theory of ages ago that the Earth was flat. Science has also dis-proven the much more recent theory that there was intelligent life on Mars. If someone believes there is life on Mars but acknowledges that the Earth is round(ish), what does one have to do with the other?

Then, clearly you're okay with a figurative Jesus who didn't literally exist, right?

What does this have to do with it? Again, it is acceptable to not ascribe to one belief in a field and not another. I can deny the Ptolemic astronomical model and accept black hole theory as literal knowledge.

Already have. I guess I can clarify it. Just for you. The following is invalid/false logic: Category X contains things which are impossible (including coming back from the dead and the earth forming in a day). X1 is possible.

Great. Category X is every discovery of biological science. Since Piltdown Man is untrue, every other discovery of biological science must then be untrue, right? Or is "X1", say, the structure of DNA, possible?

This is how silly your supposed "Category" logic is... What you're saying is that if we lump things together into "categories", if two of the items in a category are impossible, they all are?

Category X may contain things which are impossible. However, in order to prove that Category X contains ONLY things which are impossible, each and every thing in Category X must be proven individually. Get it?

I love how you theists always try (and fail) to redefine what's "possible".

I love how you atheists always try (and fail) to disprove every theistic belief ever by disproving one tiny element of one system of belief.

Now, would you care to argue honestly or are you going to continue your Fonceai impression?

LOL... Never mind that you're so dishonest you fail to acknowledge that your logic here is exactly the same as a creationist who applies the Piltdown Man fraud to say that all evolution is false. But keep skipping over that, really. Ignoring valid points you have no coherent response to is "pure win", right?