Your original demand ("Show me a single-celled organism evolving into my next-door neighbor!") made it clear that you felt that the Theory of Evolution claimed that you should be able to SEE, on a time-scale of, e.g., a few days, weeks, or months, the process of macro-evolution (spanning entire Kingdoms and Phyla). But NO reputable proponent of the Theory of Evolution expects to see such drastic changes within even a single human lifetime.
You are the one who started the whole thing by asking for satellite imagery of the resurrection. That’s absurd. You know when satellite imagery was invented.
I didn't start talking "off topic," i.e., about the Theory of Evolution, you did. My mention of satellite imagery was only to illustrate what kind of evidence is currently viewed as acceptable, e.g., in a Court of Law.
My mentioning satellite imagery does not make it legitimate to introduce the "Straw Man" of the Theory of Evolution and then to attack it.
As for the contradictions in the New Testament gospels, they are eyewitness accounts.
Oh, really? You mean that Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Matthew 28:1,9 and Mark 16:9 and John 20:11,14) and Cleopas (Luke 24:13-31) and Cephas (1 Corinthians 15:4-5) wrote those account themselves, or that at least their accounts were recorded in writing verbatim? In actual fact, all modern Biblical scholars pretty much agree that even the earliest Gospel was written many DECADES after the Crucifixion.
My point is that, absent any hard evidence which would stand up in a Court of Law, the prudent course of action is to DISCOUNT (i.e., place no faith in) the NT story of the Resurrection.
I don’t think you can get 4 people who saw the same events over a 3 year time span to 100% agree. Which to me makes the idea of the Gospels even more trustworthy as they aren’t robotically identical.
Are you saying that the inconsistent testimony of several biased (after all, they were friends and disciples of Jesus, and probably in a state of profound anguish, emotional shock, if not clinical depression), uneducated and illiterate (women in that day and milieu were overwhelmingly unable to read or write) witnesses about whom we know next to nothing is sufficient for you to accept the breach of fundamental Laws of Nature? Then why don't you accept Mormonism? After all, eleven mature, educated, literate, respected members of the community submitted signed affidavits attesting to the fact that they had seen and handled the "golden plates" for themselves. These were people who owned land, had permanent addresses, jobs - gosh, even surnames. So why don't you believe them?
I think the bigger question is — why are you so angry if Hell is imaginary?
Because I find it offensive when theists insult my intelligence by saying that theirs is a rational belief, and that I am either "hard-hearted," "willfully obstinate," or even "evil" for not embracing it, and that I will be punished in Hell for preferring, in the absence of convincing evidence, to withold judgment. (Which is all that I'm doing. I'm not saying that those things didn't actually happen - I'm merely saying that there is no rational, logical reason for believing that they did.)
Because if we believe in fairy tales (Hell being imaginary, and evidently Jesus is just a psycho) — you should just chill out. Because we’re not asking you to hurt yourself or others to put your trust in Christ.
Oh, yes, you are asking me to hurt myself. You (collectively) are asking me to abrogate my most precious possession - my faculty of reason - to embrace a belief system based upon, inter alia, the suspension of Natural Laws and commonsense.
But I think believing that there is no moral basis for anything we do, other than some vague “it’s good for society” is quite harmful — and has proven harmful wherever Objective Morality is removed from society — which is where Darwinism can lead.
To say that all those who reject theism have nothing but some vague "it's good for society" to fall back upon is a gross misstatement, and indicates that you haven't done much research on the issue. I suggest that you read up on the subject. Christopher Hitchens is a good place to start.
I hope you find peace some day.
I hope that you return to reason some day.
Regards,
LOL. You ask for something nonsensical like satellite imagery, then you get huffy at others. You have no leg to stand on, and indeed you have no basis for any morality — nor do you or Hitchens have any moral authority.
Christopher Hitchens (like you I’ll take a venture) really wants to convince himself that his life of sin is okay. Deep down I think we all know that it’s wrong.
BTW — unlike the Mormons, none of the Apostles recanted their faith in Christ and all but John died horrific deaths. But you know that.