Once again, you are incorrect. It seems you are attempting to confuse Ã¢â‚¬Å“BlindÃ¢â‚¬Â faith, and faith. They are two very different things.
Yes, but neither require evidential support.
Are you referring to the historical accounts and evidences of the eye witnesses of one Jesus of Nazareth, and the acts of His apostles? Once again, you would be incorrect. But, if you want to argue that, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll need to go to:
As I've said that thread just collects evidence of early Christians. I can't really challenge folk on such issues as it challenges their most cherished beliefs.
BTW I visited Israel in 2007 and visited quite a few of the West Bank towns, would be interested in chatting with anyone else who's been there.
The skull formation of a Ã¢â‚¬Å“fully formedÃ¢â‚¬Â skull was never in question Tommy, so you may not wish to side step the scant skeletal evidence for Lucy (especially the skull) with this type of misdirection. This is whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s known as the Argumentum Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy (which is a type of non sequitur), and your irrelevant subject (a red herring) being interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue has been exposed.
"Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not the cause, are clearly shown to be cases of ignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.." Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations
I am not the Pope and so must look up latin phrases. I think my points on the skull are valid, how is that a red herring?