Quote:
[sarcasm]Yeah,uuh so it's on the internet so it must be true[/sarcasm]
There is a lot of misinformation on the web. But there's also a lot of good information.
Quote:
Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. Besides, there's not even a consensus on the information about the canon selection for the bible. Thus, which scholar's theory do you believe ánd what historic information about these selections are actually true? It's a bit more complex than you suggest here and there's no single option either ...
That's about as worrisome for me as I'm sure the disagreement over gradualism and punctuated equilibrium is for you.
Quote:
The church through time did not give out information about everything they've ever changed to the canon, infact they didn't even write down whatever they've changed in the early times, that's a relatively modern thing. It's the very same thing why there's no way you can claim that the bible's content has remained 100% the same through time,
Actually, its well referenced that certain passages were added to the bible, for instance Romans 8:1 used to be much shorter than it is in some translations (my bible reads the extended ending, but notes that the second half of the verse wasn't there to begin with).
Of course, a change like that isn't very threatening at all. So until proof of some threatening change comes along, I won't worry myself too much. 
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
| 
