You sort have to establish that they are in this genre.
I can do that either by writing an great deal of scholarship (which has been done), or I can do what you do and make a statement like "older=deeper" and expect you to take that as "self-contained"
Not actually true. It is the folks who know nothing that are actually easiest to convince. The folks who know a little and have been fed lies their entire childhood are probably beyond hope.
This is only true if they aren't opposed or skeptical to the idea in the first place.
When a creature dies and gets buried, the next creature to die ends up on top. The lower down the longer ago that creature died. It is a pretty simple idea and doesn’t require “scholars agree” to be presented.
Or, as Mister Emu said, it is a result of the flood. Or possibly the constant shifting of the earth, erosion, or something else caused different levels. How do we know that didn't happen?
And if we accept what you say as true, how does that prove evolution, or even provide evidence for it? All the creatures were created 6000 years ago, but some died earlier than others. So what?
The bit that narks me is that, in what you have presented, I really do not think my position is unreasonable. Am I wrong here? Or is the phrase “scholarly consensus” in lieu of sufficient evidence make it unreasonable?
You are wrong. Like you, I have made some statements on gospel genres compared to other genres, on oral tradition, on Paul being a contemporary, on how myth and story-telling both do not resemble the gospels, on the fact that we have numerous independent lines of evidence for Jesus, etc. You accept none of these as true with out proving each of them in detail.
Using the same method, you can bring out proof after proof of evolution, like "older=deeper" (which, if I accept it is a true, only proves that some creatures died early, and doesn't prove evolution at all), and I can continually ask you to provide evidence that your statements are correct, until you too have written a book length dissertation building all the evidence from the ground up.
Go for it. I don’t batter “scientists agree” around the place while explaining evidence.
I am. So far, the only evidence you have possibly provided (which I can provide alternative explanations for, like erosion, Noah's flood, the shifting of the earth from volcanoes or earthquakes, etc) is that some creatures died early. So what?
And the gospels not being myth, according to the criteria you use, shows them to be historical and accurate and not to have originated from a single storyteller? I’m not saying it isn’t plausible, but it doesn’t seem to be the likely explanation to me given the events they record. Is it unreasonable to see it like this? Particularly given that you have admitted that the evidence demonstrating the gospels were a specific genre has not being presented.
Again, stories never resemble the gospels, nor do stories which are near the time of the cult form the basis for a cult. For example, if Jesus wasn't historical, why does Paul refer to his teachings, or why did he convert at all, when he could have just asked around to see if people remembered Jesus?
Let's examine your "story-teller" hypothesis and see if it best fits the evidence (after all, the study of history is all about which explanation fits the evidence the best).
According to this hypothesis, a story-teller comes up with a story about a godman Jesus who lives, and more importantly conducts his ministry, in the first half of the first century. We know this because in the story Jesus interacts with historical figures attested to in other sources (like John the Baptist, the high priest Caiaphas, Pilate, etc). The story-teller has Jesus come from Nazareth live and work (by work I mean his ministry) in Galilee and Jerusalem. He also dies in Jerusalem.
As the story-teller couldn't have composed the story prior to the historical figures in the story (in other words, he put historical figures like Pilate and John the Baptist in the story, so he must have composed it after John died and at the earliest while Pilate was procurator). So at the earliest the story was composed around the 30s CE. Twenty or so years later, we have Paul. Paul tells us that he had converted many years prior to his writings, and at the latest he was converted only a few years (certainly less than ten) after the story was composed. Yet he also says prior to his conversion, he persecuted the church, which means there had to have already been a fair number of followers, enough so that a zealous Jew like Paul would be worried about their corruption of Judaism. Which means that almost as soon as this story was composed, it is believed in by people to be true. More importantly, it is believed by people to be true who are living in the place where parts of it take place (e.g. Jerusalem). We also know that these followers were persecuted almost from the beginning, not just by pagans but by Jews (like Paul). Now, why would a fairly large group of people, who were living in the location in which the story is set, shortly after it takes place (as in a few years), believe it to be true and even die for it? They were around when it took place, and they were where it took place. So they would have known if Jesus was actually never around and that this was only a story (its not like the population of these places is that large, especially Nazareth), yet they believed anyway.
Thats your hypothesis.
Mine involves a man who taught, had followers, and performed "wonders" which people thought were miracles, and created enough of a commotion and impact that his followers carried on his teachings and stories about him, and even believed he rose from the dead. They transformed their former teacher/prophet/wonder-worker into a messiah and son of god.
Do explain. The fact that I didn’t and don’t have to refer to other evidence outside those fossils in order to use them for demonstrating evolution occurred would seem to make this self-contained.
Because they saying that fossils exist, even if we accept that some are older than others, doesn't provide evidence against they hypothesis that all creatures weren't created 6000 years ago and some have died before others.
Asking for proof in every detail is in no way comparable to pointing out the ubiquity of the phrase “scholars agree” being used instead of evidencing the claim at hand.
Yes it is. Because in the end, if I need further proof for every statement you make, you either have to write a book, give up, or reference scholarship.
Doesn’t the fact that Josephus’s writings date to 90-100AD not mean he could be repeating material that was in circulation?
Not really, because he was alive while James was. If he knew him as the brother of Jesus, than Jesus wasn't a story.
You can't just look at the date of composition. Josephus was born around the time that Jesus died. In other words, he lived while eyewitnesses to Jesus were alive. Clearly, not every one accepted Jesus as Christ, yet Josephus accepts him as historical. Why? Because no one was going around saying that the stories being told weren't based on a person. If Jesus existed only in story, than why would Josephus the historian not have known people who contradicted that Jesus ever lived, when such people were still around during his life?
We have no evidence of anyone contradicting Jesus' historicity in ancient times, even its opponents (Tacitus, Celsus, etc.) Josephus is the earliest, and he was alive while Jesus' family was still alive, yet he speaks of Jesus as historical.
I said started with a single story teller. Could it not have passed on in oral tradition from here?
If it started as a story, then it would resemble a story (a over all narrative with the details being altered, rather than an artificial overall narrative, with the details more preserved)
And nobody dies for other religions too I’ll bet.
Later on they do. But the earliest christians could have checked out the details. They were around prior to Paul, and the story locates Jesus in a time in which Paul was still alive. You are suggesting that the earliest christians accepted this story as genuine although they were contemporary to it, and then were persecuted and killed for it.
