That's not ~~quite~~ how it happened. The whole of the "resurrection/history" discussion arose only because *you* couldn't leave alone a comment about supernatural supervision of biology. This was that comment:
I didn't take that as a comment of the supernatural supervision of biology, as I make no insistence on supernatural questions entering into biology as a discipline. It doesn't have the tools to address such questions, but to take a lack of ability to address the question as a denial of such is just as inappropriate as shoehorning it in through ID. It simply is silent on such matters.
Perhaps "credible" should have been inserted before "evidence", but it is essentially correct. What "supernatural" evidence is only in the eye of its beholders and not verified by any empirical data. There was no mention of Jesus.
What is and isn't "credible" requires far more subjective analysis than has been done in this thread, and restricting the definition to a type of evidence that is silent on the matter is a rather spurious restriction making it speak where it properly can't.
Your response to the quoted text above was:
Your "example" of supernatural explanations is to mention the ressurection of Jesus and claim it was supported by a "decent circumstantial case". While you can make a decent case for the *existence* of Jesus, you certainly can't for the resurrection.
I maintain that the circumstantial case for it is considerable, and no one has provided the sleightest rebuttal to my contention other than to complain that it in part depends on Biblical data. There seems to be a lack of comprehension on what precisely I am arguing, but that's neither here nor there.
The response that you got back that then left you guffawing about "he's a mythicist" was this one:
I wasn't "guffawing". Mythicism is regarded as an extremely fringe position among those who study the matter, because it relies on misconceptions about how historical research is conducted and the kinds of evidence that are reasonably expected in historical research.
I haven't "researched" it, per se, in the way NxNW seems to imply, and with one minor exception (that I find the existence evidence a little more plausible than non-existence) it applies to me as well as I am unconvinced that Jesus was an actual person. I would not consider myself a "mythicist" since I have not taken the position that "Jesus was a myth".
All that means is you have an uninformed opinion due to apathy. That doesn't make mythicism more real, and the suspicion regarding Jesus' existence is likely motivated more by non-historical considerations that poison the well, so to speak.
You are free to believe both that Jesus existed and resurrected, as you clearly do as is the case for most participants on this board, but it has nothing to do with the nature of evolution, Darwin's theory, or even the whole (pointless) natural/unnatural discussion.
Fair enough, and I agree there isn't much point to making natural/unnatural distinctions since the categories have no bearing on such things other than to bias the questions. Whether the resurrection occurred or not can be treated academically to an extent, even if not scientifically, and pretending that all evidence must conform to scientific standards eliminates far more than simply "supernatural" questions. In so far as it is susceptible to academic consideration, the applicable evidence is the kinds history deals with not the kinds that science deals with. Certainly the discussion has gotten far afield from the topic of the thread, but that was not simply my doing.