I surely don't take it seriously, it's too damn funny...

And yes, your arguments are a joke.

ya know How your true colors are coming out your just another Jesus freak creationist trying to manipulate what science has found and placing it in your nonexisting timeline to make it look like the events in your precious book happened.Your religion is like all the other Deity/deities driven religions they are simple mythology.
As for your opinion on the tchadnesis atleast they did exist and scientist can come up with a hypothesis,thats more than i can say about your mythical magic man(god) and his baby(jesus).
Btw did your God ever pay Mary child support?


I wish there was something scientific in what you said so that we could discuss it. I wonder if these boards are even moderated, I didn't think insults to someones religion count as fruitful discussion.

I wish there was something scientific in what you said so that we could discuss it. I wonder if these boards are even moderated, I didn't think insults to someones religion count as fruitful discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Howzit all you're doing is taken what science has discovered and placing it in your bible when your not even putting dates on it.Your just takin events and typing "See 'this is","could be" what happened in the bible" when theres no accurate dates to make the claims they both coincide.So how can anyone talk science if your just gonna keep on comparing actual events with biblical events.
I'd also like to add i have read some of the creationist sites and just about everyone of them give different dates on when the biblical characters existed.

Scientists do the research and they find the data. The data is then interpreted to come to a conclusion. howzityoume disagrees with their conclusions, not their data. I am the same way. How is that not acceptable to you? Isn't that what scientists do with new hypothesis? The only difference is that howzityoume and I don't immediately exclude the possibility that God exists from the discussion. In the end, we are more scientists than any so-called scientist who excludes conclusions because it's now fashionable to declare those who reject the existence of God to be more intelligent and those who accept it.

ya know spider it's just creationist try to give their God and their book more credit than it deserves.Human scientist have made major break throughs and discovered facts.The only reason i believe people believe theres a divine deity is cause of one question science hasn't proven as fact "how did it all begin".I just refuse to accept that a divine deity created everything in 6 days.Also along with how similar the prehebrew religion stories are almost spitten image of the now hewbrew religion.In other words monotheism came from polytheist stories.
I'll tell ya something if people want to believe in a God it's fine but it will always be debated until that one question becomes fact."How did it all begin'.Plus thinking you're going to a fire lake if you're disobedient to a God may make others believe in God.

Not only is that not true, but it's obviously false.



Maybe I should care to make you a Christian, but I don't. I'm just defending the faith from spurious attacks. If you choose to believe or choose to not believe, that's between you and God. I just want it clear that there are very good reasons to be a Christian and I do that by setting the facts straight.



I don't believe that.

Howzit all you're doing is taken what science has discovered and placing it in your bible when your not even putting dates on it.Your just takin events and typing "See 'this is","could be" what happened in the bible" when theres no accurate dates to make the claims they both coincide.So how can anyone talk science if your just gonna keep on comparing actual events with biblical events.
I'd also like to add i have read some of the creationist sites and just about everyone of them give different dates on when the biblical characters existed.


Naah, its not ALL I'm doing. I've studied the geologic layers and discovered they fit the bible very well. If the only problem you can see with my placing the flood at the P-T boundary is the date problem, then I would say we are starting to see a lot of biblical consensus between the geologic sequence and the bible. Both have a bountiful period (carboniferous) followed by a worldwide extinction, followed by a dry silted up world of difficult conditions. Unlike other creationists I respect science and enjoy delving into the truths exposed by science. I just do not feel that evolution is the most logical projection of the data available.

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

Here are some similar messiah stories that predate Jesus if you think the stories are false about them just check out each one then you'll see that the small paragraphs matches the whole story.Of course you'll claim it false even though they were stories about Jesus like figures just like Jesus was a story.

Well said! Let the data speak for itself, without interpeting it through preconceptions. This is the more scientific approach. God is one possibility, and the biogenesis argument as well as the observation of complex DNA without the evidence to get there points to "sudden inexplicable appearance" of firstly life, and secondly advanced genetic life. The fact that the evidence currently favours sudden appearance rather than spontaneous or gradual appearance of advanced life would make the theory of creation a empirically competitive theory to evolution. (I personally believe its empirically stronger)

Naah, its not ALL I'm doing. I've studied the geologic layers and discovered they fit the bible very well. If the only problem you can see with my placing the flood at the P-T boundary is the date problem, then I would say we are starting to see a lot of biblical consensus between the geologic sequence and the bible. Both have a bountiful period (carboniferous) followed by a worldwide extinction, followed by a dry silted up world of difficult conditions. Unlike other creationists I respect science and enjoy delving into the truths exposed by science. I just do not feel that evolution is the most logical projection of the data available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Howzit it's fine people of different faiths are in science..I'm bored thats why i'm on here,just killing time.

LOL, well I enjoy a challenging debate, hope it all stirred your interest.

Logically, if the flood story is true, most nations on earth would have some remembrance of it, and there would be myths and stories about it. Most nations do claim to be descended from a certain son of the man on the boat that survived the great flood. Yes the bible came afterwards, so you do make a logical point, nevertheless the worldwide flood myths strengthen the possibility of the truth of the flood story, not weaken it.

I'll just refute the #1 "christ like figure".



One line at a time...



Isis was not considered to be a virgin. She was married for a time before her husband was murdered and dismembered. She got pregnant by putting all of his body back together, save for his penis, which had been eaten. She carved a giant wooden penis, attached it to her dead husband and had sex with it.



There is no such story about Horus.



There is no mention of a manger in Horus' birth story. He was born in a swamp. Jesus' birthday is only celebrated on December 25th, Jesus was born in the early fall, as Shepherds were still in the field.



In both cases, the parents were told to flee with their child. That is how you escape from someone who wants to kill you. If a battered woman were to move to another state to avoid her violent ex, would that mean she's a myth?



There is no discussion of Horus from birth until adulthood. There was no description of him being 12. There is no mention of the age of 30 either, all that is known is that Horus is an adult and that his member has doubled in size and his strength has doubled.



Horus was never baptized, he had no baptizer.



While Horus is storied to have created miracles, he was never recorded to have walked on water, cast out demons or raised the dead.



There is no mention of Horus having been crucified. Horus merged with the sun god in some stories and was dismembered in others. Horus did not descend into hell and was not resurrected three days later. In the stories that claim he joined with the sun god, he dies every night and comes back to life every morning.

All of these false claims originate with Gerald Massey, who was a liar. He claimed to be able to read Egyptian, before the Rosetta stone was discovered. After hieroglyphics were translated, they didn't read anything at all like Massey claimed.

lol....i knew you'd pick that one out.Even Odesyss story isn't all true.ok so 8 out of 10 ain't bad your not getting the point the stories of the others are similar to the story of jesus,i knew about the Horus story yeah it's false but my point in posting that is about the others.i'm pointing out that other religions before christianity had similar stories.

Pick one, I'll rip it apart. I'm not going to do all of them.

so you want to get into a wiki battle to discredit one another.Kind of lame ain't it.

This does explain the problem with your theory, even if you are not sure why.

He could be lying.

He could be lying about who he is too.

So you are going to post a link filled with BS about Jesus just being a copy of 10 figures from mythology and then say it's "kind of lame" for me wanting to show why those mythological stories are nothing like Jesus?

That's really screwed up man. You need to learn how to be reasonable. If you already knew that your link was BS, you shouldn't have posted it.

Maybe the 'christ like figure' topic is worthy of having a new thread created for it.