(January 5, 2012 at 9:11 am)chipan Wrote: KichigaiNeko, i don't get what you're trying to prove. what does the winter solstice have to do with Jesus?

That he is just another in a long line of 40,000 years of Solar observation.

Blame Zen if you must but there is you evidence that you bible is nothing more that a poorly constructed mish mash of ideologies, myths and celestial observations stolen from other cultures of the time period and before said time period.

KichigaiNeko Wrote:That he is just another in a long line of 40,000 years of Solar observation.

how do you get that? a person who lived wasn't really a person they were a solar observation. are you listening to yourself? Jesus has nothing to do with the solstice and didn't do anything with the stars.

(January 5, 2012 at 9:27 am)chipan Wrote:

KichigaiNeko Wrote:That he is just another in a long line of 40,000 years of Solar observation.

how do you get that? a person who lived wasn't really a person they were a solar observation. are you listening to yourself? Jesus has nothing to do with the solstice and didn't do anything with the stars.

Yes but obviously are not listening to YOURSELF....

Your god boy has everything to do with the solar and celestial observations otherwise YOU don't HAVE a godboy or a story.

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Yes but obviously are not listening to YOURSELF....

Your god boy has everything to do with the solar and celestial observations otherwise YOU don't HAVE a godboy or a story.

ok i'm seriously trying to see where you come to this conclusion from your sources but there is nothing. i reread it and they don't mention Jesus once, they don't mention any dates in which Jesus existed, they talk about some popes for a bit but how do you come up with this?

(January 5, 2012 at 9:47 am)chipan Wrote:

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Yes but obviously are not listening to YOURSELF....

Your god boy has everything to do with the solar and celestial observations otherwise YOU don't HAVE a godboy or a story.

ok i'm seriously trying to see where you come to this conclusion from your sources but there is nothing. i reread it and they don't mention Jesus once, they don't mention any dates in which Jesus existed, they talk about some popes for a bit but how do you come up with this?

THAT is the whole point...they mimic your godboy to the letter....and that video you refused to watch?? Displays it much more articulately than I ever could ...but you don't seem to be interested. ...meh.

KichigaiNeko Wrote:and that video you refused to watch?? Displays it much more articulately than I ever could ...but you don't seem to be interested. ...meh.

well i didn't watch it b/c my internet connection was super bad at the time but it's better now so i'll take a look

Quote:(I have problems with carbon dating)

Of course you do, G-C. You have problems with anything related to reality that upsets your little holy horseshit applecart. Nonetheless, the world is perfectly happy to go on even with you being an ignorant twit. You matter not at all.

What a coincidence; I have a problem with the literalist theists' problem with carbon dating. Consider: to said literalist, a fossil is 'carbon-dated' to be millions of years old. Which cannot be true, because the biblical age of the Earth makes that conclusion impossible. Thus 'carbon-dating' doesn't work and lots of ways have to found to 'prove' that the technique imparts a greater age to the sample than it actually has.

However, when the Turin Shroud was tested (this time actually using carbon-dating) it was dated to be many centuries younger than tradition demanded, instead of some millions of years older as the dating technique apparently does with any other sample tested.

(January 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm)Stimbo Wrote: What a coincidence; I have a problem with the literalist theists' problem with carbon dating. Consider: to said literalist, a fossil is 'carbon-dated' to be millions of years old. Which cannot be true, because the biblical age of the Earth makes that conclusion impossible. Thus 'carbon-dating' doesn't work and lots of ways have to found to 'prove' that the technique imparts a greater age to the sample than it actually has.

Note that such things aren't 'carbon' dated, because as potholer54 notes on YouTube.... "there isn't any fucking carbon it!"

Here's his video, which dismantles all of the creationist claims regarding carbon dating:

Side note for potential critics, theist or otherwise: my use of the single-quotes was meant to indicate that I personally understand carbon-dating isn't used in those circumstances and I was simply rôleplaying the character of a literalist. I'm feeling much better now though.