Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The idea that Jesus didnt exist is held by a small minority of scholars and is ridiculous.

If by 'minority of scholars', you mean 'majority of historians' then yes, you'd be correct.
I think you're confusing regular scholars with religious scholars - the difference tends to involve the matter that the former researches historical facts and the latter has a degree in theology.

I think galaxies and planets are different than rocks which appear to be designed...

How things appear to be is entirely irrelevant.

The good old fallacy, if you are a Christian or believe in God you commit intellectual suicide. I will give you 10 points for trying.

When it stops being true, people will stop using it as an arguement. You can't hold irrational beliefs in the same light as science and skeptical rationality otherwise you really are committing intellectual suicide.
You believe in what is essentially magic, human resurrection from the dead, and a hyperintelligent superbeing whose only notable contribution to the modern world is religion - whose only notable contribution to the world involves killing people who offend their religion if they arent' also scamming people out of their money or attempting to convert the world into their faith.

Can science “explain” the age-old question of Creation? Certainly, physical models describing the origin of the cosmos can and have been proposed, at least since the 1970s. But these models face a serious technical obstacle: the lack of a proper theory to describe physical processes at the enormous energy scales prevalent during the first moments of cosmic history. They could be called scientific creation narratives, at least until they can be placed on more solid theoretical ground. We see old themes coming back, dressed in scientific jargon. In some models the universe was born out of “nothing,” a quantum vacuum populated by all sorts of ephemeral energy fluctuations; others see the beginning as essentially chaotic, with an ordered cosmos emerging homogeneously in three dimensions.

The difference between science and religion in terms of the creation of the universe is that religion states it has all the answers and science does not. It has theories based on what we know and some but not nearly enough answers.

The main difference between the two is best described as a math problem where science left a lot of blank answers but the answers given are all true if not at least close given the student's knowledge.
Religion filled in all of the blanks with consistent answers completely independant of any knowledge on the topic.

Even if they both get Fs on that particular test, science has done more to answer the question than religion ever can. What, after all, has religion ever done to answer these questions that have any supporting, repeatable answers to any of this?

The problem is we dont know anything about our universe to even speculate its origins...I say God created (I go out on a limb here) but it would be better say we dont have any idea!

You certainly do but science has some answers that have allowed humankind to glimpse into how the universe began to come to be in its current form far more succinctly with each passing year and each discovery in physics, astronomy, and astrophysics.

a) Not many serious scholars deny Jesus existed

Irrelevant. Unless there's actual evidence to that end, then it doesn't matter what their personal opinions are. Further, proving the man exists is one thing - proving he was anything other than a carpenter's son (like, say, the son of a deity) is something completely different.

d) Many other 'messiahs' rose up, yet they didnt have this effect on people, let alone the enitre world

67% of the entire world disagrees with that assessment.

As N.T Wright says, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty
tomb behind him.” - N.T Wright

If this is one of your supposed 'scholars', then he is an idiot. He can't explain it, therefore Jesus resurrected himself? If that's his honest opinion, then he is no scholar. He's a shill.