Christmas Star Explained

Simple you have to be the most astounding person i have ever seen(read?) I seriously doubt that you actually believe the utter trash that appears on the screen in front of me under you name, it is simply appalling. Im more inclined to believe youre just having a grand old time messing with all of us.Fist of all that titanic post at post 13 was from this page, so at least give the credit to where its so sadly due when you post your illustrious comments. Its not even worth my time to respond to that whole block, but on a first time skim there were a few scientifically objectionable points. What? what makes the bible the record of records? Humans wrote the bible, buddy, as more or less generally accepted by the ENTIRE WORLD. That you believe otherwise matters not because theres absolutly NO BACKING behind it. Along with that, the general consensus on the dating of the bible is that Mark, being the earliest written book, was written around 70 BC, nowhere NEAR the birth of Christ. PEOPLE WROTE THE BIBLE. THE SAME PEOPLE WERE NOT THERE TO SEE THE STAR. What ramos was saying, if you took the time out of your day to look up COMMENTARY, is that although the book of Matthew was written(at first glance) on the topic of the Nativity story, it was really meant to comment on the political situation of Rome. Just because something is named specifically in the book doesnt mean it cannot have a deeper meaning that is not apparant at first glance. Much like your star/flying saucer. The differance is his theory makes some sort of logical sense and yours makes none.On the same quote, the calendar we are based around is not based on jesus' birth. The year is, true, but the calendar is not. In fact, the Gregorian calendar which we currently use is from around the mid 1500's, and one of its main points was to move the calendar so it corresponded with Easter. Plenty more i could say from the rest of the contents of this particular post, but ill just examine this line.
What on earth are you talking about? First of all you are INTERPERTING the bible, so it does not matter what the truth is when you create your own truth from it. As weve seen, even if Ramoss takes the bible to be true, you and he still came up with different conclusions to its contents when you interperted it. As for its actual Truth, its is NOT ASSUMED TRUE. If the bible was assumed true then there would be no purpose for EVC or debate(except on the interpertation), the bible would be our roadmap to absolutly everything. Do yo think that eveyone on EVC believes the bible to be true? Ive seen you on different threads, you cant even claim ignorance on this topic. Do you think everyone in the world beleives the bible to be true?Ill save you from making a dumb comment and just answer for you. NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN THE BIBLE. Heres a thought, brennakimi was being sarcastic/laughing at you/ridiculing you, not agreeing with you. Im inclined to think that she/he thinks your story as as much cock-and-bull as everyone else who reads your empty space. Why on earth does god need a ship!? he is, by definition, limitless and omnipotent! what use does a being that is (as defined by your accepted bible) everywhere and EVERYTHING need transportation? and why such conventional transportation? There is absolutly no rationale for this or anything youve written so far. Hilarious. My favorite post so far. Do you even know what HMS stands for? How is it logical, possible, or make ANY sense that the vehicle of the creator of the universe has a title given to it by Her Majesty (i dont recall who presided circa 0 BC...), the Queen of ENGLAND( does not EXIST on 0 BC...). And of course, the ever popular "first class," which, in conjunction with the HMS tag, means a vessel of a high military rank. Too much Star Trek for you?All in all, my ribs hurt from laughing. Don think i dont take your ideas seriously(sarcasm), its just that i dont understand how on earth you arrived at them, nor do they make any logical sense, nor are they supported. Im sure books could be written about what i left out (why is god an alien, why noone thought it odd that a starship was on a barn, why you know sparingly to not all that much about the bible, ect) but im sure youll invoke the wrath of some logical, sensible member that will be ... amazed... by your theories.I hope to god that your proposed topic on "why there were no natural physical laws in the beggining" goes through. I cant wait.Edited by Damouse, : Making it more user friendly. Removed some flaming.

---

This statement is false.Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

You won no debate, fool. You delude yourself more and more with every post you make. No one has anything at all to learn from your fractured pathetic logic and unsupported detail, along with your cocky self-centered attitude and supremacy that you swing around with you wherever you go.The "Myths" we parade are the culmination of some of the brightest work of the brightest minds of the past centuary and beyond in more scientific fields than can easily be counted, do not even begin to insult them by putting your convoluted and irrational conclusions on the same level as theirs. Your work is not equal to theirs, and by the way you talk and act, it will never be.You have won nothing. I find it hard to believe that you won out on RAZD in a structured and logical manner; it is more likely that you defeated him with a torrent of Simple foolishness, or more likely, that other matters pressed him more than setting a misguided imbecile straight. If this is not the case, contact RAZD and have him come to this thread and acknowledge his so called defeat at your hands.The state of the future and the past are concrete, and thus in the realm of science. Your BS is in the realm of Lewis Caroll and nothing more.Show some respect for the moderators, if its at all possible to tone down your impudance. They have acheived their station by means that you will NEVER acheive; it is not in your capacity.You have your own deluded myths, and few have a problem with that. But you have no respect, no logic, and absolutly no sense of what a scientific debate is. As Phat said, there are places on the internet for crackpots; this is not one of them.ABE: Ahh i almost forgot to respond to the ad hominum. Id rather take my measly ~150 posts and maintain some sort of respect and dignity whenever i post, and some logic and methodology whenever i think rather than have your ~2000 posts and post like i had mercury for breakfast, lunch, and dinner as a child.Edited by Damouse, : Forgot to respond to a section.

---

This statement is false.Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.