[Baraonda]

"Heck there is no proof that the Son Of God walked the Earth 2000 years ago."

The Son of God is an historical figure. He was as real as you and I. You know better than to lie about his existence. Shame on you! Had you said you don't believe in Him, I might have given you a pass, but to blatantly lie about His very existence tells me not to believe the rest of your words.

[Alter Kaker]

Had you said you don't believe in Him, I might have given you a pass, but to blatantly lie about His very existence tells me not to believe the rest of your words.

I suspect that there probably was someone named Jesus, but you're lying if you suggest that there's any direct evidence of him outside of the New Testament.

[freedumb2003]

The Son of God is an historical figure. He was as real as you and I. You know better than to lie about his existence. Shame on you! Had you said you don't believe in Him, I might have given you a pass, but to blatantly lie about His very existence tells me not to believe the rest of your words.

No, a man who said he was the Son of God walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. The fact that I believe so (I do) and you believe so, is not "Proof." There is very sketchy proof outside of the Bible of Christ's existence (such as independent 3rd-party reports, for example). But thank you for showing how creationists "debate."

YOU were the one who said evolution can't be "proved." When I bring examples of things that can't be proved, you fall back to a faith-based argument.

If you believe in it -- it is "Proof." If you don't, it isn't.

Shame on YOU for being dishonest in your intellectual dealings.