[QUOTE="_glatisant_"][QUOTE="manhore30"]

if you go to college=$100,000 to $500,000 a year after college

Shad0ki11

Really? In Britain an average graduate salary would probably be between £30-40,000.

with what jobs?

It's that if you count out the doctors, lawyers and bankers. It's certainly that if you want to work in a science.

if you go to college=$100,000 to $500,000 a year after college

manhore30

Really? In Britain an average graduate salary would probably be between £30-40,000.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Anyone who met him and wrote about what he said? danwallacefan

They never met Jesus, as they both contain references to the diaspera, which happened in 70 AD. Current historical thinking is that Mark wrote his gospel first, most likely around 70 AD and then Matthew and Luke used this as a source. John is a lot harder to place, except for being post-diaspera.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Crushmaster

The census in Luke makes no historical sense, Jesus has two genealogies, the world isn't 10,000 years old (you might want to look up the hubble constant), Genesis has two contradictory accounts and God did not create plants before the sun.

What you have to remember is that Christianity would have lived and died soley as an obscure Jewish sect were it not for Paul, and a marvellous bit of politics by Constantine a few centuries later. Also the Jewish people were rather desperate for a messiah at the time.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Considering probably every single secular university/research institution whole-heartedly supports evolution, I do not see how that invalidates it. As to the last sentence of your post, I have yet to see these "mountains" of "scientific evidence" disprove literal creation, that cannot itself be disproven by something else.foxhound_fox

Also, it's strange how young-earth creationists never try picking a fight with the hubble constant.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]An objective study of the presuppositions in the Bible would not be very biased at all, and generally would be an acceptable source. Granted, they wouldn't help your point at all. "Creation reserach?" The fact that there is an institution that has the goal of proving Creationism "right" invalidates the source immediately. There is mountains of scientific evidence that proves that literal Creation is not fact.Crushmaster

And this doesn't suggest something to you about the veracity of evolution? Not even slightly?

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"] Institute for Creation Research" Seriously? And would any of them happen to have a geology degree? Crushmaster

I should have added "of greater authenticity than Kent Hovind's". Oh, and further inacurracies are the wildly contradictory birth narratives, starting with the genealogies. Also, historically, we can almost certainly say the census forcing Joseph to go to Bethlehem is BS.

c

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]Indeed?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.aspCrushmaster

"Institute for Creation Research" Seriously? And would any of them happen to have a geology degree?