Flying Spaghetti Monster v. Abrahamic God

"Bible is based on solid historical evidence."If anybody can show me scientific proof of a world wide flood , scientific proof that the human race could be populated by incest (twice)*, or scientific proof that the earth was invented in six days, I will concede that Pro's claim here is correct. Let me see the 6,000 year old rocks, or the proof that Jews were ever really slaves in Egypt (http://www.haaretz.com...). There's no proof that Mount Sinai ever even existed (http://www.gotquestions.org...)*Between 8 people(family) repopulating the earth after the flood, and Adam and Eve populating the earth in the first place, the bible really loses a lot of its scientific credibility. "If you start a new population with a group of "average" people, then the numbers I've heard are around 160 or so, 80 men and 80 women. With some genetic engineering, you could bring that number down to 80 or so." (http://genetics.thetech.org...)Answers in Genesis tries to claim that "the description of "behemoth" in chapter 40 of the book of Job (Job lived after the Flood) only fits with something like a sauropod dinosaur. The ancestor of "behemoth" must have been on board the Ark."This would make sense if the sauropod didn't weigh 100 metric tons and wasn't 1/4 of the size of the ark itself. "Archaeology has not produce anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible." I disagree. Also, the link provided doesn't lead to an article for some reason. I noticed that my links had the same issue too, so I shall give Pro the benefit of the doubt. The reason that I disagree with this statement is that "Israeli archaeologists uncovered the 8,000-year-old remains of a prehistoric structure nestled away in the upscale neighborhood of Ramat Aviv. The cornerstone of the ancient building, which lies on a construction site for exclusive apartments, long precedes the time of Abraham and the rest of the Bible"s figures." (http://freethoughtnation.com...)While not too much archaeology disproves the bible, let us have a look at paleontology. The oldest dinosaur ever found is around 230 million years old (http://www.enchantedlearning.com...). To be fair, that is a mere 230 million years older than the bible claims the earth is. Just because the bible claims the earth is a certain age does not mean that is true. The idea that "the bible is true. We know this because bible is infallible. We know the bible is infallible because it says so." is rediculous. (http://www.religioustolerance.org...).Modern science also says that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, and that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Not too far off the Bible's prediction right? What different does 4,539,994,000 make?Existence of JesusA)How can anybody be sure that these men even existed? I'd like to see historical proof of them first. B) Why would you quote a source and then follow with "yes there are some problems with [the source]"?Also, even if Jesus existed, that in no way proves that he was the son of god. If I asked for a bunch of guys to start writing about me 20 years after my death, and I became a famous, does that really make me the son of a higher power? I should get on that. C) I'd like a source that proves any Romans wrote about him. What do you mean there is no historical evidence supporting his noodliness? Nine years ago the prophet Bobby Henderson saved the world by proving the existence of FSM. You can't claim that FSM doesn't exist as he exists outside of the universe. He is his own entity. In the Gospel of FSM, Bobby Henderson explains that the "Earth was created in approximately 0.062831853 seconds and was similarly disguised to appear much older. We can be certain that the FSM spent even more time preparing the earth, because, being all knowing, He was well aware that soon enough there would be nosy people poking around everywhere. Known as "scientists" these nosy people have a sick need...to figure out how things work, and so it was even more important that our apparent reality be well designed to hide the truth."2) Crucifixion was a very common method of killing in Roman times. It's not exactly hard to believe that one more crucifixion happened. "Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets codified the death penalty... Death was often cruel and included crucifixion, drowning at sea, burial alive, beating to death, and impalement (often used by Nero)." (http://www.pbs.org...)The part I cannot believe is that he could have risen from the dead. Am I being told that he could walk on water, clone bread, turn his blood into wine, yet couldn't withstand a couple of nails? This is the supposedly god being talked about here. It's also an insult to any supreme being to think that a perfect entity would ever let flawed entities to have authority over him. Why didn't Jesus take down the entire Roman army to prove his power? He could have saved humanity by converting everyone right then and there. An all knowing god would figure out that science would disprove his existence, and do something about it before hand. 1) As I stated before, I want proof that these guys even existed. They could have been forgeries. When they were "found" there was no way to claim that they didn't really exist. They could have just been inserted into a bible some years ago. Also, none of these people ever met Jesus. "There"s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn"t specify whether the Lord"s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice..." That sounds like a classic case of schizophrenia. Not a higher power. (http://gracethrufaith.com...)2) Actually, Christian sources were never mentioned. Followers of Jesus considered themselves Jewish. "Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called each other Christians. Christ never used an adjective to describe himself. " (http://www.ecclesia.org...) 3) Yeah, why make something up if men and Jews don't agree? Let's forget about non-Jewish women. 4) "Many other reasons" is not a reason. 4B) "Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross" (http://www.patheos.com...)if this is a fact, then why do 1/3 of all follower of the Abrahamic god disagree? Muslims don't even believe that Jesus was the son of god. They don't believe that he is god either. Why do so many followers of the same god have different stories? I argue that it is because many of the ideas we westerners have, were made up by other westerners. Back 1,000 years ago, just because a vast majority of people in England believed something, that did not mean it would make its way to the Ottomans. C) Would anybody believe that Tom Cruise saw Jesus? He's a non-Christian. D) Read the above point. The conversion of James means nothing. "You have to give me evidence this is real video footage of real creation act."Of course it is real. FSM has hidden video proof in every continent. How else would the Italians have learned of his existence?"You are searching for things that look like spaghetti."Do Christians not look for things to fit their arguments? Also, how can one not see the link? He wanted to make sure we were advanced enough when we learned the truth. That way obviously fake stories about him would not go viral. *ahem* like in the bible. *ahem*I googled the picture many times and only found links to the Church's page. It's clearly a sign from His Noodliness."...Muslims..."The Qur'an is the word of Pro's god as well. Is this Pro admitting to being wrong?