Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 08:13 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 06:00 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 05:01 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  "I can't understand the mechanism -- therefore it must have happened by magic."

Show me ONE post where i applied that kind of reasoning. JUST ONE.

[Image: freeth10.png]

Are you kidding? How about every single one of your posts? Your entire argument boils down to "God must exist because evolution couldn't have happened" (actually, because you don't understand how evolution could have happened). It's a shitty argument, and it proves nothing. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about God. Science deals with nature. God, if he/she/it exists at all, is by definition supernatural, so what could science possibly have to say about him/her/it? Do you expect a music theory textbook to tell you how to rebuild your car engine? Do you ask an auto mechanic how to bake a cake? Why would you expect science to tell you anything about God? Science is about how, not who.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
21-07-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 07:14 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But you can only see it if you stop with the Christard stuff and start opening your eyes. (No, I'm not saying give up religion; many honest scientists are also Christian. Just not YOUR type of Christard.)

YOu are not in the position to critizise my views as Christard, since you ignored relevant information and evidence that i have posted, and did not even attempt to refute it. Why is that ? So all i see in your posts, is bias and wishful thinking. So you have still to earn your reason to define my position as Christard. So far, all you have, is retarded and baseless, unsubstantiated criticism. Congrats. Bowing

[Image: critiz10.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 11:03 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 11:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  YOu are not in the position to critizise my views as Christard, since you ignored relevant information and evidence that i have posted, and did not even attempt to refute it. Why is that ? So all i see in your posts, is bias and wishful thinking. So you have still to earn your reason to define my position as Christard. So far, all you have, is retarded and baseless, unsubstantiated criticism. Congrats.

Said the fool who said he doesn't buy peer-review. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-07-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(20-07-2015 07:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  You got one part wrong in your analogy, though.

There is no analogy here.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Dawkins writes:

“…The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

Elsewhere, Dawkins writes:

“What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is the literal truth.”


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

What lies at the heart of every living thing is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words, instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)


http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine ©, and thymine (T).

For the ones that deny that DNA carries literally coded information, but argue that its just metaphorically a code
. Look what Richard Dawkins has to say on the issue : See after the seventh minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1281-dn...lly-a-code

Quote: It's not the letters that stick to the board, it's the letters that stick to each other. There is no board.

and how is that relevant ?

Quote:Instead of sticking 26 letters (including 2 periods) on a magnetic board, take a series of 4 letters (it's actually 64 letters, since DNA reads in groups of 3, and 4^3=64, though some code for the same letter so it's really just over 20 letters and a few punctuation marks) that stick to one another, throw a few trillion of them into a football stadium where any of them can randomly link up in as many combinations as they want, and then wade through and see if you find even one complete sentence made of your 20 letters. If you fail, try it again in one second. Then try it again, and again, and again, for about 500,000,000 years. Think you could get that sentence that way?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.

Of course the classic argument is given in response is that one shouldn't be surprised to find this extremely unlikely event on earth because otherwise, we wouldn't exist. Therefore, the fact that we exist means that it should only be expected by the mere fact of our own existence - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the extreme odds of the genetic code and irreducible system of the cell, given the hypothesis of a mindless origin, is only to be expected - in the extreme.


Quote:It's not a car engine. It's not magnets on a board. It's certainly not a 747 in a tornado or a Swiss watch. It's chemicals that stick to each other, swirling all around the globe for millions of years of constant reactions.

Guess how many self-replicators (the sentence) had to form out of those millions of years of throwing trillions of letters into a stadium? One. Because once you had it, it replicated into two. Then four. Then eight... get the picture?

Getting your picture perfectly. And its utter nonsense to the extreme. Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 05:28 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 10:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Decided to delete the video when I found a more a propos one, one that directly addresses the Creationist (Dr. Jason Lyle) who came up with the argument he was pretending was his own.





This makes me think of how theists have changed their evidences for their gods over time. The gods used to cause thunder, lightning and rain until we learned about the weather. It was inconceivable how these powerful forces of nature couldn't be the result of powerful gods in the heavens.

http://aaaworldwitness.wordpress.com/200...of-of-god/

God’s nitrogen cycle is as important to us as the “carbon cycle” of photosynthesis by which plants recapture carbon dioxide from the air and convert the carbon into organic compounds.The nitrogen fixers and the photosynthetic organisms, linked in a majestic partnership, keep the living economy of the world solvent. Lightning has a vital role in replacing nitrogen in the soil, so that plants can assimilate it. 100 million tons of usable plant food per year is supplied to the soil by lightning. Nitrogen and oxygen are combined by lightning into plant food. Lightning in the nitrogen-cycle and carbon cycle, is another witness to the fact of Almighty God’s genius in designing and creating the World in awesome wisdom …past finding out. God made it self-supporting, to the finest tuned mind-boggling details, in perfect balance and harmony. Lightning proof of God!


Quote:Now the gods push around DNA molecules. It's inconceivable how these wondrous molecules could self-organize naturally without the gods pushing them together under their design.

So it is conceivable ? how ?

RNR enzymes are required to make DNA. DNA is however required to make RNR enzymes. What came first ??
We can conclude with high certainty that this enzyme buries any RNA world fantasies, and any possibility of transition from RNA to DNA world scenarios.

and second:

Thymidylate synthase (Thy) is a fundamental enzyme in DNA synthesis because it catalyzes the formation of deoxythymidine 5′-monophosphate (dTMP) from deoxyuridine 5′-monophosphate (dUMP). For decades, only one family of thymidylate synthase enzymes was known, and its presence was considered necessary to maintain all DNA-based forms of life. Then, a gene encoding an alternative enzyme was discovered and characterized (Dynes and Firtel 1989; Myllykallio et al. 2002), and the novel enzyme was named ThyX, whereas the other enzyme was renamed ThyA. Even though both reactions accomplish the same key step, the reaction mechanisms, or steps, catalyzed by the FDTS and TS enzymes are structurally different.The 2 enzymes, ThyA and ThyX, were found to have distinctly different sequences and structures, thus alluding to independent origins.

Thats interesting, as we find two distinct enzymes with two different sequences and structures synthesizing the same reaction, thus being a example of convergence right in the beginning. How remote was the chance for this to happen by natural means , considering, that convergence does not favour naturalistic explanations ?

and:

This brings us to the same problem as with Ribonucleotide Reductase enzymes (RNR), which is the classic chicken and egg, catch22 situation. ThyA and ThyX enzymes are required to make DNA. DNA is however required to make these enzymes. What came first ?? We can conclude with high certainty that this enzyme buries any RNA world fantasies, and any possibility of transition from RNA to DNA world scenarios, since both had to come into existence at the same time.

thats just one of many problems :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-or...uble-helix


Quote:Why go through the trouble understanding these chemical reactions and how replication takes place naturally?

Will we eventually discover a naturalistic explanation for origins in general, and the first life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1508-wi...first-life

If a certain line of reasoning is not persuasive or convincing, then why do atheists not change their mind because of it? The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several subjects of biology. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios, or in a confession of ignorance. Fact is there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some technical details; it is a big conceptual gap. The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of macro change and abiogenesis are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood, and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Istn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument ? We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis ? That way, the God hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence leading towards naturalism providing sactisfactory explanations, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else ?


Will we eventually discover a naturalistic explanation for first life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1508-wi...-life#2202

abiogenesis is running out of time. The more origin of life research that is published, the less likely abiogenesis becomes.


http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/s...n-of-life/

CLAIM: Advocates of this view argue that naturalistic science will eventually explain all mysteries in scientific knowledge. If we allow God to fill in these gaps, eventually he will be displaced, when science explains how life originated naturally.

RESPONSE: I have dealt with the “God of the gaps” argument in an earlier article. However, in addition to that material, we should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on this subject. For instance, biochemist Klaus Dose writes,

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

In his 1999 book The Fifth Miracle, agnostic Paul Davies writes :


When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna.

More recently in 2010, Davies explains,

“All that can be said at this time is that the problem of life’s origin is very far from being clearly formulated, and nowhere near being solved.”

Agnostic microbiologist Franklin Harold writes,

Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life… The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight.

We might also point out that the scientific evidence for the origin of life persuaded one of the world’s leading atheists, Antony Flew, to begin to believe in God. In his 2007 book There is a God, Flew explains,

“The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.”

We might ask: If this scientific evidence is not persuasive, then why did one of the world’s leading atheists change his mind because of it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 04:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 10:11 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Decided to delete the video when I found a more a propos one, one that directly addresses the Creationist (Dr. Jason Lyle) who came up with the argument he was pretending was his own.





At 0:42 Lisle says "...DNA is one of the most marvelous evidences..."

Jesus H. Christ, if you are going to debate learn to speak English. "Evidences" is an illiterate term used only by Christian apologists.

Fuckin' morons.

NU UH!

One evidence = evidence

Two or more than one evidence = evidences

CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS! Hobo

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
21-07-2015, 11:30 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 05:28 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  This makes me think of how theists have changed their evidences for their gods over time. The gods used to cause thunder, lightning and rain until we learned about the weather. It was inconceivable how these powerful forces of nature couldn't be the result of powerful gods in the heavens.

http://aaaworldwitness.wordpress.com/200...of-of-god/

God’s nitrogen cycle is as important to us as the “carbon cycle” of photosynthesis by which plants recapture carbon dioxide from the air and convert the carbon into organic compounds.The nitrogen fixers and the photosynthetic organisms, linked in a majestic partnership, keep the living economy of the world solvent. Lightning has a vital role in replacing nitrogen in the soil, so that plants can assimilate it. 100 million tons of usable plant food per year is supplied to the soil by lightning. Nitrogen and oxygen are combined by lightning into plant food. Lightning in the nitrogen-cycle and carbon cycle, is another witness to the fact of Almighty God’s genius in designing and creating the World in awesome wisdom …past finding out. God made it self-supporting, to the finest tuned mind-boggling details, in perfect balance and harmony. Lightning proof of God!


Quote:Now the gods push around DNA molecules. It's inconceivable how these wondrous molecules could self-organize naturally without the gods pushing them together under their design.

So it is conceivable ? how ?

RNR enzymes are required to make DNA. DNA is however required to make RNR enzymes. What came first ??
We can conclude with high certainty that this enzyme buries any RNA world fantasies, and any possibility of transition from RNA to DNA world scenarios.

and second:

Thymidylate synthase (Thy) is a fundamental enzyme in DNA synthesis because it catalyzes the formation of deoxythymidine 5′-monophosphate (dTMP) from deoxyuridine 5′-monophosphate (dUMP). For decades, only one family of thymidylate synthase enzymes was known, and its presence was considered necessary to maintain all DNA-based forms of life. Then, a gene encoding an alternative enzyme was discovered and characterized (Dynes and Firtel 1989; Myllykallio et al. 2002), and the novel enzyme was named ThyX, whereas the other enzyme was renamed ThyA. Even though both reactions accomplish the same key step, the reaction mechanisms, or steps, catalyzed by the FDTS and TS enzymes are structurally different.The 2 enzymes, ThyA and ThyX, were found to have distinctly different sequences and structures, thus alluding to independent origins.

Thats interesting, as we find two distinct enzymes with two different sequences and structures synthesizing the same reaction, thus being a example of convergence right in the beginning. How remote was the chance for this to happen by natural means , considering, that convergence does not favour naturalistic explanations ?

and:

This brings us to the same problem as with Ribonucleotide Reductase enzymes (RNR), which is the classic chicken and egg, catch22 situation. ThyA and ThyX enzymes are required to make DNA. DNA is however required to make these enzymes. What came first ?? We can conclude with high certainty that this enzyme buries any RNA world fantasies, and any possibility of transition from RNA to DNA world scenarios, since both had to come into existence at the same time.

thats just one of many problems :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-or...uble-helix


Quote:Why go through the trouble understanding these chemical reactions and how replication takes place naturally?

Will we eventually discover a naturalistic explanation for origins in general, and the first life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1508-wi...first-life

If a certain line of reasoning is not persuasive or convincing, then why do atheists not change their mind because of it? The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several subjects of biology. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios, or in a confession of ignorance. Fact is there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some technical details; it is a big conceptual gap. The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of macro change and abiogenesis are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood, and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Istn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument ? We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis ? That way, the God hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence leading towards naturalism providing sactisfactory explanations, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else ?


Will we eventually discover a naturalistic explanation for first life ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1508-wi...-life#2202

abiogenesis is running out of time. The more origin of life research that is published, the less likely abiogenesis becomes.


http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/s...n-of-life/

CLAIM: Advocates of this view argue that naturalistic science will eventually explain all mysteries in scientific knowledge. If we allow God to fill in these gaps, eventually he will be displaced, when science explains how life originated naturally.

RESPONSE: I have dealt with the “God of the gaps” argument in an earlier article. However, in addition to that material, we should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on this subject. For instance, biochemist Klaus Dose writes,

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

In his 1999 book The Fifth Miracle, agnostic Paul Davies writes :


When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna.

More recently in 2010, Davies explains,

“All that can be said at this time is that the problem of life’s origin is very far from being clearly formulated, and nowhere near being solved.”

Agnostic microbiologist Franklin Harold writes,

Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life… The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight.

We might also point out that the scientific evidence for the origin of life persuaded one of the world’s leading atheists, Antony Flew, to begin to believe in God. In his 2007 book There is a God, Flew explains,

“The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.”

We might ask: If this scientific evidence is not persuasive, then why did one of the world’s leading atheists change his mind because of it?

Congratulations on achieving self-parody status.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 12:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  This brings us to the same problem as with Ribonucleotide Reductase enzymes (RNR), which is the classic chicken and egg, catch22 situation. ThyA and ThyX enzymes are required to make DNA. DNA is however required to make these enzymes. What came first ?? We can conclude with high certainty that this enzyme buries any RNA world fantasies, and any possibility of transition from RNA to DNA world scenarios, since both had to come into existence at the same time.

A complete lie. RNA could easily have made replication enzymes by itself, which were incorporated by DNA. Yet another proof, he has no clue what he's on about. There is no "high certainty" about it, and he can provide no scientic text to support that bullshit.

(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several subjects of biology.

Not even close, dumbass.
(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios, or in a confession of ignorance.

No they don't

(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Istn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument ?

Just like his god. Facepalm

(21-07-2015 11:16 AM)Godexists Wrote:  abiogenesis is running out of time. The more origin of life research that is published, the less likely abiogenesis becomes.

LMAO
Just more proof that he actually never read anything about it, and knows nothing about the current state of research.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
At work.

Wait... is the OP mixing up abiogenesis and evolution again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
21-07-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(21-07-2015 11:00 AM)Godexists Wrote:  YOu are not in the position to critizise my views as Christard, since you ignored relevant information and evidence that i have posted, and did not even attempt to refute it. Why is that ? So all i see in your posts, is bias and wishful thinking. So you have still to earn your reason to define my position as Christard. So far, all you have, is retarded and baseless, unsubstantiated criticism. Congrats. Bowing

[Image: critiz10.jpg]

Hey, you stupid Christard. Yeah, you.

Benjamin Franklin was an anti-Christian writer, skeptic, scientist, and very likely an outright atheist. He was talking about YOU AND YOUR KIND!

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

I know you won't read it, but others will. Go back to editing photos of Homer Simpson and Mr.Bean to support your positions, Christard.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: