Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 08:19 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. The Bible is like any other document, falsifiable, but has passed the many tests I've brought to it from challenges like those on this forum.

It will always be a passing grade when you let students score their own tests... Big Grin

"...Like those on this forum" is what I wrote. YOUR tests.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 02:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 09:36 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Now you're special pleading. I'm one of the most "popular" writers here and because I constantly do you the service of answering your Bible "attacks" whether or not they come in the form of questions.

I understand the Bible and I will try to show you more love in the future as I confound your speculations. Mazel tov.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidenc...universe#1
The only thing you can and "confound", troll, is obviously, yourself.
You need to look up what the term "special pleading" means SPJTJ.
Just as with "presentism" you have no clue.
So .... Mr. MINUS 6,
You actually claim you are "popular" here ?
What a fucking joke.
You are one of the 4 most pathetic trolls ever to grace these pages.
Your rep proves it.
But thanks for demonstrating to the world, just how delusional you really are.
Go away, pamphlet writer.
Your genetic bs you copy/pasted from somewhere is so pathetic, I'm not even going to waste my time with it. Read the first paragraph.
The entire thing is based on an obvious false premise. You are too stupid and uneducated to get why.
But keep it up. I love it when you idiots make fools of yourselves.
Jebus is Lard.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 09:37 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 08:19 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  It will always be a passing grade when you let students score their own tests... Big Grin

"...Like those on this forum" is what I wrote. YOUR tests.

When you're wearing blinders, of course everything will seem to pass the tests...

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2013 11:13 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can start with Eve:

This'll be good.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans diverged from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 12,000 years.” Another incorrect approach began by assuming Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years gave another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.* This surprised evolutionists who believe that the first human female lived 6 million years ago.

Actually, it didn't, because "evolutionists" understand their science (and statistics), and you don't.

"Mitochondrial Eve" refers to a common ancestor - not the most recent common ancestor and not the most distant common ancestor. It is the last of those, incidentally, which actually determines the age of the species.

Genetic projections are useful secondary sources, but are subordinate to phsyical evidence. Human tools are found in Australia dating back at least 40,000 years. Good luck denying that.

Any model assuming a constant rate of mutation is a tremendous simplification, and is acknowledged as such by any scientist using such a model.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times faster than had been estimated. Without assuming humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 6 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.**

Nope. See above. Constant mutation rates are a simplification. Mitochondrial Eve is not the most recent common ancestor. Australia was populated 40,000 years ago based on mountains of corroborating evidence. Humans and chimpanzees did diverge ~5-6 mya, based on mountains of corroborating evidence.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *This widespread (and, I believe, incorrect) belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago should be contrasted with a completely different but highly mathematical analysis. [See Douglas L. T. Rohde et al., “Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of All Living Humans,” Nature, Vol. 431, 30 September 2004, pp. 562–566.]

Good for you.

I read the article. You either misunderstand or misrepresent the authors' conclusions.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  These authors believe that our most recent common male and female ancestor lived only a few thousand years ago, but the authors recognize that the many assumptions in their model—especially migration rates and realistic mating patterns—could alter that number by a few thousand years.

Most recent common ancestor being, as you'll recall, distinct from either the common mitochondrial ancestor or the common Y-chromosome ancestor.

Altering that number by a few thousand years makes it Biblically untenable anyway, so it does you no good even if all the rest of your incorrect assumptions and premises were somehow true.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Therefore, it seems very unlikely that the mitochondrial Eve could have lived 100,000–200,000 years ago. A similar conclusion can be reached for the genetic Adam.

You misunderstand or misapply the terms and conclusions. Again.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  **“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated [previously] that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998, p. 29.

Indeed. See above - assuming a constant invariant rate of mutation is a simplification well-known to be insufficient for complex analysis. Mitochondrial ancestry is not the same as most recent common ancestry.

For the audience: the article indeed contains the quote PJ includes. What is the very next sentence?
"No one thinks that's the case."
Quote-mining. Creationist gold.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  “If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites [occurs at a constant rate at all sites], such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.” Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 12, 11 November 1997, p. 422.

“Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses [evolution studies]. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of only ~6,500 y.a. [years ago], clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.” Thomas J. Parsons et al., “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997, p. 365.

See above. You misunderstand or misrepresent premises, terminology, and conclusions.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolutionists who understand this new discovery are shocked. They are now trying to explain why measured mutation rates of mtDNA are so fast, but their inferred mutation rates (based on fossil dating and the evolution of man from apelike creatures) are so slow. Perhaps, they say, mutations occur rapidly at only a few points on the mtDNA molecule, but later correct themselves. Therefore, many mutations are counted, but the net change is small. This “hot spot” hypothesis, is basically a “special pleading”—something imagined to solve a problem. Tests have shown the “hot spot” hypothesis to be invalid.

Citation needed (you were at least trying most of the time here!).

Models involving a constant mutation rate are a first-order approximation at best and are freely acknowledged to be insufficient.

Sixteen years (!) is an eternity in modern research; you have not addressed follow-ups to any of the work you (dishonestly) quote.

If ever anything were a known and demonstrable fact - human evolution is a fact. The amount of interconnected contingent data which must be flat-out denied to even question it is staggering. That some people actually chose to do just that is horrifying.

What you've posted amounts to "some results are inconclusive". Yes! That's science for you. Of course, that's not the whole sentence; the rest goes, "so let's improve them".

What you are doing is not science. It is tried and true dishonesty:
"Some results are inconclusive, therefore Bible".

Nope. Try again.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
26-09-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 07:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're making a general, sweeping (pissed off) statement about the Bible again. When presented with any Bible challenge, I tend to search the scriptures, logic and science to see what I might discern before consulting outside sources, and then, only rarely.

1. The Bible is like any other document, falsifiable, but has passed the many tests I've brought to it from challenges like those on this forum.

2. The Hell, atonement, suffering, etc. are not falsifiable ideas on an empirical basis since scientism is limited in its tools for metaphysics, feelings, etc. but again, you are making "gut judgments" here IMHO.

1. No it hasn't, at least not to anyone but the person with the vested interest in defending it as the one and only Truth. You just rehash a bunch of tired and illogical arguments from other apologists and cycle through a whole litany of them, constantly evading, and eventually circling back around to earlier arguments hoping that we had forgotten about them from earlier.

2. Prove the metaphysical exists, until then, shove it (sorry, was that not kind enough for you?). You're the one picking their subjective interpretation of their reality by their 'guts'. The rest of us at least try to use evidence and reason. How funny that your 'evidence' and your god are always just our of reach, always just over the horizon; and you wonder why nobody finds your shit even remotely compelling...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 07:32 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 05:47 PM)GaëlK7 Wrote:  1- Same as EK, proofs, sources, links to studies?
2/3: All right then. How did for instance the australian kangaroo get to the ark and back to its natural habitat. Also when did continents reach their current positions?
4-Why can we not find one single instance of one single whale, dinosaur or elephant in the same layer as the much smaller and fragile trilobites? Why are they predictably always layered in the same order?

Be compassionate and respectful in your answer if you think it helps it conform with observation.

I bet you can think of ways that kangaroos could have left the ark and then gotten to Australia if you assume my assumptions. Have you tried it?

Liquification and sorting by body type/density in large part could explain the fossil sortation. What isn't explained by uniformitarianism are things like:

Why isn't the Grand Canyon river(s) delta the largest in the world? Where did the miles of cubic earth excavated go to?

Why are entire, multiple layers of strata in the record (including formations at the Grand Canyon) steeply angled to other layers?

How do you account for the physical limitations that shouldn't permit giant geologic plates to abut one another and move in the way geologists credit?

Etc.

Trying to shift the burden of proof already? Well no, as a matter of fact I can't figure out how kangaroos could swim that long. Besides, of course, explaining the current distribution of the species or why there's no evidence of the migration from Ararat to Australia.
And that's just one species and not even the one with the biggest handicaps. Imagine the problems flavobacterium sp. K172 had ahead of it once out Noah's jolly boat.

As for the sorting by density, no, it would make dinosaur bones always show on the lowest layer which they don't. Find something consistant with observation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 09:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:36 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Now you're special pleading. I'm one of the most "popular" writers here and because I constantly do you the service of answering your Bible "attacks" whether or not they come in the form of questions.

I understand the Bible and I will try to show you more love in the future as I confound your speculations. Mazel tov.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidenc...universe#1
The only thing you can and do "confound", troll, is obviously, yourself.
You need to look up what the term "special pleading" means SPJTJ.
Just as with "presentism" you have no clue.
So .... Mr. MINUS 6,
You actually claim you are "popular" here ?
What a fucking joke.
You are one of the 4 most pathetic trolls ever to grace these pages.
Your rep proves it.
But thanks for demonstrating to the world, just how delusional you really are.
Go away, pamphlet writer.
Your genetic bs you copy/pasted from somewhere is so pathetic, I'm not even going to waste my time with it. Read the first paragraph.
The entire thing is based on an obvious false premise. You are too stupid and uneducated to get why.
But keep it up. I love it when you idiots make fools of yourselves.
Jebus is Lard.

Even calling me "pamphlet writer" shows you don't read carefully. I am the author of, editor of and/or contributor to over a dozen books now in print. B-o-o-k-s, not including pamphlets and tracts. Which books have you written? Perhaps you can point me to them on Amazon?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You can start with Eve:

This'll be good.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans diverged from chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 12,000 years.” Another incorrect approach began by assuming Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years gave another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.* This surprised evolutionists who believe that the first human female lived 6 million years ago.

Actually, it didn't, because "evolutionists" understand their science (and statistics), and you don't.

"Mitochondrial Eve" refers to a common ancestor - not the most recent common ancestor and not the most distant common ancestor. It is the last of those, incidentally, which actually determines the age of the species.

Genetic projections are useful secondary sources, but are subordinate to phsyical evidence. Human tools are found in Australia dating back at least 40,000 years. Good luck denying that.

Any model assuming a constant rate of mutation is a tremendous simplification, and is acknowledged as such by any scientist using such a model.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times faster than had been estimated. Without assuming humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 6 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.**

Nope. See above. Constant mutation rates are a simplification. Mitochondrial Eve is not the most recent common ancestor. Australia was populated 40,000 years ago based on mountains of corroborating evidence. Humans and chimpanzees did diverge ~5-6 mya, based on mountains of corroborating evidence.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *This widespread (and, I believe, incorrect) belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago should be contrasted with a completely different but highly mathematical analysis. [See Douglas L. T. Rohde et al., “Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of All Living Humans,” Nature, Vol. 431, 30 September 2004, pp. 562–566.]

Good for you.

I read the article. You either misunderstand or misrepresent the authors' conclusions.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  These authors believe that our most recent common male and female ancestor lived only a few thousand years ago, but the authors recognize that the many assumptions in their model—especially migration rates and realistic mating patterns—could alter that number by a few thousand years.

Most recent common ancestor being, as you'll recall, distinct from either the common mitochondrial ancestor or the common Y-chromosome ancestor.

Altering that number by a few thousand years makes it Biblically untenable anyway, so it does you no good even if all the rest of your incorrect assumptions and premises were somehow true.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Therefore, it seems very unlikely that the mitochondrial Eve could have lived 100,000–200,000 years ago. A similar conclusion can be reached for the genetic Adam.

You misunderstand or misapply the terms and conclusions. Again.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  **“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated [previously] that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Vol. 279, 2 January 1998, p. 29.

Indeed. See above - assuming a constant invariant rate of mutation is a simplification well-known to be insufficient for complex analysis. Mitochondrial ancestry is not the same as most recent common ancestry.

For the audience: the article indeed contains the quote PJ includes. What is the very next sentence?
"No one thinks that's the case."
Quote-mining. Creationist gold.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  “If molecular evolution is really neutral at these sites [occurs at a constant rate at all sites], such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.” Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 12, 11 November 1997, p. 422.

“Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr [million years], is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses [evolution studies]. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an average age of the mtDNA MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of only ~6,500 y.a. [years ago], clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.” Thomas J. Parsons et al., “A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 15 April 1997, p. 365.

See above. You misunderstand or misrepresent premises, terminology, and conclusions.

(26-09-2013 09:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolutionists who understand this new discovery are shocked. They are now trying to explain why measured mutation rates of mtDNA are so fast, but their inferred mutation rates (based on fossil dating and the evolution of man from apelike creatures) are so slow. Perhaps, they say, mutations occur rapidly at only a few points on the mtDNA molecule, but later correct themselves. Therefore, many mutations are counted, but the net change is small. This “hot spot” hypothesis, is basically a “special pleading”—something imagined to solve a problem. Tests have shown the “hot spot” hypothesis to be invalid.

Citation needed (you were at least trying most of the time here!).

Models involving a constant mutation rate are a first-order approximation at best and are freely acknowledged to be insufficient.

Sixteen years (!) is an eternity in modern research; you have not addressed follow-ups to any of the work you (dishonestly) quote.

If ever anything were a known and demonstrable fact - human evolution is a fact. The amount of interconnected contingent data which must be flat-out denied to even question it is staggering. That some people actually chose to do just that is horrifying.

What you've posted amounts to "some results are inconclusive". Yes! That's science for you. Of course, that's not the whole sentence; the rest goes, "so let's improve them".

What you are doing is not science. It is tried and true dishonesty:
"Some results are inconclusive, therefore Bible".

Nope. Try again.

You can understand why I wouldn't find generalizations like "you misrepresent" and "you don't understand" compelling. Nor are there "tons" of evidence for 5mya divergence or 40,000 years of aboriginal history--especially since the last relies on dating methods touching on uniformitarian assumptions. I don't even want to continue to post citations and theories if that's what you've got. There are not multiple common ancestors, that is another assumption.

As for this last:

Quote:If ever anything were a known and demonstrable fact - human evolution is a fact. The amount of interconnected contingent data which must be flat-out denied to even question it is staggering. That some people actually chose to do just that is horrifying.

Which process are you posting hyperbole about it here? The staggering data that humans evolved from apes? lemurs? neither? That humans are currently exhibiting signs of transformation in their systems and body parts? What human evolution am I denying? It couldn't be the genetic descent because you've just written that is not as conclusive as the undeniable data that humans are... wait for it... at LEAST 40,000 years old. Wow, that totally decimates my worldview, along with the cave paintings, agronomy, buildings, languages, etc. that are at least tens of thousands of years old. How can I be a YEC for a second longer?

If any of you know a forum where the atheists think about their replies and post scientific data and not hyperbole, please let me know. I don't need your invective again, but I'd love some facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:17 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 02:04 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 09:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidenc...universe#1
The only thing you can and do "confound", troll, is obviously, yourself.
You need to look up what the term "special pleading" means SPJTJ.
Just as with "presentism" you have no clue.
So .... Mr. MINUS 6,
You actually claim you are "popular" here ?
What a fucking joke.
You are one of the 4 most pathetic trolls ever to grace these pages.
Your rep proves it.
But thanks for demonstrating to the world, just how delusional you really are.
Go away, pamphlet writer.
Your genetic bs you copy/pasted from somewhere is so pathetic, I'm not even going to waste my time with it. Read the first paragraph.
The entire thing is based on an obvious false premise. You are too stupid and uneducated to get why.
But keep it up. I love it when you idiots make fools of yourselves.
Jebus is Lard.

Even calling me "pamphlet writer" shows you don't read carefully. I am the author of, editor of and/or contributor to over a dozen books now in print. B-o-o-k-s, not including pamphlets and tracts. Which books have you written? Perhaps you can point me to them on Amazon?

So you keep saying.
Assertion is proof of nothing.
I have written a number of things here, Mr. Minus Six.
You have contributed nothing.
Perhaps you can point to ANYTHING, ANYWHERE worth reading.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(26-09-2013 11:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 07:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're making a general, sweeping (pissed off) statement about the Bible again. When presented with any Bible challenge, I tend to search the scriptures, logic and science to see what I might discern before consulting outside sources, and then, only rarely.

1. The Bible is like any other document, falsifiable, but has passed the many tests I've brought to it from challenges like those on this forum.

2. The Hell, atonement, suffering, etc. are not falsifiable ideas on an empirical basis since scientism is limited in its tools for metaphysics, feelings, etc. but again, you are making "gut judgments" here IMHO.

1. No it hasn't, at least not to anyone but the person with the vested interest in defending it as the one and only Truth. You just rehash a bunch of tired and illogical arguments from other apologists and cycle through a whole litany of them, constantly evading, and eventually circling back around to earlier arguments hoping that we had forgotten about them from earlier.

How do I know that's not true? Because 1) on the logic and analogies side, I am posting original thoughts that evolve in response to your answers 2) I do repeat myself when you evade a question, yes.

Quote:2. Prove the metaphysical exists, until then, shove it (sorry, was that not kind enough for you?). You're the one picking their subjective interpretation of their reality by their 'guts'. The rest of us at least try to use evidence and reason. How funny that your 'evidence' and your god are always just our of reach, always just over the horizon; and you wonder why nobody finds your shit even remotely compelling...

I never said god is just out of your reach? The Kingdom of God is within you. But I did note that when people with biases are confronted with evidence for and against something...

Again, if you would present me with your evidence that god does not exist, I'll become an atheist. I said "evidence" and not even "empirical or compelling evidence". Whadda you got?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: