Abiogenesis or God?
- Thread starter ernest_theweedwhackerguy
- Start date
- Status
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
Well, since even a literal reading of Genesis says that God used abiogenesis to create life (Adam was molded from non-living clay after all) this pole is left without reason to exist.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
gladiatrix said:
I am well aware of the endless rationalizations I ran into in the abiogenesis thread. I spent hours going over this nonesense and it was one deadend after another.
What in these bizzare allegations would lead me to suspect that you followed a word of all the mess lucaspa sprung on me. For one thing God is not directly testable through inductive testing or obervation. What I have rejected is that methodological naturalism represents the only means by which we can determine truth.
If you don't have an intelligent argument for abiogenesis then I suggest you stop spaming the lucaspa exchanges.
Now while lucaspa had some interesting points he was in the bad habit of making double posts that turned the whole thing into a huge mess. I have been in a number of very interesting debates elsewhere that taught me a great deal about biology and genetics. Here what I encountered is the assertion that it is not a part of evolution, followed inevitably by the burning sarcasm of antitheistic satire, and the occasional substantive point. I have encountered chaos theory, the Fox experiments, the technology that manufactures symetrical amino acids. What I encounted in that particular thread was a huge labyrith of disjointed quote mining.
Oh, by the way, it may interest you to know that I challenged him to a formal debate to limit the length of his posts. It was ironic that after he had posted to another formal debate he was not invited into, but when I offered to debate him formally, he declined. It may also interest you to know that abiogenesis is pure supposition based on radical naturalistic methology. There is precious little in the way of real world proof for it and informed evolutionists are aware of this.
Now if you want to know my postion is on abiogenesis then try this link.
Abiogenesis and evolution
You may well want to check out the Talk Origins discussion of abiogenesis before you jump headfirst into the shallow end of the subject.
Upvote
0
Number one: stop lying, mark. That's what the creationist board is for and I don't appreciate it. And I don't mean in this thread, I mean this entire forum.mark kennedy said:
Gosh, mark. If god isn't alive, then why did you post this and this? It seems to me that if god isn't alive, then there's no need to consider god and abiogenesis at such odds. If god did create life on Earth, it certainly would be abiogenesis, it's just supernatural.
mark, I'm not trying to define anything out of existence. I leave those pointless games to others. You can say that "god is alive by definition," but the obvious problem is that if god isn't alive, then your definition is terribly inaccurate. And if god is alive, then it isn't by virtue of your definition. To put it another way, if you were to tell me that sharks, by definition, had laser beams attached to their heads, then it doesn't mean that the animals everyone else recognizes as "sharks" actually have laser beams attached to their heads.
And I suggest you look up "satire," as you clearly know satire no better than you know myth. If someone tells me that an object orbits the sun, I'd be justified in asking the orbit's eccentricity, period, and so on. If you tell me that god is alive, then I'm justified in asking what god eats, how he defecates, and so on.
mark, you forgot to tell us just how evolution or abiogenesis qualities as myth. With that failure in mind, I somehow must doubt your assertions here. In fact, given your past behaviour, it seems more likely that you're just confusing your arrogance for actual knowledge.
Gee, mark, it was rather clear what I was responding to and why. Here's a hint: go back to where I quoted you. Those words that I quote are yours, mark. The words that follow are mine, in response to those words of yours.
Hmm, you need more? Sure, I'm always happy to help you through your creationism, mark. "Abiogenesis is not only a rejection of God as a source for life, but life as a source for life." Now read those words of yours, then read the following: "If abiogenesis is a rejection of anything, it's a rejection of the vitalistic spark that was thought to differentiate life from non-life. However, it's long been known that the chemisty in humans and other living creatures is entirely possible outside of living beings. Or do you think that urea can only be produced by "living" chemical reactions." Hopefully it's all clear by now, because I really can't explain this response thing any better.
Gee, mark. All science uses methodological naturalism. Gravity, electromagnetics, natural selection, and atoms are all products of this. Would you agree that the concept of atoms is a prime expression of this materialistic and atheistic world view? Will you be giving up your religion, or refuse to accept atomic theory, mark?
And you seem somewhat bitter that science doesn't include the supernatural. You do know that this is not arbitrary, don't you mark?
I have some idea of what abiogenesis is, though I'm not expert. But perhaps you'll tell me what the "major problems" are. You see, mark, I'm so tied up in correcting your...misconceptions, there's just not much time for anything else.
Once more you confuse your arrogance for knowledge, mark. You tell me that I know nothing of religious thought, but you've done less than nothing to show that this assertion is in any way true. And when you claim that evolution is a myth and then refuse to support this claim, it's rather difficult to not talk down to you, mark. If you could only correct your errors, things might be different.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Brahe said:
Like I said, I don't appreciate you posting a response to me and talking about me in the third person. If you don't like me calling you on it, then don't do it.
If you mean this:
Mark Kennedy" said:
Its because its true that the Living God is not defined in biological termonology. If you have some kind of a point I wish you would make it and stop this little headtrip you are into.
By what distortion of logic did you get the impression that since I believe that God is alive by definition, abiogenesis is life from nonliving material and God is dead? I have fielded some ridiculas twists of logic but this one is off the charts.
What on earth could you possibly be talking about? I said that God is alive by definition, you just got things twisted around to mean that I think he is dead. You are going in circles so fast it is making making me dizzy, you keep useing the same tied, baseless assertions and pretending that it makes perfect sense.
God neither eats nor has any defects nor any of the other absurd notions you are rambling on about. By the way, while you are thumbing through your dictionary looking up words, look up God. I never offered a definition I just said that by definition God is alive, which you keep saying means that he is dead. So while you are at it look up alive.
Ok, so while you are looking up alive and God, look up evolution, abiogenesis, arrogant and knowledge.
You can forget me going back and looking up any of the statements you have posted to this or any other thread. If you want to quote me, then quote me, but stop with the headtrips your wasting my time.
Look, I have 20/20 vision and I caught your ... opinion the first time and responded with my own. I know that urea is produced by living creatures as a by product of metabolism and thats it. That is the extent to which you statements and questions have gone and unless you want to elaborate, thats all I really have to say about that.
That is an all time low even for you, giving up my religion so I can accept atomic theory? You are really out there aren't you?
I'm not bitter, or even mildly concerned about what you think science does or does not include.
While your being condesending maybe you could tell me how abiogenesis happened. I posted this to a formal debate and was told that it had nothing to do with evolution. Now if you need anymore basic biology I'm here for you but only if you learn how to use a dictionary.
"Among the icons (idols) of modern mysticism there is one that reigns supreme. It is the myth of evolution. We scoff at the gods of the anchient pagans as if we were untouched by their superstition and yet we mystify our science with the likes of Darwin, the high priest of natural selection. Darwin taught a fable that started in a warm little pond and through a process that has became known as gradualism (minute changes over eons) all life arose out of a primordial soup.
Sit back and close your eyes because you will need your imagination for this one. It all began billions of years ago when the elements were forging the impersonal, elemental, primordial world and cooking something I like to call primordial soup. The first part in our mythical trilogy is the emergance of life from biochemical nothingness.
There are basic things that have to be functional before chemicals become the 20 amino acids of life (there are many chemical amino acids but only 20 in living organisms) and the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose. Basically the chemistry has to make a transition that will create (for lack of a better word) RNA or something like it. RNA is the key to life replicating itself. Some how Amino acids form into chains forming polypeptides, this polypeptide chains are the building blocks of proteins. These proteins are folded into three dimensional structure called conformation. This as far as I know is the fundamental process that makes up the mechanisms that build into the most basic form of life, the cell. Now mind you the cell at this point has yet to be built but the basic tools and materials have been formed.
There is a need for nitrogen containing compounds called nitrogenous bases: (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), cytosine (C ) and uracil (U) for the double helix to be formed. This requires RNA to facilitate its formation. This is required for the information in DNA to be expressed and utilized. RNA is used in all biologic functions. We know this from observation and experimentation so there is little room for speculation here. The nucleic acid RNA (ribonucleic acid) has to be present for amino acids (asymmetrical) to produce proteins and nucleic acids.
Now there is a lot of debate about this asymmetrical relationship of nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose. There is no question that this relationship is absolutely necessary for chirality to occur. The problem here is that when they are produced in labs they are symmetrical. Both sides can be produced independently but they are never together. These molecules have to be mirror images of one another even though both sides have identical molecules. My point being.
Life is not chaotic it is orderly and requires replication. Without this you just have a lot of chemicals mixing in an infinite variety. The reason that life must be derived from life (biogenesis) in the minds of most is that this is the only way we have ever seen it happen. "You can imagine anything you like but you can only understand the truth" as Newton said. Now if amino acids are the mirror image of nucleic acid sugars and this in true of all living things then we are limited to this as fundamental to life. This in my opinion is the fundamental first step and it cannot happen peicemeal, it all has to happen all at once."
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2004
- 7,646
- 251
- 35
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
First of all, how DOES nothing evolve into something? How could that be proven, or even thought of as true? Just like atheists say,"Prove there is a god.", I'll have to say,"Well, where did the dust come from in the universe to create earth, by getting compact soo much that its smaller than a period at the end of this sentence.****at one, then just blowing up and creating the earth. Prove that."And then people stumble around it. I've said this before, I believe God created the earth, just like you believe he didn't. Its all a belief thing. You atheists and scientists will say its not....But you know it is.
Upvote
0
It's not, and your "understanding" of the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, and abiogenesis is sadening. and shocking.ernest_theweedwhackerguy said:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
meebs
The dev!l loves rock and roll
mark kennedy said:
You, know i agree with Jet black here - Its like you are saying that God and natural law are exclusive from each other - so you sayin' if abiogenesis were proved, there would be no God? So even though i think evolution is proved so you think i dont beleive in God cos he cant have anything to do with it? So God is not the God who created the natural laws of the universe? so therefore he cannot be the God of this universe, so therefore there is no God.I say no, open youre mind to new possibilities, What if God were the one who created things this way? Would you be disapointed? I can see beauty in everything he created, whether it was this way or not! if it is disproven, fine, but there will always be other theories to consider.
Upvote
0
gladiatrix
Card-carrying EAC member
And your comment about the alleged "endless rationalizations I[you] ran into in the abiogenesis thread" has what to do with your attempt to conflate such things as methodological naturalism and theology?mark kennedy said:
RED HERRING, much!!!
????I NEVER said your god concept WAS TESTABLE===>You imply that your god concept IS testable when you attempt to conflate MN and theology.mark kennedy said:
- You have used methodological naturalism (MN)and theology as though the two things were somehow interchangeable.
- I was pointing out to you that IF that is so, then for YOU to continue trying to conflate the two, then you would also have to abide by the rules of MN which can only consider empirical evidence.
- The above means that in order to establish you god as a fact, you would need empirical evidence (to abide by the rules of MN, IF MN and theology are really the same).
Declared "alive" by whose definition? The Bible's? The only verifiable fact about the Bible is that it is the work of men who merely claimed to be "inspired" (how, when? on the toidy? what?) by a most conveniently invisible "entity" who even more conveniently seems only to have "spoken" (how?, when? where?) to them. As you should be aware, personal experience (the only thing the Bibical authors can claim) is NOT empirical evidence.mark kennedy said:
The only reason that you persist in trying to conflate theology with MN is that you desperately need for the two to be the same in order to special plead your deity into existence. The way you "accomplish" this is to claim that MN is simply , how do you say it:
As yet, you have provided no evidence that MN/abiogenesis/evolution is some form of "theology" in any post you have made in this forum. You simply persist in making the DECLARATION that it, i.e., MN/evolution/abiogenesis = theology, is so. Your transparent strategy goes like this:mark kennedy said:
- Since you know good and well that no empirical evidence is used by theists to justify their beliefs, you clearly need the same to be true of the proponents of evolution/abiogenesis.
- To "make it so", i. e., first, you DECLARE MN to be a "theology" and hence by DECLARATION any scientific theory that arises from the application of MN must necessarily be nothing more than "theological" dogma, comparable to your theological dogmas (everything, even the MN are just "faith-based"). As yet you have NOT given any argument that would even come close in justify your declaration that MN/evolution/abiogenesis = theology.
- Second, you simply DENY and IGNORE any and all empirical evidence for evolution or abiogenesis.
I don't recall that anyone ever claimed that MN was "the ONLY means by which we can determine truth". MN says nothing one way or another about the "supernatural". You have admitted above that, and I quote:mark kennedy said:
What you want is for science to accept your theology as part of a methodological naturalistic explanation for the appearance/history of life on Earth, even though your god/theology doesn't begin to abide by ANY of the rules of science/MN. Now that is special pleading in spades. In other words, since you admit that your god is NOT testible, then your god concept has NO PLACE in any kind of methodological naturalistic explanation for either the appearance of life on earth nor it's history since it's "debut". You can't have it both ways, i.e., you want your god concept to be accepted as part of a scientific explanation, BUT don't want to have to abide by the rules of science that demand empirical evidence to establish the validy of "mark kennedy's God-did-it"as part of that same scientific explanation.mark kennedy said:
Well, it looks like my claim that you simply ignore what's presented to you has just been validated. These (posted AGAIN, since you ignored them the first time) are my posts on the subject, NOT lucaspa's==>From Post #20mark kennedy said:
1. Note that posts a through d were my own.gladiatrix said:
2. Furthermore, unless you can show that they "don't have an intelligent argument for abiogenesis", then that makes you simpy guilty of an unwarranted ad hominem attack in place of any argument.
3. Also note that I posted the links in ~e~ as a COURTESY to you to demonstrate that I had taken the time to read your arguments and was quite aware of your position on the subject (unfortunately for YOU, lucaspa easily disposed your arguments, posted for lurkers/readers to see just how off the scientific beam your arguments were). Apparently you don't seem to want to extend the same courtesy of reading what others have written choosing rather to display condescending arrogance instead. Do keep it up, again the poverty of your position is quite obvious.
I can see why lucaspa also poses a real problem for your evolution = atheism/abiogenesis = atheism mantra in that he is a Christian ...doesn't seem to have affected his god-belief in the slightest. This is yet another falsification of your contention. Oh wait, he's not a "TRUE Christians, right? (mark's way or the atheist highway)?
Double posting??? This is a argument (assuming it's true) against anything lucaspa posted, HOW? Now that is really a pathetic argument, but you've got nothing else in the way of an argument (Argument from Double-Posting...I'm underwhelmed)mark kennedy said:
There is little in your posts to back up the above bit of chest-pounding. As evidenced by your next remark:mark kennedy said:
And burning sarcasm was ALL you deserved for your continued attempt to try and portray abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory, because it is NOT. And you were claiming to have been "taught [..] a great deal about biology and genetics"??!! PullleeezzzEE!!!mark kennedy said:
Your encounters with these concepts has obviously left you none the wiser when it comes to biology or how science works. Looks like more chest-pounding to me (scientific concept name-dropping in lieu of scientific understanding)mark kennedy said:
An example of this "disjointed quote-mining" and how it didn't apply to any of your arguments would be what?? (the irony meter shatters at a creationist's huffing about "quote-mining"...reminder to self, turn the darned thing off when reading mark's posts).mark kennedy said:
Oh pulleeze! More adolescent, testosterone-poisoned chest-pounding!!! Lucaspa OWNED you during any encounter you had with him. IF he declined your offer, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't out of compassion for you (he really didn't wish to make your position look any worse than it was and STILL is). In other words, I don't think lucaspa is "afraid" of anything you might have to say (what you are trying to imply).mark kennedy said:
Oh and BTW, why would he need to be invited to a debate in order to post in it? This is an open forum last time I looked. Let's assume that he posted in an controlled formal debate (your evidence for that would be what). All that would rank as is a violation of etiquette which is NOT an argument that would rebut anything he may have posted in "violation" of any formal debate rule (Ex. must be a designated proponent of X position in order to post an argument) Let's call this "Mark's Argument from Bad Etiquette"...again color me underwhelmed.
Only if one completely ignores the EVIDENCE (posted by myself, lucaspa, and myriad others).mark kennedy said:
Radical naturalistic methodology? Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that you demand that your god concept, a faith-based theological concept, be accepted without question and WITHOUT any supporting empirical evidence as the foundation of a scientific theory which can only be established BY empirical evidence (the foundation of the scientific method, i. e., "radical naturalistic methodology" according to you).mark kennedy said:
Special pleading, cognitive dissonance, much!
Repeating the lie that there is no evidence is still a lie. (The Goebbelspeak is strong with this one!)mark kennedy said:
And a list of these alleged "informed" evolutionists would be? Why is it that I suspect that you only consider those people to be "informed" if they agree with your position?...but hey, I await your list of scientists who do (paging "Dr." Hovind!)mark kennedy said:
Been there, done that, noticed that you got OWNED on that thread. Not impressedmark kennedy said:
~~Snicker!~~ Thanks for the laugh...the irony was priceless!mark kennedy said:
Upvote
0
- Jun 1, 2004
- 7,646
- 251
- 35
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Jet black, if you think that evolution and abiogenesis actually happened, then why do you have the laws of thermodynamics for your sig?
Upvote
0
Karl - Liberal Backslider
Senior Veteran
- Jul 16, 2003
- 4,157
- 297
- 56
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Labour
It's to demonstrate that, correctly stated, the laws of thermodynamics do not make abiogenesis or evolution impossible, despite creationist claims to the contrary.
You are aware, of course, that if the creationist version of the SLoT were true, life itself, not just evolution, would be impossible?
You are aware, of course, that if the creationist version of the SLoT were true, life itself, not just evolution, would be impossible?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Wow... this guy is really dense. That is too much non sequitur nonsense for me to handle.mark kennedy said:
Do you not understand the concept of "If"?mark kennedy said:
Also notice that "alive" and "dead" are a false dichotomy because something can be considered not "living" and not "dead" at the same time (i.e. is a rock dead, because it is not alive?).Brahe said:
mark kennedy said:
Irony meter is going off... You asserted God was alive within the context of a scientific discussion, which warranted for Brahe to ask about the mechanisms that are requisite life relate to God.wikipedia said:
Let me break it down for you a little more just in case you don't understand:
We were talking about science. You said "God is alive". Brahe thought:
Hmm "God is alive"? Well, if it is alive it must grow, defecate, and reproduce like every other living thing as is defined by biology (Since we were talking about science, biological definition must be assumed). So how does he do this? I know, I'll ask mark kennedy. And so he asked, "Mark kennedy, how does God defecate, grow, and reproduce?"
There is no satire in this. Satire is when you "1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly" (m-w.com). It's also not really pedantic because that's when you try to unnecessarily try to show off knowledge. Which he isn't trying to do, he's just curious about the living mechanisms of God.
Okay, here, Brahe was just trying to say that thing that normally come from Life (e.g. urea) can also come from non-life (e.g. produced in a lab).mark kennedy said:
It also seems to be that you don't understand sarcasm. Let me break this down for you:mark kennedy said:
It looks like you think science and scientists are all out to take God out of science. Brahe was trying to explain to you why this was not the case by providing examples in which "God" as an explanation was not needed whatsoever (gravity, electromagnetics, natural selection, atoms). Then using sarcasm (sarcasm is when you say something you don't really mean but to make a point) he made a parallel between "God and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive" and "God and atomic theory are mutually exclusive" to make the point that naturalistic methodology (i.e. science) does not deal with the supernatural, which you do not seem to get.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
gladiatrix said:
Where you got this is a mystery to me but methodological naturalism rejects theology as a matter of course. What I have come to appreciate is the they have some common ground, abiogenesis is just not one of them.
I don't know what conflate means but it sounds disgusting and I have no problem discerning between NM and Christian theism. You seem very confused about both and your a prime example of how if you accept anything in NM you have to accept all of it, and if you reject part you have to reject it all.
What you are resisting is the secret realization that God is revealed to even the most willfully ignorant.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
I know that naturalistic materialism is antitheistic from top to bottom. I don't need NM to understand or appreciate evolutionary biology. Whats more empirical evidence is nothing without the mind it takes to understand it. It is clear you are woefully ignorant of NM in principle and practice. It is telling that this is just one long argument around abiogenesis and one long antitheistic rant. I don't appreciate the inflamatory personal remarks but its interesting to see if there is a real point to these bizzare, condescending rationalizations.
That my pedantic, overzelous friend is exactly what it is:
"Since most of the matter and energy in the universe is in external galaxies farther away than a million light-years, God must have created most of the matter and energy in the universe to deceive human beings. That is such a malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension that I cannot believe anyone, no matter how devoted to the literal interpretation of this or that religious book, could seriously consider it.
Nevertheless, this sort of doctrine is being urged upon us. Already there are trends essentially to prevent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools. Since evolution is one of the major insights in the biological sciences, this restriction can only be understood as a serious and major attack on the teaching of science itself."
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/sagan.html
For one thing abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory so don't try to equate the two. For another thing I am not even mildly concerned, much less desperate, to convince you or whoever you think you represent.
The rest of your post is the same inflamatory nonesense, abiogenesis is the same naturalisitic materialism that has been poisoning the well for a century and a half. Now if you have something intelligent to say, then fine, I'll be glad to listen to what you have to say. On the other hand if you continue to spew out these ridiculas allegations and insults I have no recourse but to shun you for being divisive and argumentative.
I never really had a problem with lucaspa or his arguments, all I ever asked was that he be more consise and take it one post at a time. I was perfectly willing to debate him formally and the offer still stands. As far as fielding these endless posts that repeat the same tired, inflamatory insults. I am not going to waste my time.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
RoboMastodon said:
You can't have it both ways, you can't exclude theistic reasoning from natural science and then demand that God be defined as if he were a plant or a fish. There is more then one way to define 'life'.
"10. The system of animal nature; animals in general, or considered collectively.
Full nature swarms with life.- Thomson.
11. An essential constituent of life, esp: the blood. The words that I speak unto you . . . they are life.
- John vi. 63."
You can't understand the Living God by trying to make Him out to be like fish, birds, plants or sinfull man.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:23)
What you are trying to do is called idolatry in Scripture. The only science that defines God is theology and it is at the other end of the spectrum of knowledge. In fact the only way God is defined is by His eternal nature and divine attributes and this is well beyond the reach of natural science. Now as far as God's glory reflected in the things that are made, leaving mankind without excuse...the only way you could not see it is to be willfully ignorant.
Upvote
0
Mark Kennedy calls God "alive."
Opponents point out that the word "alive" doesn't make sense when applied to God.
Mark Kennedy changes the definition of "alive."
Truly a classic debate.
p.s. Don't make gladiatrix mad. You wouldn't like her when she's mad.
Opponents point out that the word "alive" doesn't make sense when applied to God.
Mark Kennedy changes the definition of "alive."
Truly a classic debate.
p.s. Don't make gladiatrix mad. You wouldn't like her when she's mad.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
hordeprime said:
Oh yea right, I had the people at Websters rewrite their dictionary to include a definition that worked for me. Watch out! I have connections at Websters and I'm not affraid to use them.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
