My Reconciliation Challenge

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

You make up meaningless words and expect us to accept them. Illogical.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.


Completely detached from reality? I'd say we've proven that we don't like that very much at all.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

Hey, you're welcome to show how supralogical is a meaningful term by defining the word and showing how supralogical terms are not illogical.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

Whatever. I don't care what you think about that - but it's what you say that's wrong. Let's deal with that.
 
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

Now now, I seem to remember you telling me this several times before, and every time I have posted to the contrary, you being a bit sussed and not replying. I think you would do well by not telling people why they don't like you. They actually find that be a surprising good reason to dislike you, actually.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Now now, I seem to remember you telling me this several times before, and every time I have posted to the contrary, you being a bit sussed and not replying. I think you would do well by not telling people why they don't like you. They actually find that be a surprising good reason to dislike you, actually.

This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38. This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

For example:
  • My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
  • I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
  • I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.
  • My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."
  • I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.
  • My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
  • Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
  • I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.
I hear the sirens of the wahmbulance, so I'll stop here; but open up your eyes and take a look around - your future is at stake here.
 
Upvote 0
H

HeelyJoe

Guest
Alright, I think I'll stop lurking around here and start contributing.

My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
As far as I can tell, people don't like the Apple Challenge because it really doesn't prove anything at all. I seem to recall a poll about this particular challenge that reached the same conclusion, and yet I keep seeing you pop into threads challenging people to take it. Put yourself in their shoes...

I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
Again, this is just me, but as far as I can tell, you are ridiculed because you admit that there is no evidence and yet you continue acting like you know it happened. It is frustrating.

My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."
I saw at least a few people on that thread who did not rule it out, but perhaps you were only referring to a specific group.

I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.
From what I have seen you post, you don't quite share the same definition age with us.

My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
I have not seen this thread, but I do know that rocks do reset themselves under certain conditions. Are you refuting that, or are you simply pointing out the similarities between rocks that have existed since the big bang, yet are dated as only 4.5 billion years old, and your bike thread?

Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
I think the point here is that Creationism has no scientific applications. It doesn't matter if a scientist is a Creationist or not, as long as it doesn't interfere with their work.

I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.
AV, you just admitted that you have absolutely no scientific evidence for many of your claims here. How is this a higher standard?


-----------


But again, I don't claim to be speaking for anyone else, and since I haven't really contributed anything yet, I can't speak for myself quite yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityCheck
Upvote 0

BrainHertz

Senior Member
Nov 5, 2007
564
28
Oregon
✟8,340.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38. This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

For example:
  • My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
Maybe I'm misrembering, but I'm pretty sure I responded saying that I agreed when you actually said that.

However, the point remains that you still believe it, and people are bound to ask why...

  • I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.

But don't you believe it occurred anyway?

  • I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.

There is a third answer which is generally supported by atheists...

  • My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."

Actually, I don't think that's correct. I can't rule out anything about what happened before the big bang, or even determine whether it is a meaningful question. I don't think I'm alone by any means.

  • I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.

You might need to go over your definition of "old" again, because I don't honestly know what your position is on this point any more.

  • My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.

Must have missed that. Definition?
In the case of rocks, one has to be careful about what the measurement actually means before attaching the label "...old" to it.

  • Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.

Really? I'd say the most important thing is not determining the answer until you have the data...

  • I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.

I'm not sure I've ever understood what standard you're asking of science.

I hear the sirens of the wahmbulance, so I'll stop here; but open up your eyes and take a look around - your future is at stake here.

Whoa. Who is calling the wahmbulance again? Please understand that there is a big difference between not liking somebody and merely disagreeing with them. Just for the record, I only disagree with you (much, but not all, of the time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityCheck
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38.

Actually, it is. Sorry to disappoint you.

This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

Something you never do.

For example:
  • My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.

Using mythology to attempt to prove other mythology true has that effect -- sorry if people aren't as in love with your ideas as you are.

  • I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.

You get ridiculed for demanding that we prove the Flood happened -- do your own homework.

  • I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.

Actually, it's just you. I've got no problem with people interpreting the Bible as allegory -- I do so myself. The only people ridiculing the allegorists are the literalists.

My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."

Because "we don't know yet" isn't accepted by you as an answer -- you prefer to rely on mythology.

  • I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.

You believe the Earth was created 6100 years ago -- Your claim of 4.57 billion years is nothing but Omphalos.

  • My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
If you knew what you were talking about, someone might be willing to discuss the rocks with you.

  • Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
Objectivly evaluate the facts, without any mythological hocus-pocus? Oh, sorry, that's what a Creationist will not do. My bad.


I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.

Your claim is gibberish -- your "higher standard" is your own literalism.

I hear the sirens of the wahmbulance, so I'll stop here; but open up your eyes and take a look around - your future is at stake here.

The only one riding the wahmbulance is you. And our future is just fine, your pronouncement from the mount notwithstanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityCheck
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟23,538.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38. This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

For example:
  • My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.

Because you don't actually agree with "scientists." You believe in the mythology of Genesis 1 even while claiming that there's no reason to actually believe it.
  • I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
Again - same thing. You believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. That's fine, plenty of people do. But then you demand that scientists provide the evidence that you don't have. That's ludicrous beyond ridiculous.
  • I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.

Yeah, sucks to be an apologist. That's only one of many reasons I won't do it.

  • My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."

Because you absolutely and obstinately refuse to even try to understand the basics of cosmology, relativity, and quantum physics (even without all the long hard math stuff) that would explain why your question "how did mass/energy come into existence" is a completely irrelevant question.

  • I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.

This is not genuine and you know it. You are a YEC because your full contention is that the earth was created 6100 years ago but then accelerated in age to give the appearance of having been created 4.57 billion years ago. You're a YEC with a special lemon twist, but you're still YEC.

  • My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.

WTH is existential age? What a load.

  • Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
It's not that a Creationist can't do it, they simply won't do it because doing so would violate their beliefs.

Of course, that presumes Creation "scientists" actually work in a laboratory or actually do any research into Creationism. They don't. There is nothing scientific at all about Creationism.

  • I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.

That would be because your claim is garbage and false.
 
Upvote 0

us38

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities
Jan 5, 2007
661
35
✟8,508.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38. This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

For example:
  • My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
  • I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
  • I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.
  • My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."
  • I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.
  • My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages, an existential age and a physical age, and it gets ridiculed; while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
  • Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
  • I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.
I hear the sirens of the wahmbulance, so I'll stop here; but open up your eyes and take a look around - your future is at stake here.

All of which I responded to in this post, to which you never replied. It is what you say, not what you are. Now please, for the fourth time at least, stop telling me why I don't like you.
 
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

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
This isn't an emotional outburst generated by a persecution complex, US38. This is based on about a year's observation of some of the things I've said, that, quite frankly, has taken me by surprise; because even agreeing with "scientists" doesn't matter.

Of course you wouldn't see it as a persecution complex - you think we really do dislike you for what you "are." But it's still wrong.

For example:

My Apple Challenge proves that there's no science in Genesis 1 at all --- yet people hate it for some reason.
Because the Apple Challenge contradicts not supports your conclusion that the earth was created as in Genesis.
I contend that there is absolutely no evidence for the Flood --- yet I get ridiculed.
Yes, because you believe in the flood nonetheless.
I support the literal method of Bible interpretation, yet I get ridiculed; while those who support an allegorical interpretation get ridiculed as well.
Whatever - an allegorical interpretation is far better.
My latest thread shows that almost everyone who takes my Ex-nihilo Challenge cannot explain how mass/energy came into existence; yet creatio ex nihilo is the only one that is automatically ruled out as an option by those "in the know."
You haven't actually responded to those who did try and explain it, so that's a claim you're not justified in making. Again, creation implies a creator, and you've not established that anything did come into existence.
I contend the earth is 4.57 billion years old, then get accused of being a YEC.
Because you also contend that the earth is 6100 years old - earning you the title of an inconsistent YEC.
My Bicycle Challenge shows that a single bicycle can have two different ages
Not when speaking English it can't. Your bicycle challenge showed that quite conclusively.
while the age of rocks on the earth routinely "reset" themselves.
The age of a rock is the age since its formation. The age is measured to a reset date close to its formation, so it's quite good enough.
Some say believing in Creationism stunts scientific growth, yet no one at all can tell me what they can do differently in a laboratory or science class that a Creationist cannot do.
It depends - does one have to be intellectually honest?
I claim we hold science up to a higher Standard than even "scientists" themselves do, then get ridiculed for bashing it.
Because you hold science up to a higher standard in the same way that only allowing scientists to conform to the drunken ramblings of a tramp is holding it up to a higher standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RealityCheck
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course you wouldn't see it as a persecution complex - you think we really do dislike you for what you "are." But it's still wrong.

No, it's not wrong.

Take another look at your answers. What you're telling me is that atheists are unwilling to consider creationists trustworthy until creationists take the same mindset as an atheist.

For example --- look at your answer about my contention that there's no evidence for the Flood:
  • Yes, because you believe in the Flood nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0

MrGoodBytes

Seeker for life, probably
Mar 4, 2006
5,868
286
✟15,272.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
No, it's not wrong.

Take another look at your answers. What you're telling me is that atheists are unwilling to consider creationists trustworthy until creationists take the same mindset as an atheist.

For example --- look at your answer about my contention that there's no evidence for the Flood:
  • Yes, because you believe in the Flood nonetheless.
Well, what do you expect? You tell people loads of completely bizarre things not even other YECs agree with, let alone mainstream Christians, then you say that there is no evidence for what you just told, but you believe in it anyway. Our agreement that there is no evidence is irrelevant because you arrive at the opposite conclusion.

And don't get me started on your transcendentally irrational argument of proving God by claiming that only he could have removed the evidence for the Flood. We don't see any evidence for the flood, ergo God exists. ^_^
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, what do you expect? You tell people loads of completely bizarre things not even other YECs agree with, let alone mainstream Christians, then you say that there is no evidence for what you just told, but you believe in it anyway.

I don't keep tabs on who is replying to me, so would you do me a favor please and give me one YEC that disagrees with anything I've said? Actually I would expect a YEC to agree with me in the first place; as I would expect all YECs to disagree with you, too. The reason it seems bizarre to you - (I'm sure) - is for two reasons:
  1. You don't answer my questions.
  2. When you do, you're sometimes dishonest and almost always accusative.
To prove it, I'll ask you again a question that I once asked you some time ago, that I was highly disappointed that you didn't honestly answer. I think it went something like this:
  • MrGoodBytes: Where did the water go?
  • AV1611VET: God cleaned it up.
  • MrGoodBytes: Chapter and verse, please.
  • AV1611VET: He didn't document it.
Now comes an excellent question on your part:
  • MrGoodBytes: Then how do you know He cleaned it up?
And my excellent response:
  • Who is the only one who had the power to clean it up?
And now your highly-disappointing answer:
  • .
Now you have the gall to say this:

And don't get me started on your transcendentally irrational argument of proving God by claiming that only he could have removed the evidence for the Flood.

Please do get started on this, MrGoodBytes. I'll ask you again, if God didn't clean it up, who in the Bible did? Please be specific.
 
Upvote 0

MrGoodBytes

Seeker for life, probably
Mar 4, 2006
5,868
286
✟15,272.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I don't keep tabs on who is replying to me, so would you do me a favor please and give me one YEC that disagrees with anything I've said?
You could try to convince the folks over at the Creationist only forum of your embedded age hypothesis.

Actually I would expect a YEC to agree with me in the first place; as I would expect all YECs to disagree with you, too. The reason it seems bizarre to you - (I'm sure) - is for two reasons:
  1. You don't answer my questions.
  2. When you do, you're sometimes dishonest and almost always accusative.
You seem to have difficulties distinguishing between people not answering your questions and people not answering your questions they way you want it.

To prove it, I'll ask you again a question that I once asked you some time ago, that I was highly disappointed that you didn't honestly answer. I think it went something like this:
  • MrGoodBytes: Where did the water go?
  • AV1611VET: God cleaned it up.
  • MrGoodBytes: Chapter and verse, please.
  • AV1611VET: He didn't document it.
Now comes an excellent question on your part:
  • MrGoodBytes: Then how do you know He cleaned it up?
And my excellent response:
  • Who is the only one who had the power to clean it up?
And now your highly-disappointing answer:
  • .
That's irrelevant. The Bible does not say that God "cleaned up" the traces of the Flood. Of course, God could have done so, but that is not what the Bible says.

Now you have the gall to say this:



Please do get started on this, MrGoodBytes. I'll ask you again, if God didn't clean it up, who in the Bible did? Please be specific.
The key phrase here is in the Bible. I don't start from your assumption that everything in the real world has to comply with what the Bible says, so the question is pointless to me.

We are left with two possibilities:

  1. the flood happened, but God made the traces it left disappear for reasons unknown. This is not what the Bible says. It could have happened that way, but I repeat: that is not what the Bible says.
  2. the flood didn't happen, at least not on a global scale.
 
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

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The key phrase here is in the Bible. I don't start from your assumption that everything in the real world has to comply with what the Bible says, so the question is pointless to me.

I do though; so why then does your myopia justify this wisecrack:

And don't get me started on your transcendentally irrational argument of proving God by claiming that only he could have removed the evidence for the Flood. We don't see any evidence for the flood, ergo God exists. ^_^

Two questions:

  1. What then is a transcendentally rational argument?
  2. When have I ever used the Flood story to "prove God"?
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What then is a transcendentally rational argument?

transcendent: universally applicable or significant

rational: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason
"a=b, thus b=a" would be transcendentally rational.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
No, it's not wrong.

Take another look at your answers. What you're telling me is that atheists are unwilling to consider creationists trustworthy until creationists take the same mindset as an atheist.

For example --- look at your answer about my contention that there's no evidence for the Flood:
  • Yes, because you believe in the Flood nonetheless.

Indeed. You say, "There's no evidence for the flood" and then you say, "I believe in the flood." I quite agree with the first statement, but I still don't like it because you believe in the Flood anyway.
What did you expect? Why is it disliking who you are to dislike the contradictions you say and, presumably, believe?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Please do get started on this, MrGoodBytes. I'll ask you again, if God didn't clean it up, who in the Bible did? Please be specific.

Of course, you're just being bloody-minded here. You know exactly why Bytes' response was a simple period, because you know exactly how irrational your response is. Or at least, how irrational it looks to anyone who doesn't share one of your assumptions - an assumption, I would point out, very few people in this world share and one which, of the many many many occasions you have been challenged on it, you respond probably less than 5% of the time.
On those rare occasions, you also refuse to continue any sensible debate, and cease replying after one or two back-and-forths. Hence it is no wonder, really, that we see your beliefs as irrational, that we "dislike" (or at any rate, disagree with) a lot of what you say.

The only reason I can see that you claim to be disliked for what you are is that you consider this fundamental, unevidenced assumption of the Bible's accuracy to be some fundamental part of you. That, however, is a rather odd thing to do - you'd be much more accurate in saying we don't like/disagree with one of the things you believe.
 
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

atomweaver

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2006
1,706
181
"Flat Raccoon", Connecticut
✟10,391.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Now comes an excellent question on your part:
  • MrGoodBytes: Then how do you know He cleaned it up?
And my excellent response:
  • Who is the only one who had the power to clean it up?
And now your highly-disappointing answer:
  • .

Who was it that was telling me only a couple of days ago, that its was disingenuous to respond to a question, with another question..? Hmmmmmmm
 
Upvote 0