Re: Atheist Wakes Up In Morgue - After Meeting God

"Ubiquitous" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 8/22/2026 4:47 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, 
> posted another content-free batch of lies: [email protected] says...
>>> On 8/22/2026 11:16 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
>>> of lies:[email protected] says...
>>>>> On 8/22/2026 11:10 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
>>>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch
>>>>> of lies:[email protected] says...
>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Attila" wrote:  "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>>> <<>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folks, if there is no plausible Darwinian pathway for our
>>>>>>>>>> origins, then pure logic points us to Creation by a most
>>>>>>>>>> awesome and wonderful Creator. . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The process is not yet known, that's all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who accept what science has already discovered, there is no debate.
>>>>>>>> They know that....,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             "Life comes only from previously existing life."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, science does not say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what does science "say"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the issue. That knuckle-dragging credulous gullible fuckwit "Andrew" said
>>>>> that science says "Life comes only from previously existing life," and that's
>>>>> false. Science doesn't say that.
>>>>
>>>> So what does it say?
>>>
>>> I'm only addressing that crackpot knuckle-dragger "Andrew's" lie about what he
>>> claims science says. He's wrong. I don't have to tell you what science does say
>>> in order to point out that it doesn't say what that fucktard "Andrew" claims it
>>> says.
>>
>> So you lied and
>
> I didn't lie. "Andrew," a fucktarded religious crackpot, lied and said that "science says" something. I proved him to be a liar.

You did? I would really like to see that please!

Because if you can prove that I lied, then I would be obligated to recant.

> I don't have any burden to show what science *does* say —

So you acknowledge that have no clue.

I see.

> all I had to do is show that it *doesn't* say what
>  that lying religio-freak "Andrew" claimed it says.

Then why can't you do what you just claimed?

> It doesn't say that.

Then just explain what you claim it says.

> My job is done.

No, don't give up and go home yet.

Because you have some explaining
to do.



~ Andrew