Re: Atheist Wakes Up In Morgue - After Meeting God
Ubiquitous <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh |
|---|---|
| Organization | Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/23/2026 3:14 AM, Andrew wrote: > "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? Yes. >> I don't have any burden to show what science *does* say — > > So you acknowledge that have no clue. No, I merely state that in showing that you lied about what "science says," I don't have to state what science actually says. I have shown that it doesn't say what you claimed it says. You lied. >> 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? I did. >> It doesn't say that. > > Then just explain what you claim it says. No, I don't have to do that in order to show that it doesn't say what you lied that it says. > >> My job is done. > > No, Yes, Krys-stain, my job is done. You're a religious fruitcake, and you are wrong.