Re: Atheist Wakes Up In Morgue - After Meeting God
Phil Omdahl <jaques.idiot.pal@number1>
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.atheism,alt.fun,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/24/2026 12:48 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of lies: > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says... >> >> On 8/24/2026 12:28 PM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch >> of lies: >>> In article <gI%[email protected]>, I'M-SURE-I'M-A-FUCKING- >>> [email protected] says... >>>> >>>> On 8/24/2026 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted >>>> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch >>>> of lies: >>>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>> says... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Andrew" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> "Ubiquitous" wrote >>>>>>>> Andrew wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Alan" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Andrew wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All evidence tells us that our origins has been the result of >>>>>>>>>>> ----- >>>> an intelligent causation <<<<. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What "evidence"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Start with a single example. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ~~~~ DNA ~~~~ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. That is *NOT* "evidence" >>>>>>>> of intelligent design or "creation." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Highly specified instructions written in a >>>>>>> digital code format, in a DNA molecule >>>>>>> would be evidence that some intelligent >>>>>>> Agency was involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You mean, "Look! DNA! Therefore, Goddidit!" >>>>>> >>>>>> No, that's just as nonsensical today as it was yesterday. >>>>>> Don't you have anything better? A Chick tract or something? >>>>> >>>>> Yet you have no other explaination. >>>> >>>> *You* have no explanation that stands up to any scrutiny. >>> >>> You admit you have none. >> >> You're the one who claims to have one, and you don't. > > Again you admit No. Whenever you say that your opponent — your better in every way — "admits" something, you're lying. There is never any such "admission." *You* have no explanation that stands up to any scrutiny.