[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>   
   >> It is similar -- key words here would be Delk footprints and CT scans   
   >> of those footprints.   
   >   
   >Not really as they were speaking of a different material than limestone.   
   >There are hand prints and foot prints in Arizona, Utah, etc. in rock from a   
   >nearby era. Human imprints. Some deer, etc. as well, why is that? In Central   
   >and South America that are many other such life evidences, some astoundingly   
   >beautiful.   
      
   No dinosaur prints, though?   
      
   >And in the Rain Forest of the Amazon a large city covered up by the jungles.   
   >Lots of things to learn there, as well. Ancient people were not as stupid and   
   >illiterate as many gave them credit for.   
      
   Hunter-gatherers would probably be illiterate but not stupid. However   
   I don't know of anyone that would claim literate and intelligent   
   civilizations couldn't exist in the Americas 2500 years ago.  I mean   
   that civilization lasted to almost the beginning of the well-known   
   Maya civilization which developed in the jungles of Central America.   
      
   >> > > > The reason that stood out to be was because the evolutionary   
   scientists   
   >> > > > who   
   >> > > > tried to say that somehow the human foot prints were man made seemed   
   >> > > > absurd   
   >> > > > to me, it was like they were grasping at straws to disprove it   
   because it   
   >> > > > stood out so bad in a manner that contradicted the current thinking of   
   >> > > > evolution.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > I find it interesting that these YECs have gone *back* to Paluxy,   
   >> > > despite its history of fraudulent "human footprints."   
   >> >   
   >> > That has nothing to do with what is on the table of topics for this   
   >> > discussion. Which I prefer to stick to at this time.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, let's just agree that human footprints with dinosaur footprints   
   >> have been debunked, and move on.   
   >   
   >Sorry, but I have seen the evidences so I cannot agree with you.   
      
   So I'll just assume you were wrong, and we can move on.   
      
   >> > > > Of course when they dug up their own sites and discovered the same   
   things   
   >> > > > they were blown away, and I remember a couple of them saying that this   
   >> > > > find   
   >> > > > means that they have to completely changed their order of things or   
   that   
   >> > > > this just destroyed in so completely that no longer could they accept   
   the   
   >> > > > theory.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Pure fabrication.   
   >> >   
   >> > Typical subjective reasoning for agenda focused people.   
   >>   
   >> Cite the scientists who you claim acted this way.   
   >   
   >I would if I still had the documentation. Which BTW I might have on one of my   
   >old hard disks that I have stored away.   
      
   Yeah, why don't you post those when you're "able to find them."   
      
   >> > > > HOWEVER! LOL, there was a large group of them who then came up with   
   the   
   >> > > > idea that whoever created the original footprints MUST have created   
   those as   
   >> > > > well and then recovered the land, bushes and trees to make it all   
   look natural.   
   >> > > > And they literally believed what they said, at least outwardly.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > They moved the trees and shrubs around? Where did you get that from?   
   >> >   
   >> > That is what the naysayers suggested and claimed.   
   >>   
   >> What naysayers?   
   >   
   >The very scientists that you requested the cites of.   
      
   What were the names of these scientists?   
      
   >> > > > Their argument basis of thought reminded me of the typical low level   
   >> > > > atheists   
   >> > > > arguments as the same reasoning skills or lack thereof was in full   
   effect.   
   >> > > > And those people were educated, some very highly.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > No, atheist arguments are not low-level, the way theist arguments are.   
   >> >   
   >> > Really? Look at your comment just above, the reasoning of it and the knee   
   >> > jerk reaction.   
   >>   
   >> What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?   
   >   
   >Oh brother......   
      
   What do you mean by that?   
      
   >>   
   >> > While it sounded unreasonable to you, and you recognized that, it was   
   still   
   >> > their reasoning and thinking, and the cause for them to excuse away   
   >> > something that did not support their agendized thinking and arguments.   
   >>   
   >> Are you claiming that you have no agenda?   
   >   
   >Yes.   
      
   So you're not here in alt.atheism to win souls for Christ?   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > *he sometimes refers to a time when he was dead and   
   >> > > sometimes refers   
   >> > > > > > > > > to a situation where he was teetering between life and   
   death; which   
   >> > > > > > > > > is   
   >> > > > > > > > > it?   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Both. His OOBE and the realities of being in a spiritual   
   state he   
   >> > > > > > > > sometimes   
   >> > > > > > > > assumed he was back on earth as he saw things clearly. Had he   
   been   
   >> > > > > > > > back   
   >> > > > > > > > in   
   >> > > > > > > > his body he would have felt the consciousness that his body   
   was aware   
   >> > > > > > > > of.   
   >> > > > > > > > Paul, the Apostle, could not tell when he visited heaven   
   whether he   
   >> > > > > > > > was   
   >> > > > > > > > in   
   >> > > > > > > > the body or out of it. He had been stoned to death at least   
   once, and   
   >> > > > > > > > as I   
   >> > > > > > > > recalled he was killed something like three different times.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > But these days he says he *was* dead, not that he was at that   
   time   
   >> > > > > > > maybe dead, from his perspective.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Not sure as to whom you are speaking of here.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What is the name of this thread? Is it "I died and was teetering on   
   >> > > > > the edge of death for 18 years"? Or is it *I died*... and went to   
   >> > > > > heaven for 18 days"   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > The latter, of course, but the Apostle Paul was just mentioned and His   
   >> > > > trip   
   >> > > > to heaven so I could not tell to whom you were referring.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > If it was the latter, why does Gabe describe his condition being   
   >> > > teetering between life and death, rather than just death?   
   >> >   
   >> > From what I gathered those things happened on and off during various days   
   in   
   >> > the midst of the 18 days.   
   >> > His book coming out should cover a whole lot more detail, and I plan on   
   >> > buying it to see what all was written.   
   >>   
   >> What do you think about his association with Kenneth Copeland?   
   >   
   >What association?   
      
   He's involved in the scam of the prosperity gospel   
      
   >> > > > Obviously the yung man said he was dead, with rigor mortise at the   
   fore,   
   >> > > > and at the end he was to be or about to be, put into a body bag.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What about post-mortem decay, as mentioned by some other poster?   
   >> >   
   >> > What about it, they did not view the video, you did, you also heard that   
   >> > they   
   >> > put him on life support systems, which is typically done on the dead in   
   >> > order   
   >> > to preserve short term viability in order to harvest organs from those   
   that   
   >> > are organ donors.   
   >>   
   >> They had to wait 18 days after he died to harvest his organs? Was he   
   >> even an organ donor to begin with?   
   >   
   >I never said that, I just explained that the same process was used to keep   
   >him ’alive’ as for them, I gathered that his family was hoping that he   
   >would recover naturally as others have. After all they gave him meds to   
   >assure that he would be put into a comatose state which helps many to recover   
   >from brain injuries.   
      
   A comatose state is not death.   
      
   >> > That is the problem with agendized dismissive arguments, they toss out all   
   >> > forms of reality to focus on something that fits their narrative and   
   thereby   
   >> > project false conclusions.   
   >>   
   >> Well, you're definitely not a purveyor of "reality."   
   >   
   >Same thing was said to the Wright brothers. And Issac Newton. And some in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)