[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > 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.   
      
   That has been you presumptive assumptions from the beginning. It has been   
   your ongoing perception about me in all areas of these discussions, it is   
   time to bring it to a halt as it is just wasting both our time.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > 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."   
      
   Oh I am able to all right, I just need the motivation and then allocate the   
   time to do it.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > 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?   
      
   We already discussed that.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > 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?   
      
   Nope, I just posted this thread there for you all to see the possibilities.   
      
   Some plant, some water, but it is God that gives the increase.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > *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   
      
   Like I said, he died years ago.   
   Scams are done by fraudsters, false prophets, etc.   
   And hucksters are more gullible that those they defraud.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > 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.   
      
   Who said it was?   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > 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   
   > > regards to the Heavenly Father. And had you given my statement some thought   
   > > you might see the truth in it.   
   >   
   > No, Isaac Newton was not ridiculed. "I know the lion by his claw," as   
   > one mathematician/physicist remarked respectfully about one of   
   > Newton's solutions to a problem. The Wright brothers were laughed at,   
   > but so was Bozo the Clown (i.e., in this situation, the adage means   
   > don't be so happy that you've been ridiculed).   
      
   As I said, had you been looking for truth, and you weren’t. You were   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)