[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > 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.   
   >   
   >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.   
      
   So bring it to a halt.  It's no skin off my nose.   
      
   >> > > > > > 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.   
      
   So post them as soon as your "motivation" comes in to rescue them for   
   you.   
      
   >> > > > > > 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.   
      
   No, we discussed people that have supposedly had OBEs -- I was asking   
   you for the names involved, which is similar to what I'm requesting   
   here but is clearly different.   
      
   >> > > > > > 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.   
      
   And what did you think would happen when the "possibilities"  were   
   "seen"?   
      
   >Some plant, some water, but it is God that gives the increase.   
      
   Could that planting and watering be the proselytizing you deny you're   
   attempting here in alt.atheism?   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > > *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.   
      
   What about wealthy televangelists?  Is it God, in your opinion, that   
   makes them rich?  Or is it all a scam?   
      
   >> > > > > > 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?   
      
   Anyone who claims Gabe Poirot was dead for 18 days.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)