 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / February 2008Resurrection Forbidden by Laws of Biochemistry
Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why resurrections from the dead are also prohibited. Even high school students are taught the details of the Krebs Cycle, which is the sequence of chemical pathways that convert sugar into ATP. That process takes place in the mitochondria, which are organelles present inside almost all cells of living animals, obviously including humans. When a person dies, the Krebs Cycle ceases to function in every cell in their body. Since that sequence of chemical pathways provides energy for the operation of every process that occurs in a living body, a dead body cannot perform even simple actions. So it is clear that the story of Jesus walking and speaking after his dead body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of biochemistry and are clearly not true. >Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of >the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of biochemistry and >are clearly not true. <shrug> Magic thinking allows the reply that, yes, it does violate biochemistry, but a Cosmic Magician can do that. (And he can beat up your magician, too.)  SignatureApostate a.a. #1931 .sig currently undergoing maintenance want a free or premium posting account with Teranews? https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=1089312 943&action=Create+New+Account&vendor=teranews -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly >>of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > biochemistry, but a Cosmic Magician can do that. (And he can beat up > your magician, too.) Whose side are you on, anyhow? If you're going to make the opponent's arguments for them, you'd better change your name from Apostate to Apostle. You need to brush up on your debate technique, Appomattox, because you're running the ball toward the wrong goal line. > >>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly > >>of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Apostle. You need to brush up on your debate technique, Appomattox, > because you're running the ball toward the wrong goal line. Do you have a rather severe reading comprehension deficit, perchance? Find me a proponent of that sort of argument who'll stipulate that Magic Thinking is hir authority, and then we'll talk about your objection. Wait! Don't tell me. You posted here looking for help finding an argument for giving naturally explainable events preference over miracles, for credibility. Concrete-thinking twit. SignatureApostate a.a. #1931 .sig currently undergoing maintenance want a free or premium posting account with Teranews? https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=1089312943 &action=Create+New+Account&vendor=teranews -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of >the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of biochemistry and >are clearly not true. Apart from the fact that he never existed in the first place? > Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of > the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why > resurrections from the dead are also prohibited. They're not. Why did you think they were? They happen every day in hospitals across the world. > Even high school students are taught the details of the Krebs Cycle, which > is the sequence of chemical pathways that convert sugar into ATP. That [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of biochemistry and > are clearly not true. Well, we don't know who proclaimed him dead, or what his credentials were for that diagnosis. That's if the whole thing isn't a complete fabrication from beginning to end. SignatureDenis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet http://www.ashenempires.com >> Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the >> folly of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been >> said about why resurrections from the dead are also prohibited. > > They're not. Why did you think they were? They happen every day in > hospitals across the world. I'm afraid that the Krebs Cycle is still functional in those people you're pronouncing dead. After three days in a dead human body, there no hope that the Krebs Cycle will ever again be functional. >> Even high school students are taught the details of the Krebs Cycle, >> which is the sequence of chemical pathways that convert sugar into [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's if the whole thing isn't a complete fabrication from beginning > to end. There's no reason to suppose that the parts involving non-magical events aren't part of the historical record. >> Well, we don't know who proclaimed him dead, or what his credentials >> were for that diagnosis. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's no reason to suppose that the parts involving non-magical events > aren't part of the historical record. Nor that they are. We simply don't know. We do know that some time later, there were stories .. whether they had any factual basis at all (and if so, how much) is unknown. >>> Well, we don't know who proclaimed him dead, or what his credentials >>> were for that diagnosis. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nor that they are. We simply don't know. Actually, there is. We accept unverified historical records from other cultures, and if we don't do the same with these, we're discarding data selectively. That's ne of the hallmarks of (loud dramatic voice) Bad Science. Sometimes there are even mysteries encoded therein that can be explained by simple common sense and logic, such as the use of lunar months, rather than solar years, to explain how men could live to be 900 "years" old. > We do know that some time > later, there were stories .. whether they had any factual basis at all > (and if so, how much) is unknown. >>>> Well, we don't know who proclaimed him dead, or what his credentials >>>> were for that diagnosis. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Actually, there is. We accept unverified historical records from other > cultures, Could you give a few examples especially when it pertains to superhuman or miraculous circumstances? > and if we don't do the same with these, we're discarding data > selectively. Discarding data selectively is done all the time when it does not fit the mold especially for instance of polls where they might be traced back to the same IP address or phone number. The same is done when the miraculous is claimed because today we just do not see examples of things like walking on water or raising people from the dead. > That's ne of the hallmarks of (loud dramatic voice) Bad > Science. You are wrong. It is good science when data that does not conform to what falls into the boundaries of the possible is thrown out. Keeping it in would be bad science. > Sometimes there are even mysteries encoded therein that can be > explained by simple common sense and logic, such as the use of lunar > months, rather than solar years, to explain how men could live to be 900 > "years" old. Using months instead of years does not work because then some of the people would have had to perform great deeds or had children when they were 6 months old. The matter of fact is that the greater the person and further removed from the telling of the story, the older (and in those cultures older meant wiser) they were. >> We do know that some time >> later, there were stories .. whether they had any factual basis at all >> (and if so, how much) is unknown. SignatureLater, Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com Webpage Sorcery http://webpagesorcery.com We Put the Magic in Your Webpages >Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of >the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of biochemistry and >are clearly not true. but you've got a lot of the proteins, lipids and polyolsacharides available. Try starting with dirt. :-) Ben >>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly >>of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > but you've got a lot of the proteins, lipids and polyolsacharides > available. Try starting with dirt. :-) Proteins, lipids, and polysaccharides don't constitute a working Krebs Cycle, either, and dirt does not spontaneously turn into living human beings, as you perfectly well know. >>>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly >>>of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Cycle, either, and dirt does not spontaneously turn into living human >beings, as you perfectly well know. I guess you did not notice the ":-)" at the end of my post. But since I am already typing a response I will elaborate and say I was trying to illustrate that he is wasting his time trying to refute resurrection based upon the Krebs cycle when they also believe that man was originally made from dirt. Theoretically, creating a human being from lifelessness is a task many more times difficult if you start with dirt rather than cell building block materials such as proteins, lipids, etc. Ben >>>>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the >>>>folly of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > resurrection based upon the Krebs cycle when they also believe that > man was originally made from dirt. And you're just a quitter, who would rather ridicule the competition than try to reason with them. My little fishing expeditions are regularly turning up Christians with inquisitive enough minds that they are willing do discuss science and listen to my arguments. > Theoretically, creating a human > being from lifelessness is a task many more times difficult if you > start with dirt rather than cell building block materials such as > proteins, lipids, etc. Which is why Occan's Razor prohibits the existence of God, and any supernatural nature of Jesus. That is in fact the root of all of my arguments against God and Jesus, but I only make it when I'm talking with the most scientifically educated of the Christians. Occam's razor is the most important tool that any scientist uses, but even your average well educated Christian probably has no idea what it means. It's too vague and general, and I'm looking for concrete arguments that the uneducated can wrap their minds around. >>>>>Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the >>>>>folly of the six thousand year creation, but very little has been [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >regularly turning up Christians with inquisitive enough minds that they >are willing do discuss science and listen to my arguments. You are naive or pissed I am spoiling your troll. I have learned over the years that there is no compromise with a person who believes the world is only 6,000 years old and we were created from dirt . Furthermore, that's what they believe, it is not ridicule. <SNIP> Ben >>And you're just a quitter, who would rather ridicule the competition >>than try to reason with them. My little fishing expeditions are >>regularly turning up Christians with inquisitive enough minds that they >>are willing do discuss science and listen to my arguments. > >You are naive or pissed I am spoiling your troll. From other evidence, I suspect the latter to be closer to reality. I am wavering on plonking "Agent Smith" as it is, for numerous negative reasons. He hides behind a false name, for a start. A confident non-coward male uses their real name, or their real nick-name or a variant of them. >I have learned over the years >that there is no compromise with a person who believes the world is only 6,000 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Ben > On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:53:18 -0500, Ben Kaufman > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > >Ben ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agent Smith, Thanks for this exposition on the Krebs Cycle. You are unique in the universe. There will never again be another you...or me. Now that we know that resurrection is an impossibility, I think the next step is to wait for contact with a super-intelligent civilisation or for the creation of machine super-intelligence. Unfortunately, the close encounter may come after we are already removed from the Krebs Cycle. Cheers, David H Reader Rabbit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>And you're just a quitter, who would rather ridicule the competition >>>than try to reason with them. My little fishing expeditions are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A confident non-coward male uses their real name, or their real > nick-name or a variant of them. Are you put off by my strident anti-superstitionism? >>I have learned over the years >>that there is no compromise with a person who believes the world is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>Ben >>>>And you're just a quitter, who would rather ridicule the competition >>>>than try to reason with them. My little fishing expeditions are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Are you put off by my strident anti-superstitionism? Not that I can recall, no. >>>I have learned over the years >>>that there is no compromise with a person who believes the world is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>>Ben >>>>>And you're just a quitter, who would rather ridicule the >>>>>competition than try to reason with them. My little fishing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not that I can recall, no. Well, all righty, then. :) >>>>I have learned over the years >>>>that there is no compromise with a person who believes the world is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> >>>>Ben One fine day in alt.atheism, Agent Smith <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> bloodied us up with this: > So it is clear that the story of Jesus walking and speaking after his > dead body had been cut down from the cross violate the laws of > biochemistry and are clearly not true. That and the prophesy that he would return within the lifetimes of his followers, and "those who pierced him", as the bible promises. Which, of course, never happened. All christians live a life of wishful thinking. They ignore failed prophesies. They believe they will be ressurrected after death as they think Jesus was. Unfortunately, nobody has a shred of evidence that would prove any such life-after-death is possible. Only empty promises in a book that ensures us that bats are birds, snakes can talk, a human man had a magic godwand that could turn water into blood, and that certain people (usually metioned in the old Pagain religions} could be raised from the dead. Sorry, but WHAT A LOAD. SignatureUncle Vic aa Atheist #2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department. Convicted by Earthquack. > One fine day in alt.atheism, Agent Smith > <agent-smith@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> bloodied us up with this: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > they think Jesus was. Unfortunately, nobody has a shred of evidence > that would prove any such life-after-death is possible. On the contrary, people have blunt, unvarnished proof that the human soul is not eternal, and it's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy must always increase. Another way to phrase it is that "information will always be lost." When a person dies, the information that was stored in his brain decays into nothingness, and it disappears forever. Nor, in fact is the human soul magical in any way. "Soul" is merely a catchall word to describes a person's entire personality, instincts, memory, emotional state and thoughts. After centuries of disproving magical explanations of nature, superstitious prople still refuse to see the obvious, and they continue to assume than unsolved science problems are magical in nature. They're dumb as rocks. > Only empty > promises in a book that ensures us that bats are birds, snakes can > talk, a human man had a magic godwand that could turn water into > blood, I've often thought that it would be nice to have a list of the miracles in the Bible, to separate the lies from the history. After hearing Jack van Impe advertizing the book he wrote, his analyzing the book of Daniel, I cracked it open and read it, only to find that it was probably the most highly concentrated reservior os supposed miracles in the entire Bible. For a while I tries to find rational explanations for the "miraculous" events, but there were so many of them that I very quickly passed the point of diminishing returns and decided that they were simply all lies. I have no doubt that van Impe found all that imagery and symbolism to be very fertile material inspire fantasies for him to write down as fact in his book. It makes me wonder what deception he was fomenting, with his fairly tales, but I suppose that it was probably just the usual ones - believe in Jesus and tithe to me. Yet there is so much about human nature that is unknown and/or unexplainable. For example: A subject under hypnosis can be led to believe that he is being burned when touched with a pencil eraser, and a blister will appear at the point of contact, even though the pencil is at room temperture. This strongly suggests that the molecular structure of one's body can be altered by purely mental processes. Imagine being able to harness such capabilities on a concious level. Then of course there are those savants who can instantly multiply 8- digit numbers in their heads, or flip through a phone book and memorize it. A good friend of mine was killed in Vietnam. I knew his mother well; she was a conservative, depression-era woman, very lucid and reserved, and not prone to silliness or hyperbole. One night, at about 3 a.m. local time, she suddenly sat bolt upright in bed, sweating, and overcome with a sense of dread that something had happened to her son. It had. He was killed at that exact, precise moment. Many people, me included, would be tempted to dismiss this as an example of how we sometimes ascribe esoteric meanings to things we can't understand... "there's no other explanation!" "It doesn't prove this, therefore it proves this!" Regardless, one of our failings as humans is that we insist on "understanding" everything, and when we can't, we ascribe it to some quality, or lack thereof, outside of ourselves, instead of acknowledging our own limitations. Bill S. bstevens@rock.com wrote in news:a9d60a3d-161a-4379-9e19-16fe00534f12 @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > Yet there is so much about human nature that is unknown and/or > unexplainable. For example: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > quality, or lack thereof, outside of ourselves, instead of > acknowledging our own limitations. Please note that none of these things is not forbidden by the Krebs Cycle, and thus you have provided no evidence that contradicts my claim. >> A good friend of mine was killed in Vietnam. I knew his mother well; >> she was a conservative, depression-era woman, very lucid and reserved, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Please note that none of these things is not forbidden by the Krebs > Cycle, and thus you have provided no evidence that contradicts my claim. Plainly, the writer chose this as an opportunity to suggest that the Krebs Cycle is not at the forefront of many people's lives and experiences. The Krebs cycle forbids nothing at all; it is not an agent capable of permitting or forbidding. I take your meaning of course and it would be better stated, perhaps, to explain that all higher forms of life (and lower ones I suppose) must start with an undifferentiated cell for the simple reason that more complex organisms have a great many cycles, not just Krebs, and all cycles must start simultaneously in a completely built body. >>> A good friend of mine was killed in Vietnam. I knew his mother well; >>> she was a conservative, depression-era woman, very lucid and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > experiences. The Krebs cycle forbids nothing at all; it is not an > agent capable of permitting or forbidding. Just because the Krebs cycle is not a conscious, humaniform organism, and does not have thoughts or a personality, does not mean that it is not capable of permitting or forbidding. By the fact that it is turned on or not, the Krebs Cycle is absolutely capable of permitting and forbidding the conversion of sugar into ATP. And by permitting or forbidding that chemical reaction, the Krebs cycle is perfectly capable of permitting or forbidding the functioning of a living organism. Once the Krebs Cycle has ceased to work, the delicate chemicals in it rapidly begin to break down, and after a period of about twenty minutes, the brain, which is the seat of the thoughts, personality and consciousness, cannot be restarted. Thus the "soul" is gone, and the body is merely an empty shell, possibly with a beating heart and a working digestive system, but with no human consciousness within. That's called death, and it's a permanent state. Before this century, when a person was dead, the heart could not be restarted, meaning that heart stoppage caused death, and the operation of the brain was irrelevant to the question of life or death. But neither the heart not brain can operate without a working Krebs cycle, and once that has stopped, death is permanent. After three days, the human body cannot walk, talk, think or knock on doors, because all chemical reactions have ceased. The unpleasant smell of decay tells us that the chemicals have broken down sufficiently that none of the chemical cycles can ever start again. > I take your meaning of course and it would be better stated, perhaps, > to explain that all higher forms of life (and lower ones I suppose) > must start with an undifferentiated cell If you want to write that essay and post it here, feel free, but I'm making my arguments with my essay the way I see the facts. My argument is about how the Krebs Cycle prohibits resurrections from the dead, and it is not about anything else, including undifferentiated cells. The Krebs Cycle is a concrete, fundamental and important piece of information that is taught in high school biology. It is something that I think smarter and more inquisitive, yet still scientifically uneducated, Christians can wrap their minds around. The growth of human bodies from undifferentiated cells is a long, complex, detailed process that would require a lot more explanation than my simple, obvious statement that sugar goes into the Krebs Cycle, ATP comes out, and ATP is responsible for driving *all* chemical reactions in the human body. My purpose here is to try to teach simple biology and physics to the Christians who were obviously so badly let down by the pathetic American public school system that they believe in blatantly incorrect scientific details, like resurrections from the dead. If you feel that you can make a concise, reliable argument based on your comment about undifferentiated cells, then feel free to write an essay that does so. But until then, this thread is about how the Krebs Cycle prohibits resurrections from the dead. > for the simple reason that > more complex organisms have a great many cycles, not just Krebs, All other cycles owe their existence to the Krebs cycle, which provides ATP for them to operate. You're right that they all stop, and cannot be restarted, when a person dies, but they also all owe their existence and functioning to the Krebs cycle, which is the most important of all the chemical cycles. Without Krebs, there is nothing, no life, no other chemical reactions, no working muscles, no electrical impulses along neurons, nothing. Krebs is king. > and all cycles must start simultaneously in a completely built body. There is no such thing as starting a completely built body, so don't waste your time trying to think about it. They didn't know that when Genesis was written, so the great thinkers of that day were obliged to just take their best guess about what must have happened. Today we know a lot of things that they had no idea about back then, because today we have biology, physics and geology. Today we have sufficient knowledge that we can improve upon the best guesses of the old thinkers, and we can build a better edifice than the work they did, way back then. The only way to start a body is the way we observe it happening routinely in everyday life - by conceiving a new baby, building it up slowly through the various stages of fetal development. All the systems slowly start up, little by little, over a nine month period, which is then followed by an eighteen year period of development ex-utero, as the person grows from childhood to adulthood. That's the way completely built bodies come into existence, by starting them slowly and incrementally, little by little, over a fairly long period of time. Just to be picky, the Krebs cycle isn't the only source of ATP - glycolysis does the job pretty well too, with many of the same raw ingredients, and at a much faster rate. It also doesn't require mitochondria (so for instance is the type of respiration favoured by red blood cells, they don't actually use the oxygen they carry around) and also in fast-acting muscles etc. ATP can also be produced directly from ADP in reaction with GTP, and through the break-down of fats (which admittedly still requires functional mitochondria.) So although the Krebs Cycle is hugely important as a source of ATP and co- factors, it is not the exclusive source. On another note, about the resurrection itself, the people living during Jesus' lifetime would have been well aware that dead bodies did not become reanimated, especially after 3 days, which in Jewish tradition is the time when the soul leaves the body. That is why the resurrections that are recorded in the Gospels, and elsewhere in the New Testament, are seen as miracles - because even given the knowledge available about the human body at the time, they are events outside of normal experience. So in some respects, to argue that they are biochemically impossible is simply to say that they are impossible given our latest understanding; which means if they occurred, they would have been miraculous as today as they were 2000 years ago. Andrew Porter <andrew.porter1@googlemail.com> wrote in news:65bbc3fd-5223- 45a4-bff2-3eb6dd64623e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Just to be picky, the Krebs cycle isn't the only source of ATP - > glycolysis does the job pretty well too, with many of the same raw > ingredients, and at a much faster rate. As i understand it, glycolysis is the first stage of the Krebs cycle, followed by pyrolysis, the electron transport chain, and now some new thing involving a sharp pH gradient, that they didn't know about, when I took senior biology in high school. > It also doesn't require > mitochondria (so for instance is the type of respiration favoured by > red blood cells, they don't actually use the oxygen they carry around) > and also in fast-acting muscles etc. This is very interesting, and I had never been taught these things, in my entry level bio classes. Is the cellular location where it non- mitochindrial glycolysis occurs confined to organelles, or is it diffuse within the cytoplasm, and what becomes of the resulting pyruvate? > ATP can also be produced directly from ADP in reaction with GTP, This is really interesting, because I've been fascinated by the use of nucleotides for things other than DNA and RNA. Before now, I'd heard of GMP, but never GTP. Thank you for broadening my horizons. ;) Is the purpose of GTP as just anther source for making ATP, and what is the GDP that results from that reaction used for? > and through the break-down of fats (which admittedly still requires > functional mitochondria.) I never thought of that. > So > although the Krebs Cycle is hugely important as a source of ATP and co- > factors, it is not the exclusive source. In your expert opinion, which is clearly *much* better informed than mine. what molar proportion of ATP would you say is produced from Krebs, as versus all those other mechanisms you listed, in the average (har har) adult human. > ... especially after 3 days, which in Jewish > tradition is the time when the soul leaves the body. There's another detail that I can take to the bank. Thanks again. :) > On another note, about the resurrection itself, the people living > during Jesus' lifetime would have been well aware that dead bodies did [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > given our latest understanding; which means if they occurred, they > would have been miraculous as today as they were 2000 years ago. Of course, all this is obvious, and ought to go without saying, among people bright enough to understand the Krebs Cycle. I was trying to give concrete, scientific weight to the argument against resurrections, by finding a nice, incontrovertible, technical peg to hang my hat on.. That's better than just saying "everybody knows that the dead don't get up and go for a Sunday stroll," because it moves from the superficial to the precise. As they might say in debate class, I was arguing from specifics to the generality. It's like the schoolchild who asks why the sky is blue, when everybody already knows that it is. When we take sophomore physics, they discuss in excruciating detail the behavior of light, teaching us precisely *why*, with differential equations and everything. That makes obsolete the answer "god made it that way," which is obviously just a proxy for a caveman saying "duh, I dunno," but refuses to acknowledge his own ignorance. What is your opinion on the verisimilitude of the miracles described in the Bible? Do you believe that, when God "restarted" Jesus' body, he methodically undid all the various stages of decay, both physical and chemical, setting the concentrations of all the delicate chemicals into the correct balance that he could then restart the Krebs cycle, as well as all those other pathways that you mentioned. Are you saying that Jesus then sat up on the slab in the tomb, took a big deep breath, stretched his arms, commented on how wonderful he felt, after such a refreshing nap, and then went for a Sunday stroll down to the House of Doubting Thomas? Or are you just playing the Devil's advocate? > Yet there is so much about human nature that is unknown and/or > unexplainable. For example: > > A subject under hypnosis can be led to believe that he is being burned > when touched with a pencil eraser, and a blister will appear at the > point of contact, even though the pencil is at room temperture. Bull. No blister. You can get them to jump. If you want a blister you have to rub the eraser on them untill they are burned. NS > Much has been written about how the laws of science prohibit the folly of > the six thousand year creation, but very little has been said about why > resurrections from the dead are also prohibited. Resurrection of a person after cellular death has occurred has never been credibly documented. Inflated accounts of the exploits of a charismatic cult leader, however, are common. You do the math. SignatureMarkA (My OTHER sig line is clever) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.