[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

As for all kinds of viruses, modern or retro, they are caused by sin. They would not have been present before the Fall from Grace

I keep trying to get back on topic but he seems to keep posting science which I know is very unreliable. After the Fall from Grace did these viruses come from fragmented parts of other creatures

ISAIAH 57 .KJV . context
20 The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

for example when tyrannosaurs started eating meat, which floated around to be ingested by other creatures and make them sick enough to die? We know that Grace loss affected all the universe and perhaps viruses are part of that effect in this way.

ROMANS 8 .KJV . context
20 The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

I created this page especially for the hard of understanding

Adapted from Wikipedia: "By the year AD 802,701, humanity has evolved into two separate species: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi live a life of ease on the surface, while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing for the Eloi. Having nothing they need to do, the Eloi have slowly become like cattle, smaller than modern humans with sub-human intelligence. All they do is feed, play, and mate. When one of them, Weena, falls into a river, none of the other Eloi help her. She is rescued instead by the Time Traveler. Every so often the Morlocks capture individual Eloi for food, and because this typically happens on moonless nights, the Eloi are terrified of darkness."

How would we prove that the Eloi and the Morlocks had indeed both descended from modern humans? Well, we have signatures in our DNA that were written by retroviruses.

They put their DNA into the DNA of our cells to "fool" them into making new retroviruses.

Sometimes, a retrovirus puts its DNA into the DNA of an egg or sperm cell. When this happens, it becomes heritable - you can inherit it from your parents and pass it down to your offspring. These heritable bits of viral DNA are called ERVs - Endogenous RetroViruses. Fortunately, they no longer fully perform their original functions, otherwise, humans would be extinct.

The signature of any endogenous retrovirus is that it can be found in exactly the same place in the DNA of every single one of your nuclear cells (every cell with a nucleus - which is most of them). The viral DNA ends up in the same place because it, along with all the rest of your DNA, is copied from the DNA of the original single cell you started out as. In contrast, the viral DNA that you have acquired from viruses in the environment is not present in all of your nuclear cells, and in those where it is present, the viral DNA ends up in different points in your DNA, comparing one infected cell with another.

To recap:

Viral DNA in the same place in the DNA of every cell means that it is inherited.
Viral DNA in different places in only some of your cells means that you have caught a virus from the environment.

Now if we find that all the Eloi have the same viral DNA as us, in every cell, in exactly the same places as us, we know that they must have inherited it from us, and therefore we are their ancestors.

The same goes for the Morlocks. The same viral DNA in the same places in every cell means that the Morlocks also descend from us.

Note that we do not even need to look at our own DNA! If we find the same viral DNA in the same places in every cell of every Eloi and Morlock, they have to have had common ancestors from which they inherited it (us!).

Bear this in mind when the ERV FAQ mentions, not Eloi and Morlocks, but humans and chimpanzees!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

I created this page especially for the hard of understanding

Adapted from Wikipedia: "By the year AD 802,701, humanity has evolved into two separate species: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi live a life of ease on the surface, while the Morlocks live underground, tending machinery and providing for the Eloi. Having nothing they need to do, the Eloi have slowly become like cattle, smaller than modern humans with sub-human intelligence. All they do is feed, play, and mate. When one of them, Weena, falls into a river, none of the other Eloi help her. She is rescued instead by the Time Traveler. Every so often the Morlocks capture individual Eloi for food, and because this typically happens on moonless nights, the Eloi are terrified of darkness."

How would we prove that the Eloi and the Morlocks had indeed both descended from modern humans? Well, we have signatures in our DNA that were written by retroviruses.

They put their DNA into the DNA of our cells to "fool" them into making new retroviruses.

Sometimes, a retrovirus puts its DNA into the DNA of an egg or sperm cell. When this happens, it becomes heritable - you can inherit it from your parents and pass it down to your offspring. These heritable bits of viral DNA are called ERVs - Endogenous RetroViruses. Fortunately, they no longer fully perform their original functions, otherwise, humans would be extinct.

The signature of any endogenous retrovirus is that it can be found in exactly the same place in the DNA of every single one of your nuclear cells (every cell with a nucleus - which is most of them). The viral DNA ends up in the same place because it, along with all the rest of your DNA, is copied from the DNA of the original single cell you started out as. In contrast, the viral DNA that you have acquired from viruses in the environment is not present in all of your nuclear cells, and in those where it is present, the viral DNA ends up in different points in your DNA, comparing one infected cell with another.

To recap:

Viral DNA in the same place in the DNA of every cell means that it is inherited.
Viral DNA in different places in only some of your cells means that you have caught a virus from the environment.

Now if we find that all the Eloi have the same viral DNA as us, in every cell, in exactly the same places as us, we know that they must have inherited it from us, and therefore we are their ancestors.

The same goes for the Morlocks. The same viral DNA in the same places in every cell means that the Morlocks also descend from us.

Note that we do not even need to look at our own DNA! If we find the same viral DNA in the same places in every cell of every Eloi and Morlock, they have to have had common ancestors from which they inherited it (us!).

Bear this in mind when the ERV FAQ mentions, not Eloi and Morlocks, but humans and chimpanzees!

Dear sinner,

H.G. Wells was a product of an era that started the Darwinian mutiny against Jesus. No-one here appreciates metaphors based on his stylistically mediocre writings. As I told you earlier, we do understand the secularist claims of retroviruses and transposons being incorporated into DNA and how you calculate the differences between the base pairs of these elements. Before you load us with more of this well-known naturalistic stuff, it is time for you to assess our side of this deal.

Jesus does not care. Because of that, nor do we.

2 Timothy 2:16
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

We have assessed these claims many, many times, and found them in contradiction with the Bible. If we accepted them, we would have to discard many pivotal parts of the Bible, of which the most important is Genesis 1:27. If we discard the First Chapter of the Bible as erroneous, we can no longer trust anything. Unless you provide us with Scriptural harmonization of your data, we must stay loyal to Jesus. Based on the evidence we have (the Bible), your claims are logical, well-constructed but ultimately delusions. These delusions have been caused by people abandoning God and Christ.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Dear sinner,

H.G. Wells was a product of an era that started the Darwinian mutiny against Jesus. No-one here appreciates metaphors based on his stylistically mediocre writings. As I told you earlier, we do understand the secularist claims of retroviruses and transposons being incorporated into DNA and how you calculate the differences between the base pairs of these elements. Before you load us with more of this well-known naturalistic stuff, it is time for you to assess our side of this deal.

Jesus does not care. Because of that, nor do we.

2 Timothy 2:16
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

We have assessed these claims many, many times, and found them in contradiction with the Bible. If we accepted them, we would have to discard many pivotal parts of the Bible, of which the most important is Genesis 1:27. If we discard the First Chapter of the Bible as erroneous, we can no longer trust anything. Unless you provide us with Scriptural harmonization of your data, we must stay loyal to Jesus. Based on the evidence we have (the Bible), your claims are logical, well-constructed but ultimately delusions. These delusions have been caused by people abandoning God and Christ.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

I note that you, presumably proudly, describe yourself as a "baraminologist".

Read the following.

"Derwood" on baraminology, posted in various discussion venues, e.g.

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=59603

Well, let’s take a look at this creationist metaphysic in action. I will let the objective, rational reader determine if this metaphysic is the superior one when dealing with issues scientific…

When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.

The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended from the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.

These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent from a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expanded on earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.

Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:


“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272 , 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”

This will be of interest later.

Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.

It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.

Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise. And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.**
Was known to the authors. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.

The other data, ecological data, is the most subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence' for a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:


“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:


“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…

That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…

What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:


“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.

The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

*I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues from CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

I note that you, presumably proudly, describe yourself as a "baraminologist".

Read the following.

"Derwood" on baraminology, posted in various discussion venues, e.g.

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=59603

...They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper: Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.**
Was known to the authors. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp...

As I stated previously, dear Sinner, this is old news. For science, it is especially old, dating from 1996. Those days they still had to do qPCR by using water baths of different temperatures for each cycle. This is old news but your quoting it shows that, similar to most atheist scientists, you fail to understand the methodology and nature of evidence in Godly Creation Science.

• You make a hypothesis. You design an experiment. Based on the results, you make conclusions. That is the twisted way that alienates people from Christ.
• Creation Science, in contrast, uses the age-old well-tested methodology and our evidence is very different from yours. We already have the evidence, the Bible and the Glorious narrative of Jesus Christ. We have no need for hypotheses. The conclusions are already there in the inerrant word of God.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

As we now the conclusion, it is the duty of Creation Science to look at the observations and choose from them the ones that are correct and not delusional. We can do that by comparing the evidence material to the Bible. If observations support the known Truth™, they they are correct. As for the baranimological study that you quoted (it is a classic), they carefully chose the 43 characters that turned out to be correct based on the Truth™ that was not the endpoint but the startpoint of the study. Of course the morphological characteristics were meticulous chosen to support the Bible. That is our duty (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

The same goes for your retroviruses and other micro-orgasms. You should stop doing research backwards to disrupt the Truth™. I sincerely hope and pray that this will help you understand the error of your ways!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

As I stated previously, dear Sinner, this is old news. For science, it is especially old, dating from 1996. Those days they still had to do qPCR by using water baths of different temperatures for each cycle. This is old news but your quoting it shows that, similar to most atheist scientists, you fail to understand the methodology and nature of evidence in Godly Creation Science.

• You make a hypothesis. You design an experiment. Based on the results, you make conclusions. That is the twisted way that alienates people from Christ.
• Creation Science, in contrast, uses the age-old well-tested methodology and our evidence is very different from yours. We already have the evidence, the Bible and the Glorious narrative of Jesus Christ. We have no need for hypotheses. The conclusions are already there in the inerrant word of God.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

As we now the conclusion, it is the duty of Creation Science to look at the observations and choose from them the ones that are correct and not delusional. We can do that by comparing the evidence material to the Bible. If observations support the known Truth™, they they are correct. As for the baranimological study that you quoted (it is a classic), they carefully chose the 43 characters that turned out to be correct based on the Truth™ that was not the endpoint but the startpoint of the study. Of course the morphological characteristics were meticulous chosen to support the Bible. That is our duty (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

The same goes for your retroviruses and other micro-orgasms. You should stop doing research backwards to disrupt the Truth™. I sincerely hope and pray that this will help you understand the error of your ways!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Science works, Elmer. This is the most important distinction between real science and your cargo-cult "science".

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Science works, Elmer. This is the most important distinction between real science and your cargo-cult "science".

How do you measure what "works"? By its capability to produce technology? Medical applications? Predict observations? If that is your criterion, naturalistic science does work. You look at the fossils of Pakicetus (from the floodwaters that carried it inland more than 4000 years ago) and see that it reminds us of artiodactyls. You predict that this is visible in its DNA and, Lo, it is! They are related (of course, God made the DNA's relatively similar). In this manner science "works". We do not measure success in that manner. Creation Science works because it leads people into Heaven. Heaven is forever. 90 years on Earth will dwindle into insignificance after a few trillion years in Bliss in Heaven. It is only in Heaven when we shall see what "works".

Matthew 5:12
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

We do not produce technology or material innovations. We are the Light that brings people unto Jesus. That is the True™ measure of things. Not how they "work". In this manner we do some tangible good that not only produces pistons that fall apart but permanent Happiness in Heaven.

Matthew 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.



PS: The cargo cult reference is just an ad ridiculum fallacy. I'll ignore that now. You'd do better if you concentrated on the content of our posts and refrained from the fallacies (obviously, you're high on ad hominem).


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

How do you measure what "works"? By its capability to produce technology? Medical applications? Predict observations? If that is your criterion, naturalistic science does work. You look at the fossils of Pakicetus (from the floodwaters that carried it inland more than 4000 years ago) and see that it reminds us of artiodactyls. You predict that this is visible in its DNA and, Lo, it is! They are related (of course, God made the DNA's relatively similar). In this manner science "works". We do not measure success in that manner. Creation Science works because it leads people into Heaven. Heaven is forever. 90 years on Earth will dwindle into insignificance after a few trillion years in Bliss in Heaven. It is only in Heaven when we shall see what "works".

Matthew 5:12
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

We do not produce technology or material innovations. We are the Light that brings people unto Jesus. That is the True™ measure of things. Not how they "work". In this manner we do some tangible good that not only produces pistons that fall apart but permanent Happiness in Heaven.

Matthew 5:16
Let yourlight so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.



PS: The cargo cult reference is just an ad ridiculum fallacy. I'll ignore that now. You'd do better if you concentrated on the content of our posts and refrained from the fallacies (obviously, you're high on ad hominem).


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Science lifts spacecraft into orbit and beyond. It produces medicines that work. It has given us computers and the internet, which you are busy abusing. You may well owe your life to an atheistic gay mathematician - Alan Turing. (I'm not gay myself, BTW, not that it's relevant.) I've made a pilgrimage to Bletchley Park. Have you?

[Faith_Machine]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Barry, this is the worst introduction I have ever read. You haven't said one word about your walk with Jesus, which church you attend, whether your wife has borne you some sons, etc.

And you're apparently a victim of a pop-up blocker that can never be disabled? That's odd.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Science lifts spacecraft into orbit and beyond. It produces medicines that work. It has given us computers and the internet, which you are busy abusing. You may well owe your life to an atheistic gay mathematician - Alan Turing. (I'm not gay myself, BTW, not that it's relevant.) I've made a pilgrimage to Bletchley Park. Have you?

No, I owe my life to God. He has given us all the things you say "Science" has given us. He even created the scientists, you know?


Praying works. I just prayed for cake and coffee for breakfast, and you know what? That is what I had.

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Some idiot from your site keeps sending me spam emails. Please remind them that I have a very strict spam blocker and an anti-popup. If they want to communicate with me, do it via this forum's posting mechanism.Thanks.

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Barry, this is the worst introduction I have ever read. You haven't said one word about your walk with Jesus, which church you attend, whether your wife has borne you some sons, etc.

And you're apparently a victim of a pop-up blocker that can never be disabled? That's odd.

Stop being so silly. You are showing yourself up.

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Stop being so silly. You are showing yourself up.

And STILL the garbage keeps coming into my spam folder! Are you people incapable of reading?

[BrotherLarry]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

You sure ask a lot of funny questions, Barry.
(By the way, did you notice our names rhyme?)


If we were incapable of reading, how could we be sending all this information to you so you don't rot in hell? I noted you didn't even give my post to you any response. Perhaps it was because you were stunned by how simple the truth is. Perhaps you are just rude.


You are insulting baraminology - one of the bases for my field of doctoral study - despite being told countless times that the Bible is the source of ALL knowledge. Want to know how to kill a giant? It's in there. Need to know what happens when you get a haircut? It's there, too. My perfect, loving and all-knowing GOD gave us a book that is beyond all other books. It is the book of books. And in this book, which contains several books, we learn about creation, forgiveness, life everlasting, with some recipes and poetry thrown in so we don't get bored with all the begats and whosoevers. Praise God!


Well, Barry, since you won't take it from a PhD or a future PhD, I assume you'll be the dust that I wipe from my shoes (Matthew 10:14). Tell the devil I said hello.


BrotherLarry (Revelation 22:12)

[Barry Desborough]

Re: Please allow me to introduce myself

Barry, this is the worst introduction I have ever read. You haven't said one word about your walk with Jesus, which church you attend, whether your wife has borne you some sons, etc.

And you're apparently a victim of a pop-up blocker that can never be disabled? That's odd.

FYI, I don't walk with imaginary zombies, nor do I attend a church, mosque or any other sort of temple. I am an atheist, you see. I have two biological sons, two biological grandsons, and four other grandchildren acquired following the deaths of their natural parents (plus others that still keep in touch after my wife and I helped them in their periods of special difficulty). So, FM, what do you make of my FAQ? Most theists accept the truth and reality of evolution, regarding it as the way in which their god created all the wonderful variety of life that we see. Do you have a problem with this?