Creationists

[Hollie]

The discussions that require you to cut and paste from creationist websites are causing you angst. Your failing at any productive participation. You should just leave... for the third time.

Canned Athiest Accusation #5: Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”

In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorizes and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the “forward” approach in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” With these thinkers, the investigation was faith-based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Paley. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover” — i.e. from effect to its “best” causal explanation — is obviously empirically based.

To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (Creationism) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward equals backward. What could be more illogical?

There was one correct statement in your cutting and pasting: ID certainly does move backwards.

It's among the more intellectually bankrupt of religious claims. It's Christian creationism with a newer label but the same tired, crank spokesmen and agenda.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not lashing out. It really is a very true statement. You are, by far, the most ignorant and foolish person I have ever encountered on the internet. I mean that in the most non-theatening and sincere way.

You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.

...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

 

[UltimateReality]

You need help for your feelings of failure and inadequacy.

...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.

 

[Hollie]

...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.

You're projecting.

 

[UltimateReality]

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.

You're projecting.

Even though I engage in less than polite internet banter at times, and I am an easy target for you to unload all that anger you have with your fundie parents on, don't let that keep you from missing out on the greatest truth of you life. That is, God still loves and accepts you, regardless of your lifestyle choice or how much you hate Him or try to defame Him at the moment. There is nothing you can do to make God stop loving you. I didn't even fully realize this until I had children of my own.

 

[LOki]

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

I never said any of that!!!

You sure did!

 

[UltimateReality]

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), LOKI SAID you could replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

I never said any of that!!!

You sure did!

Really? That is your commentary to my post, not my original. My point was that the dna molecule can carry information. If you go back and read it one more time. There is an "OR" in there. Never did I say gibberish would build a complex organism. You need to retake 3rd grade reading my friend.

Plus, your assertion you could replace the bases is a lie. There are complex mollecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the exact bases. Dna is just the instructions that need to be read and used to build the organism.

 

[Hollie]

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

I think your behavior speaks to unresolved feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Really, go sample the Kool-Aid.

You're projecting.

Even though I engage in less than polite internet banter at times, and I am an easy target for you to unload all that anger you have with your fundie parents on, don't let that keep you from missing out on the greatest truth of you life. That is, God still loves and accepts you, regardless of your lifestyle choice or how much you hate Him or try to defame Him at the moment. There is nothing you can do to make God stop loving you. I didn't even fully realize this until I had children of my own.

You're projecting, dear.

 

[LOki]

I never said any of that!!!

You sure did!

Really? That is your commentary to my post, not my original.

Oh really? I have done you the favor of linking to your own words, so that you can see in your own words what you said.

My point was that the dna molecule can carry information.

I don't think that point is in contention at all.

If you go back and read it one more time. There is an "OR" in there. Never did I say gibberish would build a complex organism. You need to retake 3rd grade reading my friend.

Perhaps you need to take 3rd grade writing, and become acquainted with the notion of punctuation. What you said was:

Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism.

Which is entirely consistent with your insistent demand that DNA is a "code"--consistent with your misuse of the term "code"; DNA molecules are symbols that represent proteins. Indeed, "gibberish" is one of the valid functions that your usage of the term (intelligently designed type of) "code" is useful for. It is a necessarily valid conclusion to be drawn from your paradigm. As symbols do not dictate the nature of the reality of the actual things they represent, even "gibberish" can have ANY meaning that a designer assigns to it, and it becomes a "code" on that merit alone.

Now if you meant to say, "DNA could contain gibberish. Or DNA could contain complex instructions to build a complex organism." The way they teach children to write it is: "DNA could contain gibberish, or complex instructions to build a complex organism."

But what you meant, the point you say I've been missing, is the precise point you made as first stated--just as you have "stated it several times (!!!)" You have been consistent on this point the whole time. And this whole time I haven't been missing your fatuous point--I just find it entirely unacceptable.

Plus, your assertion you could replace the bases is a lie.

That's not my assertion at all ... it's entirely yours!

You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. ... What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

Which, as it turns out, I could get and did get. Your point made is AGAIN consistent with your insistent demand that DNA is a "code"--consistent with your misuse of the term; DNA molecules are symbols that represent proteins.

Since symbols do not dictate the nature of the reality of the actual things they represent; following your paradigm where dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!, it naturally follows that the chemicals used as symbols are irrelevant to "the informational code," hence irrelevant to the protein that it represents. You see, I haven't been missing your point at all--I just find it entirely unacceptable.

Perhaps, and I admit to suspecting it's likely, YOU have been missing the point you have been making all this time.

There are complex mollecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the exact bases. Dna is just the instructions that need to be read and used to build the organism.

You can't have it both ways and avoid the question-begging your superstitious tribe is so well known to demand is valid reasoning.

I agree that "there are complex molecular machines that make up the entire system that depend on the exact bases." That substitutions cannot be made if the product of their functions is to remain consistent. If DNA is one of those machines (I think it is), and it actually has it's very own discrete, specific, necessary, and self-defining function in the production of proteins (I think it does), then it's not actually a symbol for proteins--DNA then is not "code" that means proteins, because DNA doesn't actually function (in the genetics of organisms) that way.

DESPITE how manifestly useful the similes and metaphors are, that describe DNA as "instructions", "blue-prints", "software", "language", and "code", DNA only functions LIKE them for specifically constrained descriptive purposes.

 

[daws101]

Loki, you can deny the truth about your so called "science" all day long but it won't make it so.

What are you talking about? It looks like you think you've made some kind of point, but this assertion is senseless from it premise to its conclusion.

Not at all surprising from someone who is so confused about reality that you went right from "25 "could haves" and 18 "may haves"" right to "you are liar when you say that science doesn't start from an unconditional certainty."

Darwinism is steeped in prejudice and purposeful outcomes. But I guess your version of reality is your version, regardless of whether or not you can see how skewed your view of it is from your twisted perception vantage point. You don't need to go outside, why, you can just alter realty and enjoy the outdoors right there at your computer. Later, you can say it is a fact that you may have gone outside.

"Prejudice" and "twisted perception vantage point" is evidenced by the cognitive dissonance of your incoherent attacks upon "Darwinism."

You clearly have no coherently principled issue with "Darwinism." Just as you've arbitrarily declared creationism to be "the truth," you've just arbitrarily declared evolution wrong--and you just pick ANY attack that you deem handy (rather than sensible or logically valid, for instance) in the moment.

You have provided prima-facie evidence of your close-minded prejudice against the theory of evolution.

Hello, McFly??? I am not a Creationist. Evolution is wrong. Its a sham... pseudoscience not based in any semblance of the scientific method.

Still waiting on you giraffe study. Regarding the your "observable" cartoon, feel free to find a giraffe study that also includes some fossil evidence as well.

I visited Cincinnati’s zoo with little Juliet a few days ago. It’s one of the oldest zoos in America, but they continue to expand and improve the animal habitats. One of the new features is a feeding deck for the giraffes. As I was watching the exotic creatures snake out their tongues for some tasty straw, I overheard a man talking to his wife about evolution.

“I totally understand evolution for some animals, but giraffes have me perplexed.”

I thought about it and decided that the matter needed investigating. I’ll never see this man again, but he left me with an itch that I had to scratch. How did giraffes evolve? Where did those long necks come from? What is the deal?

It turns out that giraffe evolution is not an open and shut case. Creationists have been trotting out arguments about how there are gaps in the fossil record. They also claim that the long necks co-evolved elaborate biological functions, which, in their minds, must be impossible.

Darwin actually handled the latter argument quite well in his own published writings.

With animals such as the giraffe, of which the whole structure is admirably co-ordinated for certain purposes, it has been supposed that all the parts must have been simultaneously modified; and it has been argued that, on the principle of natural selection, this is scarcely possible. But in thus arguing, it has been tacitly assumed that the variations must have been abrupt and great…

Most of the “special” biological features that make a giraffe’s neck possible are just adaptations of traits shared by all mammals. There’s no reason that these traits couldn’t have co-evolved slowly; as the neck lengthened, the valves and arteries were naturally selected as well. See more about this at SkepticWiki!

Creationists exaggerate missing gaps in the fossil record to poke holes in Darwinian evolution, but the argument is a fallacy called “god of the gaps” . Since there are unexplained gaps in the fossil record, creationists believe that god must be the default answer. The chance that such a transitional fossil may yet be found does not seem to be an acceptable option to creationists. It’s ironic that gaps in the fossil record are held up by creationists as proof against evolution because some of evolution’s greatest victories have come from the discovery of missing links. Gaps in the fossil record have allowed scientists to make predictions on the types of fossils they expect to find (such as a transition between fish and amphibian – tiktaalik). The sign of a good theory is one that scientists can use to make verifiable predictions.

Intelligent design advocates have tried the “god of the gaps” tactic with whale fossils, but they’ve been repeatedly beaten down by the discovery of numerous transitional whale fossils that fill the gaps between ambulocetus and the modern whales.

It’s true that the known fossil record has always lacked an extensive library of transitional giraffe fossils, but just because there aren’t as many known giraffe ancestors as horse ancestors doesn’t mean that giraffes are exempt from evolution. It shouldn’t be too much of a leap in logic for creationists to imagine the transitions between the deer-sized giraffe ancestor climacoceras and the modern giraffe. Indeed, if one looks at the current collection of transitional giraffe species, the gaps don’t seem too vast, actually: climacoceras, Palaeotragus, samotherium, honanotherium, etc. Evolution’s proven track record allows me the safety of predicting that there will be even more giraffe transitional fossils discovered.

So, how and why did Giraffes get those long necks. Why did the oft overlooked Giraffe sibling species, the okapi, not receive such exotic traits.

The initial default answer given by Darwin and Lamarck, and most zoo visitors like myself, seems to be the idea that long necks were an advantage for giraffes when they needed to eat leaves from tall trees during the summer drought. This hypothesis has been criticized for various reason.

The prevailing theory is that the long necks are sexually selected by the females. This sexual selection can be seen when the male giraffes start slapping each other around with their massive necks until the winner eventually mounts the damsel in heat [gross aside: male giraffes know a female is in heat by tasting her urine].

There are other theories too. Some say that the long legs make it easier for giraffes to run away from most predators. Others say that the long necks make it easier for giraffes to see approaching predators. I don’t see why both of these observations can’t be additional valid explanations of natural selection, along with the sexual selection theory favored by biologists.

I don’t blame the guy at the zoo for being baffled by giraffe evolution. The explorers who originally rediscovered giraffes called them camelopards (now Giraffa camelopardalis) because they resembled a cross between a camel and a leopard. I may not have found Kirk Cameron’s fabled “crockaduck”, but I did learn a few neat things about the giraffe, and it’s ancestors. Sometimes it’s fun to follow up on a random comment. I always wind up learning something new.



Investigating Giraffe Evolution! « Skeptic Family

 

[daws101]

Appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”

Example:

Nobody has ever proved to me there’s a God, so I know there is no God.

Funny you should throw this one around, because Darwinian theory does this ALL THE TIME.

Actually, Darwinian theory does no such thing. Evolutionary theory makes no appeals to designer gods. Because you're unable to understand the topic you're hoping to denigrate, that makes you a poor candidate for entering these discussions.

You're right, it doesn't appeal to designer gods. It does, however, appeal to ignorance.

REALLY!? what's more ignorant?

 

[daws101]

Just because you continue to play stupid doesn't mean it hasn't been presented here. Why don't you pick up a copy of "Signature in the Cell"?

For a whole $13 you can actually study an opposing viewpoint instead of regurgitating and spewing rehearsed atheistic propaganda.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design: Stephen C. Meyer: 9780061472794: Amazon.com: Books

Meyer is a hack. Precisely why he shills for the creationist ministry you copy and paste from.

Would you care to describe for us the pre-qualifying agreement signed by those who shill for the ICR?

I posted it for you previously.

No he is not a hack,he is bringing to you reality.

ahahahahaha... this coming from the man who believes that Mayans had pet dinosaurs...

 

[daws101]

read through the last few pages and YWC is STILL ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED
UR is still yammering about materialistic religion as the devil's handiwork (oxymoron).
KG flew in on her broom stick babbled something meaningless then flew away..
still wating for gods' barcode...

The genetic code barrier.

you mean the one there is no proof for?
btw didn't you say something like: "this is my last post to you... mental midget" -YWC
do you always fail to keep your word?

 

[daws101]

...Says the Christian-Hating, Angry Lesbian Atheist with fundie-Christian Gay Hating parents.

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.

isn't lying (see above) a sin?

 

[UltimateReality]

My goodness but aren't you the angry fundie.

There's no need to project your sexual frustrations and feelings of inadequacy on others.

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.

isn't lying (see above) a sin?

Please point out the lie.

 

[daws101]

Methinks the man-lady doth protest too much.

Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ.

isn't lying (see above) a sin?

Please point out the lie.

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
" " that hollie's parents were fundies
" " of god
" that the bible is accurate..

 

[daws101]

Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
.See More About:evolution & sciencemicroevolution vs macroevolution
There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?



Creationists like to erroneously claim that it is impossible for the
accumulation of microevolutionary changes to produce macroevolutionary
changes. A "genetic barrier" is oftern cited to account for this, although
it is never identified. The hypothesis states, "there is a 'genetic
barrier' that prevents one 'kind' from evolving into another 'kind.'" I have
yet to see any attempt to justify this hypothesis using actual genetics or
science. Furthermore, there clearly is not a justification because modern
genetics has disproved this hypothesis (see below). However, it is another
creationist buzzword that has no actual scientific value.

The hypothesis of a "genetic barrier" was not originated by creationists. It
arose almost a hundred years ago by biologists/evolutionists to describe the
difference between macroevolution, evolution apparent between species, and
microevolution, evolution apparent within a species. Creationists like to
claim that the mechanisms from macroevolution are fundamentally different
from the mechanisms for microevolution; this is their genetic barrier. They
then assert that there is no evidence for macroevolution while
microevolution is well supported. They never show why any evidence
supporting macro is wrong; they just say it is. A long quote (please forgive
me) from Futuyma helps explains the issue:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the
Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that 'macroevolutionary'
differences among organisms--those that distinguish higher taxa--arise from
the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found
within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that
'macroevolution' is qualitatively different from 'microevolution' within a
species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and
developmental repatterning. The iconoclastic geneticist Richard Goldschmidt
(1940), who held this opinion, believed that the evolution of species marks
the break between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'--that there is a
'bridgeless gap' between species that cannot be understood in terms of the
genetic variation within species. Genetic studies of species differences
have decisively disproved Goldschmidt's claim. Differences between species
in morphology, behavior, and the process that underlie reproductive
isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species:
they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based
on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and
they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins
or DNA nucleotide differences. The degree of reproductive isolation between
populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none
to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other
character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in
populations.
(Evolutionary Biology, third edition. 477-478)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Barrierists believe, like Goldschmidt did, that macroevolution and
microevolution are fundamentally different; however, unlike Goldschmidt,
they use the absence of a macro-only mechanism as proof of a creator and
proof against evolution. The reason for the absence of a macro-only
mechanism is that the same mechanisms apply to both micro- and
macroevolution. This is not an "easy out" explanation, as they'd have
laymen believe. It is backed up by genetic and biological observations and
experiments. Goldschmidt was able to state his claim in 1940 because the
science of molecular genetics did not exist then. It wasn't until the 1950s
that Watson and Crick solved the structure of DNA and showed how genetic
information was passed in cell division via template strands. The genetic
code was later solved, explaining how DNA encoded proteins. Modern
sequencing strategies allow us to map molecular genetic mutations to actual
genes, demonstrating the variability of populations and the power of
evolution. These sequencing strategies also allow us to map the differences
between two organisms' genomes. The genetic distinctions for taxa can be
detected by comparing organisms from different taxa. The data generated from
such investigations show that distinctions between taxa follow the same
rules as distinctions within a taxon.

Genetic Barriers Don't Exist [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

 

[LOki]

If the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, then I have no idea why Evolutionists would say that it did.

That's really funny!!! When I made the claim this was a tenant of evolutionary theory, I was told it was a strawman. Me thinks someone is a little loose with the fallacy accusations.

I had no idea that a general observation meant a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.

I'm not even sure that such a general observation could even be considered a tenet ... period.

BTW, Mr. "3rd Grade Reading Comprehension," claiming that a tenet of evolutionary is that the development of living organisms DID NOT generally progress from less complex organisms to more complex organisms, is in fact, a strawman argument.

 

[newpolitics]

UltimateReality, I was surprised to hear you declare that you are not a young earth creationist, as I assumed you were. Would you mind re-iterating what is your belief about how humans came to be? How old do you believe the earth is, what is your justification for this, and what mechanism do you think caused humans to exist? Do you deny evolutionary theory entirely, or just certain parts of it? How much do you suppose god is responsible for, and how did he do it?

Youwerecreated, the same questions go to you, if you don't mind. I'm interested to know. Thanks.

 

[UltimateReality]

isn't lying (see above) a sin?

Please point out the lie.

"Actually, your fundie parents twisted the Christian religion when they failed to accept you and they will have to answer to God for that. The Bible teaches there is no condemnation in Christ."- UR
you have no proof hollie is gay lie#1
" " that hollie's parents were fundies
" " of god
" that the bible is accurate..

I'll borrow this from your camp.... prove I have no proof.