http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3482

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
wrote:

>http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3482

That just about sums it up.

And they don't even understand what's wrong about doing this.

On Sep 29, 10:05 am, ca...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3482
>
> That just about sums it up.
>
> And they don't even understand what's wrong about doing this.

REPLY:  Athiestic 'logic'  is that a small baseball needs a creator
but a very large ball the size of the earth or the size of the
universe, doesnt.   In other words, its safe to say little things
required a designer and creator but when we get into things like our
own infinitely more complex Human existence , then suddenly,  we are
nothing more than some accidental pond scum which came from accidental
non living chemicals.  Summary :  Under no circumstances can we admit
there must be a personal Creator (except for baseballs, jellybeans,
and kit-kat candybars ; beyond that....the impossible is even
possible . Just so long as we keep God at a permanent distance . We
must never entertain a personal designer, engineer, creator of our
universe.  Thats getting wayyyy to personal and oversteps ones big
ego ).

(0)

On Sep 29, 6:41 pm, Ken  wrote:
> (0)

REPLY: Yes, its imperative that you use '(0)' in your response .  Like
i said above :

'Under no circumstances can we admit
there must be a personal Creator (except for baseballs, jellybeans,
and kit-kat candybars ; beyond that....the impossible is even
possible . Just so long as we keep God at a permanent distance . We
must never entertain a personal designer, engineer, creator of our
universe.  Thats getting wayyyy to personal and oversteps ones big
ego ). '

On Sep 29, 6:19 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
zero, zip, zero, nada, nothing, non, nein, nej

Dave is an evangelical fundamentalist (creationist fundy), based in
the US. He will not
listen to reasoned argument and will continue to post the same
invalid materials no matter how many times their falsehood is
pointed out.
His typical posting consists of material copied from creationist
websites - mainly pseudo science and frequently quotations from
credible scientists (2) that have been edited to indicate the
opposite of what the author intended.

If you are fired up with anger and feel compelled to respond (Dave
frequently makes a series of increasing unsupportable allegations
designed to provoke), the regulars here can't stop you, but please
understand that you will simply initiate an endless stream of posts
attempting to preach to anyone who is gullible enough to listen.

If you wish to understand the truth about evolution and the
science of our origins, and the erroneous nature of Dave's
arguments, then this is a good starting point:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:19:45 -0700, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote :

> On Sep 29, 6:41 pm, Ken  wrote:
>> (0)
> 
> REPLY: Yes, its imperative that you use '(0)' in your response .  Like i
> said above :
> 
> 'Under no circumstances can we admit
> there must be a personal Creator (except for baseballs, jellybeans, and
> kit-kat candybars ; beyond that....the impossible is even possible .
> Just so long as we keep God at a permanent distance . We must never
> entertain a personal designer, engineer, creator of our universe.  Thats
> getting wayyyy to personal and oversteps ones big ego ). '

Because we can explain it simply without that hypothesis.
The apparition of star systems, life, plants, animals don't need it.
The creation of the universe and everything however interesting a subject 
it can appear to you, is and will remain pure hypothesis and as such is 
outside of the scope of common knowledge to enter the field of ghost, 
elves, fairies, devils, witches, angels and fantasy.