Search results

I asked @Avajs: @Avajs: <NO ANSWER> I asked @Avajs: @Avajs: <NO ANSWER> Your glaring failure to answer these easy, Yes/No questions about the article is you admitting that you have not read the article, @Avajs. And now, you've gone and further admitted that you have not read the article by...

"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.:ROFLMAO:

In the article I linked in the OP, we read: Her skeleton has been described as one of the most important discoveries of the past century, and she is changing basic ideas about how our earliest ancestors looked and moved. Tell us, @Avajs: By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she...

It's kind of funny, the phrase "single-celled organism", because, since the cell is the single-celled organism, it seems you could just as well call it a "single-organismed organism".

That's false. By their admission of the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans featured (among other things) arms and legs, they are denying the Darwinist falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms. It matters not a whit that they did not write the phrase...

In Deutschland, wouldn't "4 o'clock" and "beer o'clock" sound and look very similar: "vier uhr" and "bier uhr"? Perhaps towhead Bobby there in the front row is an exchange student from Germany.

Clearly you burned out your last brain cell roughly 300,000 beers ago.

Quote which proposition I stated that you are accusing of being false.

Why do you even bother to post in this thread since you have not even read my OP, and are unable to respond rationally to anything I have written in it?

Now, I had been under an impression that, according to Darwinists, the earliest ancestors of humans were some sort of one-celled, pond-scum animalcules they claim lived billions of years ago. But it has now occurred to me that at least some, professional Darwin-cheerleaders at the Smithsonian...

Here it is, once again, you lying, anti-Trinitarian, Christ-hating, Satan-serving antichrist -- just as I already provided in post #4489 : a list of two of the questions (printed in red) I've asked you repeatedly, that you've never answered: QUESTION #1 @Ps82: <NO ANSWER, STILL> QUESTION #2...

That sounds nonsensical. What do you even mean by that? Explain to us exactly what it would be for you to "answer [my] questions for someone else". You've posted "replies" to my very posts in which I asked you loud and clear the questions you have failed to answer. So, if you really did not...

Glad you posted it! I don't remember if I have seen it before, but it is really good!

No Trinitarian would stonewall against the questions I've been asking you, and which you still have not answered. Besides, I've wrangled with unitarians -- anti-Trinitarian heretics -- who asininely call themselves "Trinitarian", yet who glaringly advertise that they are not Trinitarian, by...

You: <NO ANSWER, STILL> It's a Yes-or-No question. If you mean you believe only one person is God, then answer Yes. If you do not mean you believe only one person is God, then answer No. You: <NO ANSWER, STILL> It's a Yes-or-No question. If by your word "God", when you say "I believe Jesus...

You wrote: So, I asked you: You responded: So, by your pronoun "him", when you say "are you trying to make him into two or three other persons?" you are referring to both the Father and the Son? If that's what you're doing, then this is what you've just handed us: The Father and the Son are...

I already told you what I don't get about your saying "there is ONE God": You: <NO ANSWER> So, you already knew that I don't get whether or not, by saying "there is ONE God", you mean you believe only one person is God. And, you know that I still do not get whether or not, by saying "there is...

You didn't see a question mark there, sure. But, you saw a statement being made: viz., that Jesus is not the Father. And, you chose to ignore it, rather than to respond either by registering agreement with it, affirming it, or by registering rejection of it, denying it. You chose to say...

Yes. The evasion is definitely apparent! And, if you please, they prefer to be called "personage" rather than "person".😁

By your pronoun "him" to which (if any) of these three Persons are you referring? The Father The Son The Holy Ghost Which one (if any) of the following are you saying? "are you trying to make [the Father] into two or three other persons?" "are you trying to make [the Son] into two or three...