new

[Quoted Post: "I am athiest that is crap. "virgins can't get pregnant". I lol at you for this one. if virgins can't get pregnant then there would be no humans on earth. and a world wide flood? polar icecaps melt and the only thing left above water is the peak of mount everest or something."]

THEY CAN IF GOD REAWAKENS THE MALE ORGANS INSIDE A WOMEN LIKE MARY
see every man and woman have both organs the natural occurance is one shrivels .in one family in peru the girls who were meant to be boys dropped their male organs about 10-12 because they have a faulty gene .that usually is in early stages of pregnancy

but what i am talking about is supernatural event when god cause mary's sperm to impregnate her

you see there is a phrophecy that the seed [sperm] of the woman would chrush the head of the serpant [satan]. that seed would be the christ. you have to remember who you are dealing with here.it wouldnt be that hard for god to do.funny after all this time with all the sinical remarks science makes the possibility fathomable. just last year House the tv show did 2-3 shows on this .
how did a preacher preach on the verse that the angel would make it so all the world could see for three straight days the bodys of the two witnesses killed by anti christ before they arose. well satalites and cnn will cover that all three days when those pains are killed. how would a back woods preacher teach that in 1810. why would any one believe that.you'de have to be an idiot lol

when you are dealing with kohono you need to adjust your reality
when its heaven you might concider alot of leiway concidering the power source

(For the record, have you read Hume's The Natural History of Religion?

Also, baconbits, since you seem to be a proponent of treating creationism as an equally viable scientific theory, can you please formulate it using scientific terms? As in, what happened, how, and when? Because the vague notion of "All life has been created by an intelligent designer." isn't going to cut it.
As it stands now, there's nothing to debate here.)

You're asking me to summerize creationists tenets when evolution doesn't even have to do the same. In a nut shell creationism means that an intellgent designer created organisms for the pacific niche they now fill. I'm not going to specify any further than that when speaking for all creationists because I can't.

There are many variations of creationism just as there are many variations of evolution. There are evolutionists who believe God created the first cell because they know how implausible it is for a cell to simply have formed by itself. There are others who believe that an animal cell was formed first, while some believe the plant cell was first. Some postulate that dinosaurs were the precursor to birds while others believe differently. There are some who believe in puncuated equilibrium, some believe humans evolved from an aquatic ape, and etc. There is no summation of evolution other than the fact that it is the theory that species gradually changed to become the creatures that inhabit the earth now.

So don't expect me to do what evolutionists themselves don't have to do. You look at me and through you bias assume I'm ignorant and impose additional verification on my views that you don't on your own. If you really want to debate this than pose a logical challenge and not a flailing accusation.