DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Drich]

outside of a written account what does the evidence your looking for look like?

Someone wrote it down: Must be true.

And here we go again with the burden of proof reversal.

so again what proof would be suficent? The prameters for Your "proof" must be falsifiable inorder to be a viable request.

---

you clearly support this grinding up babies as it supports a woman's right to choose.

You are a hipocrite, and in anyother soceity a monster as well.

Unless I am mistaken, the comparison is this:

God kills a world full of people, including children born or unborn.

-versus-

Rampant A.I. supports the actions of others who abort fetuses on request.

Is that accurate?

no.

---

Unless I am mistaken, the comparison is this:

God kills a world full of people, including children born or unborn.

-versus-

Rampant A.I. supports the actions of others who abort fetuses on request.

Is that accurate?

Seems to be what I'm reading, with of course, an appeal to emotion by calling fetuses "babies".

fetus
late 14c., from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood"

The latin defination clearly states that the term describes a baby. A Born viable baby.

Soceity redefined the term to try and take the sting of killing babies out of the process. Even so it does not change the correct understanding of this word.

---

outside of a written account what does the evidence your looking for look like?

A contemporary report by someone who was actually there, not some fucking bullshit story that was written 70-100 years later.

Matthew was there. Mark was the scribe of Peter, (as he was not literate) Peter was there, John was there... What does it matter when those eye witness wrote down their account? especially if all three are in agreement?