Sure, but we're not in a gentleness and respect situation here. There's me, and there's a bunch of rabid fundamentalist atheists present. And no doubt some calm and rational ones too, but they're not making themselves known at the moment. For example just look at the strawman (the bit between quotes) and judgmentalism (the prefix to your bible quote) in your own post. I think a good debater could and would avoid both those potholes.

Not my quote but I like it nonetheless: when asking WWJD, remember that turning over tables and chasing everyone round with a whip is an option.

I'd probably DuckDuckGo it. I based that comment on the use of the words "what" and "about".

/me visits DDG...

Eh, maybe it's the wrong word. This sort of reminds me of a discussion I saw on YT a few months ago between a Christian taking the eye argument, and Prof Dawkins giving his best response: lots of mights, maybes, could'ves, topped off with billions of years, which doesn't appear to satisfy the former who then follows up with "what about..." I can't remember what, but I do remember the gist of Dawkins' response which was something along the lines of: you led with your best; I answered that; I'm not going round in circles at this point. So I'm with Dawkins now (and in fact as a Christian I actually agree with a lot of what he says. We do need to think things through and not take them on blind faith.)

So in other words I've given a sound explanation for the dashing babies on a rock question and I'm going to leave it there.