If the "information" you presented is the links a few posts up, they are off topic. If you would like to join the discussion about the evidence for a flood you are welcome to, provided that you can put some of it in your own words. Debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because the people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting.
I enjoy your continued expressions of disgust for religious rules while watching you create own list of rules, namely your terms for debate:
"If you would like to join the discussion about the evidence for a flood you are welcome to, provided that you can:
- put some of it in your own words
- Debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because the people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting
I will begin by exposing the flaws in your logic.
Debating using external resources is vital and necessary because we rely on external information because we don't produce our own information (other then our own observations - science by definition) because we don't have the time, tools, or resources to attain such.
External links are indeed necessary.
Also, we have to revisit the purpose of these debates.
They are public debates?
Why?
Because they are meant to be viewed by others.
They are, therefore, open to public scrutiny, by design.
Including external links enables others to examine the sources of information so they can make a judgement as to their credibility.
This freedom to make personal judgments, whether they are medical, religious, or otherwise, is a fundamental right demonstrated by the original laws of the United States based on English Common Law based on Biblical Law.
Ironically, the very belief system you defend -- evolution -- is being used to destroy the very freedoms under which you exercise the right to speak at all -- that being, Biblical Law.
A fundamental irony indeed.
Quote
We're discussing one small point: that there would have been so many living things on the earth in the space of 6,000 years that the earth cannot be that young -- or in the light of your own beliefs, life on earth cannot be that young either.
Your entire premise is based on the assumption that oil came from once-living things.
It must be pointed out that this assumption has been disproved by the videos I previously posted.
You seem to be taking a rather conventional narrow-minded approach to this subject, and basing your conclusions on outdated and disproved information.
Quote
Note that I'm willing to admit when there's an apparent discrepancy in my sources, and that I check it out. Denial is unscientific.
You often create your own definitions. This is no exception.
You state that denial is unscientific.
If you're speaking of the denial of the validity of your sources, you must admit this is a very narrow-minded approach. You leave no room for new discoveries (which I have provided), but rather, you stick to invalidated information that supports your personal bias.
This is most unscientific.
I would advise you to take your own advice: Open your mind.
As painful and uncomfortable as it is for you, if you wish to approach intellectual integrity, it is important to view, read, and study opposing viewpoints and be willing to consider the validity of new discoveries and information.
For your convenience, I am again making these valuable resources available to you again.
The Captian Today they call you "crazy". Tomorrow they call you "ahead of your time." Global Skywatch Learn about Chemtrails - You're breathing them now! OnlyTheBestHerbs.com World-class supplements Mercury Talk Why you are sick. OneUp Domains Domains, Hosting, Email 1-800-358-4278 (U.S. & Canada)
