My words were, "debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting."
You are -- again -- making an enormous assumption.
The fact that someone posts a link to another website does not infer that they do not understand the content of the link.
This is a vast assumption.
If you think that this sort of debating -- the proper sort -- is going to expose the fact that there's a lot you don't know, you have two choices: a.) Go and learn. b.) Don't debate about things you don't understand.
I understand a lot about this subject, and my long history of debate on this subject proves that.
I simply believe in freedom and good time management, and if someone has already made my point for me, why should I rewrite it for you.
I'm not going to waste my time.
Those who are interested in learning will take the time to follow the links and read the articles and will learn.
I say, "Good for them".
If you want people to watch your videos, there are plenty of places for you to post them. The problem is that you let them do the talking for you and when someone posts information that shows them to be wrong, as I have done here about oil, you don't read it (as apparently you have not done) or you don't bother trying to engage with it, and instead just post the same video again and again.
You are again making incorrect assumptions.
Additionally, you are using crafty political word-tactics by slipping in the phrase "as I have done here".
Actually, you haven't. You have simply copied concepts from others. An activity that you continually criticize me for. -- Another irony.
I have engaged with it and even said that I believe that people who take the time to read the justification for your figures will see that they -- like most of the evolution faith -- is based on enormous assumptions and in many cases, fabrications.
This is the established history of the evolution religion.
I give people the credit to the have the ability to make their own decisions about what they believe based on the credibility of the evidence, and as I have stated over and over, the information you post is not credible. It is -- as the talk origins article I debunked (
http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A ) -- based on assumptions and is designed to look intelligent to the unperceptive reader.
instead just post the same video again and again
I do this because I am rebutting your posts, which simply regurgitate the same assumptive arguments.
That what a rebuttal does.
Other comments you made in your post also suggest that you have not carefully read the rest of the thread.
And yet you fail to tell me which comments.
By the way, talking about oil is a great big whalloping red herring. This thread is about the flood and I've restated my point enough about biomass that it should be clear now.
The biomass argument is a fraud. It is based on outdated assumptions and it so out of context in relation to the information in the videos that I posted.
This is what evolution continues to do in order to desperately attempt to maintain control of the masses. They reuse old information for as long as they can.
This is not science and it has no integrity.
You should realize that the figures in your regurgitated article are based on inflated, overblown, out-of-context numbers.
Business as usual.
