[continued from previous message]   
      
   footprints.   
      
   And as I've said before, there is not a trace of an antediluvian   
   civilization found in the fossil record.   
      
   >> > > > > > And in the Rain Forest of the Amazon a large city covered up by   
   the   
   >> > > > > > jungles.   
   >> > > > > > Lots of things to learn there, as well. Ancient people were not as   
   >> > > > > > stupid   
   >> > > > > > and illiterate as many gave them credit for.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Hunter-gatherers would probably be illiterate but not stupid.   
   However   
   >> > > > > I don't know of anyone that would claim literate and intelligent   
   >> > > > > civilizations couldn't exist in the Americas 2500 years ago. I mean   
   >> > > > > that civilization lasted to almost the beginning of the well-known   
   >> > > > > Maya civilization which developed in the jungles of Central America.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Hunter gatherers, splorf. There always has been and forever will be.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What does that have to do with ancient civilizations?   
   >> >   
   >> > You were the one who brought it up, as if there was a reason for it. You   
   >> > started off you paragraph referring to them.   
   >>   
   >> Wasn't it you that introduced the idea of civilization in the Amazon,   
   >> and claimed that you had shown that ancient peoples weren't illiterate   
   >> or stupid?   
   >   
   >Yes. But then you reduced them, to hunter gatherers. Despite the large   
   >cities, etc.   
      
   Hunter-gatherers are quite capable of existing along side advanced   
   civilizations.  When did I ever claim that wasn't so?   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > The reason that stood out to be was because the   
   evolutionary   
   >> > > > > > > > > > scientists   
   >> > > > > > > > > > who   
   >> > > > > > > > > > tried to say that somehow the human foot prints were man   
   made seemed   
   >> > > > > > > > > > absurd   
   >> > > > > > > > > > to me, it was like they were grasping at straws to   
   disprove it   
   >> > > > > > > > > > because   
   >> > > > > > > > > > it   
   >> > > > > > > > > > stood out so bad in a manner that contradicted the   
   current thinking   
   >> > > > > > > > > > of   
   >> > > > > > > > > > evolution.   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > I find it interesting that these YECs have gone *back* to   
   Paluxy,   
   >> > > > > > > > > despite its history of fraudulent "human footprints."   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > That has nothing to do with what is on the table of topics   
   for this   
   >> > > > > > > > discussion. Which I prefer to stick to at this time.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Yes, let's just agree that human footprints with dinosaur   
   footprints   
   >> > > > > > > have been debunked, and move on.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Sorry, but I have seen the evidences so I cannot agree with you.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > So I'll just assume you were wrong, and we can move on.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > That has been you presumptive assumptions from the beginning. It has   
   been   
   >> > > > your ongoing perception about me in all areas of these discussions,   
   it is   
   >> > > > time to bring it to a halt as it is just wasting both our time.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > So bring it to a halt. It's no skin off my nose.   
   >> >   
   >> > Of course not.You had none to give.   
   >>   
   >> What foolishness.   
   >>   
   >> > > > > > > > > > Of course when they dug up their own sites and discovered   
   the same   
   >> > > > > > > > > > things   
   >> > > > > > > > > > they were blown away, and I remember a couple of them   
   saying that   
   >> > > > > > > > > > this   
   >> > > > > > > > > > find   
   >> > > > > > > > > > means that they have to completely changed their order of   
   things or   
   >> > > > > > > > > > that   
   >> > > > > > > > > > this just destroyed in so completely that no longer could   
   they   
   >> > > > > > > > > > accept   
   >> > > > > > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > > > > > theory.   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > Pure fabrication.   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Typical subjective reasoning for agenda focused people.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Cite the scientists who you claim acted this way.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > I would if I still had the documentation. Which BTW I might have   
   on one   
   >> > > > > > of   
   >> > > > > > my old hard disks that I have stored away.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Yeah, why don't you post those when you're "able to find them."   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Oh I am able to all right, I just need the motivation and then   
   allocate   
   >> > > > the   
   >> > > > time to do it.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > So post them as soon as your "motivation" comes in to rescue them for   
   >> > > you.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > > HOWEVER! LOL, there was a large group of them who then   
   came up with   
   >> > > > > > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > > > > > idea that whoever created the original footprints MUST   
   have created   
   >> > > > > > > > > > those as   
   >> > > > > > > > > > well and then recovered the land, bushes and trees to   
   make it all   
   >> > > > > > > > > > look   
   >> > > > > > > > > > Natural. And they literally believed what they said, at   
   least   
   >> > > > > > > > > > outwardly.   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > They moved the trees and shrubs around? Where did you get   
   that from?   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > That is what the naysayers suggested and claimed.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > What naysayers?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > The very scientists that you requested the cites of.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What were the names of these scientists?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > We already discussed that.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > No, we discussed people that have supposedly had OBEs -- I was asking   
   >> > > you for the names involved, which is similar to what I'm requesting   
   >> > > here but is clearly different.   
   >> >   
   >> > Ok so your memory comes and goes. That is too bad. You have my sympathies.   
   >>   
   >> You should figure out whether you're wrong or right before you develop   
   >> unwanted sympathy.   
   >>   
   >> > > > > > > > > > Their argument basis of thought reminded me of the   
   typical low level   
   >> > > > > > > > > > atheists   
   >> > > > > > > > > > arguments as the same reasoning skills or lack thereof   
   was in full   
   >> > > > > > > > > > effect.   
   >> > > > > > > > > > And those people were educated, some very highly.   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > No, atheist arguments are not low-level, the way theist   
   arguments   
   >> > > > > > > > > are.   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Really? Look at your comment just above, the reasoning of it   
   and the   
   >> > > > > > > > knee   
   >> > > > > > > > jerk reaction.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Oh brother......   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What do you mean by that?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > While it sounded unreasonable to you, and you recognized   
   that, it was   
   >> > > > > > > > still   
   >> > > > > > > > their reasoning and thinking, and the cause for them to   
   excuse away   
   >> > > > > > > > something that did not support their agendized thinking and   
   arguments.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Are you claiming that you have no agenda?   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Yes.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > So you're not here in alt.atheism to win souls for Christ?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Nope, I just posted this thread there for you all to see the   
   >> > > > possibilities.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > And what did you think would happen when the "possibilities" were   
   >> > > "seen"?   
   >> >   
   >> > Some would see it, others wouldn’t and those who did could start off in   
   >> > their own research once they saw the possibilites.   
   >>   
   >> So your agenda is to effect just that exact outcome.   
   >   
   >Nope.   
   >   
   >Sorry you think that this is all some sort of competition.   
      
   What do you think it is?   
      
   >In the end, there is a heaven and a hell. There is a God and there is an Evil   
   >one.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)