[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > > > > > > > > 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.   
   > > That reality is not of my making. However the reality of it you will see.   
   >   
   > It's not of your making, but it is of your gullibility.   
   >   
   > > I just pray that you would be counted worthy   
   >   
   > I'm already "worthy." I don't need to be validated by your god.   
   >   
   > > > > > > Some plant, some water, but it is God that gives the increase.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Could that planting and watering be the proselytizing you deny you're   
   > > > > > attempting here in alt.atheism?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Seed only takes root on fallowed ground. Watering one helps the roots   
   grow   
   > > > > strong. Only God gives the increase. Not my responsibility. So far, I   
   have   
   > > > > seen little to no evidence of any seed taking root. There is much   
   thorny   
   > > > > weeds here that would seek to destroy and chock off seeds thing root.   
   > > >   
   > > > Along similar lines, I guess we don't need missionaries, since "only   
   > > > God gives the increase".   
   > >   
   > > Someone has to sow the seed. And others water. Only God can save them.   
   >   
   > So your agenda is to "sow seed" which then God can use to save people?   
   > > >   
   > > > > So just why are you proselytizing in alt.bible?   
   > > >   
   > > > I'm discussing your ideas, not proselytizing. And I'm posting in   
   > > > alt.bible because you entered that newsgroup in your initial post. I   
   > > > seen no reason to remove it.   
   > >   
   > > You moved far afield from the subject matter. And I am just discussing your   
   > > ideas.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)