Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Ftk @ June 10 2007,08:28)|
|Sheesh...why is it sooo hard to believe that I've read peer-reviewed papers, and who really cares? |
I remember saying somewhere else here in this forum that I certainly didn't understand every single thing I've read by any means, but I got the general idea of what the poster was trying to get across to support his point.
My reason for wanting you to "list them" is as follows.
Lets assume for a moment you are arguing a point such as "the earth is 10,000 years old". Somebody shows you a peer-reviewed paper that lays out the case for an old earth.
Your reaction would be to dispute that the paper is correct, however your only mechanism to do that (as a self-confessed ignoramus) would simply be to declare that it's not correct because it's incompatible with your special book.
That, FTK, is comedy gold.
So, I guess at some point somebody will have to dig in that forum and find a paper you dispute. Then we can have a nice old fireside chat about it here, and your reasons for disbelieving it will be marshmallows to roast on the fire. Yum Yum.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand