Originally Posted by exlude
Since you have already come to a conclusion, I'm guessing that you must have read those journal entries. So tell me, what were their "research and data" results? I hope you're not just reading the abstract...you may not know this due to your inexperience with these type of articles, but the abstract does not normally include the research and data.
You talk a whole fucking lot for never providing any sources on your own. "Blah blah blah, Darwin said this, blah blah blah, I once heard about some scientists doing this." Good grief, you rarely produce anything tangible (go figure, right?).
They had no research to backup their opinions. They even used words like "this may mean..." I had no research data to look up. And not kidding their abstracts don't include research data you dimwitted idiot! What a moron!
The reason I don't post up links much is because one, I hate referencing. It's a big waste of time when people like you can't understand that the truth is half the time, nor do you care to find it. And secondly, you can find just about any opinion on the internet, to which anyone will just say, "Oh, you can find any opinion on the internet." When I reference things, many times it will be research data. And to find the research data, it takes forever to search through the invisible web, as it is called:
Did you know about this research tool? Probably not... Only people that actually read research data us this thing, and I doubt you read it. You're a bit too dense to read that type of stuff, or come to conclusions on your own without first getting the opinion of the biased scientists.
You know, if a person grows up believing and being taught that the world is very old and that's a fact, they will interpret everything that way, and so that biases them heavily. I used to think everything was old, and then I discovered another theory I'd never heard before, and I researched it and found it made much more sense. I have the ability to look at research data from both perspectives now, which is something a scientists never does. It's all old to them. I do this because I always try to fit everything into both frameworks. Then I can see which makes more sense. What's interesting to me is that the young earth creation model fits every evidence and fact perfectly into itself, and evolution and an old earth only fit some evidences into itself.
Then again, that means nothing to you, because you just see me as a religious zealot, and because I don't care to waste research time on you, I don't care to post up references for you. You're really not worth my time.