(January 9, 2014 at 2:57 pm)Drich Wrote: oh, and also you are aware the geoexpro is the goto source for people in that field right? (Geoexpro being the site I quoted from) Which your conflicting data only further supports my orginal assertion, that you guys don't have any real evidence as to the orgins of the oil, and how it was developed. Only a general idea (that changes from group to group.) based on a larger theory. This is hardly the 'evidence' needed to topple my arguement, because it is not in a position to disprove other conflicting arguements based on the same data let alone difinitivly state that the land the garden of eden was on was under completely under water for most of the earth's past..
Given that your argument was an argument from ignorance to begin with, and you've provided nothing to support it beyond "I don't know how X, therefore I'm right," nobody needs to disprove it at all. Your spurious claims don't become the baseline just because you make them. You have to provide evidence for you assertion, and again, and I find it unbelievable that I have to keep explaining this to you, "there's nothing saying it didn't happen" isn't an argument that it did.
It just means your claim is so ridiculous, people didn't think they really needed to comment on it.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!