Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Drich]

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 miss understand the intention of the paragraph that you quoted.
I quoted dr. Rasoul Sorkhabi http://faculty.utah.edu/u0402303-RASOUL_.../index.hml, who is well published and an authority in this his field more specifically of this particular region.

To which ms. Foo, bunny, Lola, la la quoted another well respected source that contradicted what rasoul Sorkhabi wrote. The point I was making was there was no need for me to refute anything these two creditable sources said, why? For the same reason ms. Foo bunny Lola la la's dismissal of Abiogenic petroleum origin as a backwards 16th century attempt at science, failed...

Because biogenic petroleum origins is at best just the current popular belief, that is not supported well enough by the known facts to completely dismiss all other theories. In short " the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively." Meaning the "16th" century is still considered to be on the table because of the lack of proof needed to make biogenic petro origins the definitive source for petroleum.

As such there is no need to refute any of these other claims. Fore that is all they are. Biogenic petro origins may have a freight trains worth of backing behind it, but in the end it's just another unverified theory. This is demonstrated by The fact that I and ms. Foo bunny Lola la la can quote two legitimate sources in the oil industry that can have differences in opinion. These differences further indicate a large window for acceptable error. Mean either or neither could be right, as such what is the point of refuting these claims as both have a large probability of being not 100% correct to begin with? All I need is a 10 to 20 % margin of error in either biogenic theories in order for mine to work. These two legitimate sources and the amount of contrast between them show a 75% margin of error just in the two different maps they used.

So again in their acceptable margin of error my theory can happily live.

---

Nah go ahead and call me Lola if you want. Bunny is specifically not something I wish to be called by you, though. Nor is foo foo something I consider.. acceptable. Lolita, la la Lola, whatever you wish in terms of that nickname will be fine. I just reserve the right to make one up for you in kind, and I promise.. you won't like it

Sorry for the name changes, I got an internet stalker and I'm trying to be inconspicuous, as you can see

---

Hope you do t mind but I answer your oil question along with esq. I didn't see calling you bunny either.. It seems creepy for a grown woman to want to be called that by internet strangers. (Maybe that is why you have a stalker) creepy begets creepy..

I was calling ms. Foo bunny Lola la la. But what about ms. Foo bun Lola la la for short? It's a compromise. (Your not supposed to fully like your nick name, just be able to live with it.)

Haven't we been over this a gazillion million times? I did a/s/k. from the purest form a human can possibly have, with the purest of intent.

Intent is only apart of the equation. Humility and a contrite heart, one that has one knock as long as it takes as per the example given in luke 11 is what produces results.

Here was my answer:

---

---

Also, I'm not harshing on you for our life experiences not matching up. I'm asking very simple and valid questions. How do you know you'd stopped breathing when you had your "vision" in order to classify it as a NDE? Did you need recussitated? How long had you not been breathing? How do you know you didn't just have a very deep dream?

If I remember correctly I identify this experience as a dream. One that replays in my mind as real as any other legitimate physical memory. That said, What makes you think the God of creation can not communicate through the mudain?