That's the thing, so many people have gone out and done their investigations and have written down their findings. I simply searched those findings and there they were. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with all the Scientists and all those who ever did the legwork. You are disagreeing with all those who specialize in their area.

No, it is not me who is ignorant. I feel it's the other way round. All the facts I present are based on those very Scientists that you claim are invalid. Did you actually go and read any of them? Have you ever argued on the topic that the Grand Canyon was formed by a Global Flood? I highly doubt that.

I claim you're wrong because you haven't posted any references to any of your claims or backed them up in any way, shape or form. All you ever did was say one or two sentences and left it at that. Are we supposed to believe your 2 sentences over the 12+ website references that I posted and all the Pastor Sermons that the researched is based on?

I simply do not see how I am blind to my flawless logic. Am I talking to a schizophrenic? You fail to see that I've done all the research that you would never, ever do. I do not claim to know all things. I only claim to know the tiny little spec that I do know, I know with absolute certainty. You've seen me lash out? It was you who first resorted to insults and name calling. All I do is simply call people out when they make claims and are unable to back them up.

You sir are a dangerous person

the expression is "dont drink the koolaid" and jim jones was an atheist

Now that is something that we can agree on.

sola scriptora, a fundamental, aka a fundie , the most dreaded and feared kind of christian.

Once again I don't make claims outside of what is my own experience and then those are subject to bias. If a person comes to me and says he just spoke to Clifford the Big Red Dog I'll know he's delusional because obviously Clifford isn't real. Now another man comes to me and says He just talked to God and God told him a bunch of details about my life and the afterlife. Why would I possibly believe this? (Rhetorical).

If your willing to base your life choices on the workings of man (religious texts) then you must accept the additional data that also disproves your theory. A scientist cannot evaluate one fact without evaluation of all adjacent facts. This is what you are doing- you are saying science backs up your theory when it doesn't. Just like it's impossible to know what's happening inside a black hole (because most energy is absorbed) it's all impossible to know about the afterlife because no single source of information has ever been returned from the afterlife and there are fields of science towards their goal.

You can't just come out and claim fact when it's only representative of a very small part of the scientific community. The grand canyon is an excellent example. Obviously it was from flooding just like every other canyon. But there is little record of when, why and how it formed (on a massive scale) because it takes years upon years to take precision measurements of what is massive land area.


What you are doing is ignoring protocol and making claims like it was God that caused the flood because it's written in this book! This is your fatal flaw in your logic. You have skipped the scientific method entirely on many of your claims and every theory in science is a theory subject to affirmation and debate. Only when you confirmed every possible detail and eliminated every naysayer it can become fact and even then it's only until better investigative instruments are developed.

And finally I am my own judge of information. An excellent example I've used for years is this and i came up with this myself:

Consider the sky being blue- everyone knows this because they have eyes. Since everyone is slightly different everyone likely sees a slightly different shade of blue. Collectively everyone agrees when looking at the sky it's the same blue because that's what they see. But in reality the property of your eye creates a unique image and without dissecting each eye it's nearly impossible to understand what each eye actually seen. Rather the solution is to measure the wavelength of the light because that will not vary from person to person.

So as you can see it's better to speak in terms of wavelength (ex. 400nm) instead of the color blue.

A confirmation of the blue test is such:

I have astigmatism in one eye meaning it's slightly different in shape which means the angle in refraction will be slightly different than the other eye. Effectively I see two versions of every colour (incoming wavelength)

Many of you can confirm this by looking out one eye then the other, the shades will be slightly different. This is evidence that what I'm seeing isn't actually so but rather each eye filtered it separately and the concept of colour becomes moot from a personal perspective.

with dangerous people around its almost for sure shortcut to the heavens?

true

Weakness isnt something id brag about
And it identify itself as a Christian
what a scam