If you want to make assumptions as legit debate tools, might as well allow us evo to have unsupernatural assumptions. Heck, might as well allow just about every crackpot assumption known to man as legit debate tool.
You have to draw the line somewhere, and cold hard fact is where I put my money at, not assumptions.
Assumptions can be legitimate in debate. For example, when I was debating Eta about the
ASSUMPTION of the appearance of age pertaing to the sun, he blew his top, but I did establish by that
ASSUMPTION that the sun would have at the very least to have appeared 30 million plus years old to even exist as a sun, even if it were created suddenly a few thousand years ago, simply because it would take that long to even finish the protostar stage of it's life, let alone to make it do what it has been doing for our planet. Thirty milliion plus years may be relatively much less than 4.5 billion, but still a whole lot more than a few thousand years that a literalist interpretation of the Genesis record has it being created. Adam was not created as the appearance of a baby, nor was anything else, if indeed I am allowed to debate on the basis of Biblical creationism.
My point in all this is that, as you people interpret forum rules, people like me who take the Bible literal are constantly out of line and breaking them. And you all wonder why some of our better people don't show up and if they do, why they leave so soon. They're not thick skinned enough for the insults that ensue. Simple as that.
™ Version 4.2
