quote:
You're getting off the subject.
Not really. The subject is "your best arguments against a world wide flood." You mentioned this mountain and went on to indicate that you had some knowledge of the geology of the region in which it is located. The accuracy of this information - the mountain and its location - is very germane to the issue.
We are merely trying to discover - in the spirit of assessing your argument - whether you have a clue what you are talking about or not when you raise the issue of a whale allegedly found on Sanhorn. You appear not to.
You seem generally a bit sloppy about these things and I am trying to encourage you to be more accurate, in the hope that your arguments will improve.
Take our little exchange about yahoo.
You mentioned "God created the Universe" - you can see that I acknowledged that from my phrasing and the fact that I quoted your exact words twice. My point, which seems to have eluded you, is that you will not find
your phrase "God created the universe" if you search for Sanhorn on yahoo.com, you will only find the phrase I quoted. You see, if thats the kind of carelessness with references which you show when simply telling someone how to find a website, why would anyone assume you take any greater care with any of your other quotes or examples or issues. It is in the interest of your own case that you should be sedulous with facts, references and logic.
Why such emphasis on a trivial mistake? Well, simple really. I would like to encourage you to take more care, to be more original and to deliver more thoughtful arguments. It makes for better debate all round.
So back to the issue with two questions ...
1: Where exactly is this mountain on which the whale was found?
2: From what sources do you derive assertion that this location is in "an area not known to be affected by shifting plates to the point of 3000 feet of uplift" ?