A lot of Young Earth Creationists claim that there is loads of scientific evidence that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old.
Well... bring it
That Evidence That the Earth is Young
Posts
Total:
31
With Duane Gish no more, you can get your creationist entertainment from Kent Hovind : hwww.youtube.com/c/KentHovindOFFICIAL.
-->
@Amoranemix
thank you for the link
Since combing through the entirety of KentHovindOFFICIAL (which has more then 1,000 videos) would take literally months, I am hoping you will bring a specific argument, which we can talk about in this forum.
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
@TheMelioist
.
TheMelioist,
For laughable entertainment purposes only, you need to query ethang5 and Tradesecret to explain the biblical axiom that the earth is approximately 6 to 8 thousand years old. This is because I was in discussion with the totally Biblically inept Tradesecret on Creationism a while back, and what he/she/unknown presented regarding said topic was purely Saturday Night Live comedy entertainment bar none! Regarding the equally Bible ignorant ethang5 in this respect, he too has some of the most outlandish comical statements on any religious topic being discussed within this forum.
Therefore, if you could persuade this Bible ignorant duo to post within your thread upon said topic, we will see some great pseudo-christian comedy, but unfortunately, at their expense, but don't worry, they are used to it.
This is not in any way targeted harassment to the aforementioned members above because both of these individuals have stated their opinions on the earth being biblically 6-8 thousand years old before, therefore let them come forth and "bring it" like TheMelioist stated. 2+2=4.
In the name of the hung Savior,
Brother D. Thomas
.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Thank you for your post
First things first. You have not brought any scientific evidence for a young Earth, and you are without sources. I ask you bring sources and scientific evidence that shows that the earth is less ten 10,000 years old.
Also I would like to point out that calling ethang5 and Tradesecret a "Bible ignorant duo" is extremely disrespectful. I have seen both of them talk on the bible, and I assure you, they are quite knowledgeable on the subject.
-->
@TheMelioist
Contrary to what a lawyer might say, physical evidence never speaks for itself, it has to be interpreted, so everyone has to decide for themselves which interpretation to beleive.
Some scientists even fudge their figures to match what their preconceived conclusions were.
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret
@TheMelioist
.
YOUR MISNOMER QUOTE POST #5: "Also I would like to point out that calling ethang5 and Tradesecret a "Bible ignorant duo" is extremely disrespectful. I have seen both of them talk on the bible, and I assure you, they are quite knowledgeable on the subject."
First thing, you are new here and don't have the experience of seeing the #1 Bible ignorant fool Tradesecret running away from my superior Biblical knowledge all the time. Tradesecret goes in spurts, he/she/him gets brave at times and engages me, that is, until I once again Bible Slap him/her/unknown silly in making them the continued Bible stupid fool that they are. This is when Tradesecret goes back into hiding like is shown here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546-is-nature-more-powerful-than-science?page=2&post_number=28
As for ethang5, he is Tradesecrets cohort in Biblical crime where if it wasn't for his Satanic circular reasoning and irrelevant chatter, he would have nothing to say within this forum. Instead of him running away, he remains and makes a bigger fool of himself in "trying" to address a certain post, where his embarrassing example is forthwith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5546-is-nature-more-powerful-than-science?page=2&post_number=32
YOUR QUOTE TO ME RELATIVE TO THE EARTH BEING 6-8 THOUSAND YEARS OLD: "First things first. You have not brought any scientific evidence for a young Earth, and you are without sources. I ask you bring sources and scientific evidence that shows that the earth is less ten 10,000 years old."
I do not need any Satanic science because my serial killing Jesus' inspired words within the Bible show that the earth IS BETWEEN 6 to 8 thousands of years old, period. Since you are an assumed Christian, you should know this fact. If you say otherwise, then you are calling Jesus a LIAR which is blaspheme and will be Hell bound upon your earthly demise, understood?
Question: How can you be a pseudo-christian and a Melioist at the same time, whereas you are expected to follow the Bible to the letter, huh?
On another note, isn't your faith spelled this way: Meliorist instead of the way you are spelling it as Melioist? You can thank me later.
.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
thank you for your post.
I will simply ignore your Ad hominem attacks on my fellow Christians.
Also, you still have no scientific evidence, what a shame. this is probably the same reason you think the earth is flat [1]
"my serial killing Jesus' inspired words within the Bible show that the earth IS BETWEEN 6 to 8 thousands of years old, period."
can you quote some bible verses saying that the earth is between 6-8 thousand years old? thank you.
"How can you be a pseudo-christian and a Melioist at the same time, whereas you are expected to follow the Bible to the letter, huh?"
You seem to believe that Meliorism and Christianity are contradictory. Well, this is not the case. Meliorism is the belief that the world can be made better through human effort [2]. this is complementary to the bible, for Hebrews 13:16 says "And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." and Matthew 5:16 says: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." [3]. as you can see, it pleases God when Christians make the world better.
Also, here are ten reasons that young-earth creationism is unbiblical:
the first versus is number 6, and the second number 15:
Woah, woah woah. Time doesn't exist.
-->
@TheMelioist
BrotherDThomas has to chill down
-->
@Theistic_Evolutionist
agreed
-->
@TheMelioist
@Theistic_Evolutionist
See Dee has a problem. Talking to him is about as profitable as talking to a militant eggplant. Most people just let him spewtill the mods come to take him away.
-->
@TheMelioist
Just to spice things up and give us a smile.
Well I am part of the earth. And so are you. And indeed so are the 7.6 billion people on this planet. And I reckon all of the squillions of animals and insects and probably all of the fish life and all of the bird life and all of the fish life are part of this earth. And you know what - I reckon every living thing on this planet is part of this earth and could be called earth. And that is a pretty significant part of the earth. And I reckon that it goes without saying that - every thing mentioned so far in this paragraph -is under 10 thousand years old.
This of course leaves the rest of the planet - without life. Rocks and dirt - and perhaps water and glaciers and dead things - fossils and bones etc which might a prove a bit more difficult to simply suggest so without REAL Evidence.
But if you accept that some of the earth is under 10, 000 years old - then that is a start. Personally, I am well under 10, 000 years old.
Interestingly, this actually applies to most things we see throughout the day. Most things are well under 10, 000 years old.
Yes, some dirt might be different. But lots of the top soil is younger than 10 thousand years as well . Rocks - aha - gold and silver - now that is an interesting question. Is the gold in my watch over or under 10, 000 years old? Hmmm - or does the fact that it has been shaped and reshaped change its age?
I suppose the rocks down on my farm might be much older - I suppose if they were spewed from an volcano - hmmm - are they considered as "Born" when the volcano spewed and formed the rocks individually or is it whatever it was before it melted and was reformed?
Or is the question of the age of the earth - when the moon allegedly split from it? Or perhaps it was - when it was cast from the middle of the big bang - whenever. Is the earth's age calculated from it stopped where it is or when?
Oh it is all so complicated. How to Calculate the Age of the Earth ? (geographynotes.com) Looking at this site does not give me any confidence that scientists know. Or this one. How is Earth's Age Calculated? | Live Science. Not even wikapedia is much help. Age of Earth - Wikipedia
It seems that it is pretty much guesswork. But let's try and get some sort of consensus in the billions of years. Why? Well because that is how this sort of science works.
-->
@TheMelioist
You may have made this clear somewhere in this forum, and if so my apologies. But I have to ask, are you basing your belief on the age of the earth on scripture, or scientific consensus?
If the bible claimed the earth was shaped in a perfect cube, I would admit we would have a problem. But when it comes to claiming an age before recorded history, and "if" God says the earth is 10,000 years old, could we trust that? Or would science render the claim empirically false?
If the bible claimed the earth was shaped in a perfect cube, I would admit we would have a problem. But when it comes to claiming an age before recorded history, and "if" God says the earth is 10,000 years old, could we trust that? Or would science render the claim empirically false?
-->
@RoderickSpode
I see what you're doing there.
-->
@RoderickSpode
thank you for your post.
"are you basing your belief on the age of the earth on scripture, or scientific consensus?"
If I can answer a question with question, does the Bible say what the age of the Earth is?
If the Bible doesn't say the age of the Earth, it would make it kind of hard to make my belief on the subject based on the Bible. Some Christians say it indirectly does, and we can talk about that if you want to. I personal see no reason why we can't follow the scientific evidence were it leads on this one. humor me as you will. The Bible doesn't say the best way to treat lung cancer. So, where does the Christian get there belief on how to treat lung cancer? well science of course. So similarly, if the Bible is mute on the subject of the Earth's age, therefore we can, and should, follow the scientific evidence were it leads.
can to be more accurate, I get my beliefs from the scientific evidence not the scientific consensus. In science, we don't settle debates based on who has the longer list of scientists, but rather what the evidence says.
Thank you for your post
your post is a little hard to respond to, since it doesn't make any exact claims (this is not necessarily a bad thing). I will say that yes, many things are less then 10,000 years old on this earth, however, those things could never be billions of years old. for example, no form of life could even live to 5,000 years old, (even trees), so this is to be expected.
So this means that we must look to things that can older in age. We can get into the evidence if you want.
-->
@Tradesecret
Let there be light...does not imply either you nor "dirt".
Let there be light...Implies universe first.
Notwithstanding this
Let there be light is
Nothing more than a human data burst.
And did dinosaurs roar or squeak or cheep or worse
Did diplod'
Have a GOD.
That components or aspects of earth are young, does not imply the earth is young.
TheMelioist 16 to RoderickSpodecan to be more accurate, I get my beliefs from the scientific evidence not the scientific consensus. In science, we don't settle debates based on who has the longer list of scientists, but rather what the evidence says
Laymen don't have the skills to evaluate the evidence. Therefore, unbiased laymen usually adhere tothe hypothesis with the longest list of supporting experts.
Here is a shortened version of a 2006 Age of the Earth seminar by Kent Hovind : www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68MXxevNb8
It contains mostly evidence against evolution and little evidence for an alternative.
-->
@Amoranemix
I went to dinosaur adventure land and spoke with Kent Hovind personally. He accepts evolution bc he doesn't know what it is. He's spent his life fighting against a straw man. He has admitted on several occasions that speciation occurs he just doesn't call it that because it doesn't fit his narrative.
Let me start off by saying I am not a young earth creationist. However, to give you a good discussion, I will play that side for a while.
Evidence number 1. Dr. Mary Schweitzer's soft tissue findings:
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek Formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently, Schweitzer and co-workers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria“Blood from Stone,” Scientific American (December 2010): p. 62–69.
If the earth were millions of years old this discovery simply wouldn't be possible.
Evidence number 2. Carbon 14 decay
Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly — with a half-life of only 5,730 years — that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils — supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old — ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon datingEven if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon.Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1970): p. 56–71
Evidence number 3. Lazarus bacteria
In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates). In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Their quandary is quite substantial. (From the AIG website)
Again I'm not a young earther, but hopefully this will make for a good discussion...
the truth is out there man!!
Ok I'll stop
-->
@Soluminsanis
Evidence number 1. Dr. Mary Schweitzer's soft tissue findings:
The refutation of Dr. Mary Schweitzer's (A devote Evangelical Christian) findings is that protein and soft tissue decomposition rates vary enormously, depending on the conditions. Some academics have done lab studies of protein degradation using accelerated conditions of high temperature and high acidity, but it is not valid to extrapolate those results to proteins locked in the pores of dinosaur bones. The reality is that we don’t know, with any precision, how fast proteins degrade under the conditions found in dinosaur fossil bones. Thus, it is incorrect to claim that we know that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in any form for 80 million years. In contrast, the rates of nuclear decomposition of elements have been measured over and over again, and found to be essentially constant. There are a few conditions where nuclear decay can be accelerated, but these conditions are known and predictable, and do not apply to the rock layers in Montana where these dinosaur fossils were found. Thus, it is absurd and insupportable to set aside the radioactive dating of these rock layers because some partly degraded soft tissue has been found in dinosaur fossils from those layers.
So the bottom line is, and this drives Schweitzer crazy. geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.
-->
@TheMelioist
.
TheMelioist (misspelled faith),
In addressing your ungodly post # 8,
YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THE #1 AND #2 BIBLICALLY STUPID AND IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS OF TRADESECRET AND ETHANG5: “I will simply ignore your Ad hominem attacks on my fellow Christians.”
They are NOT attacks in any way whatsoever because what I said about them is TRUE, understood? Furthermore, they are NOT, and along with you, Christians, but they are pseudo-christians instead because of obvious reasons that they DO NOT follow ALL of Jesus' inspired words within the JUDEO-Christian Bible!
They are NOT attacks in any way whatsoever because what I said about them is TRUE, understood? Furthermore, they are NOT, and along with you, Christians, but they are pseudo-christians instead because of obvious reasons that they DO NOT follow ALL of Jesus' inspired words within the JUDEO-Christian Bible!
YOUR INSIDIOUS QUOTE SHOWING THE MEMBERSHIP THAT YOU EQUAL THE DUMBFOUNDED ETHANG5 IN POSTING IRRELEVANT CIRCULAR REASONING: “Also, you still have no scientific evidence, what a shame. this is probably the same reason you think the earth is flat [1]”
The scientific evidence that you require is MOOT because like I said before that you embarrassingly missed, is that I accept Jesus’ inspired words in the creation of man being approximately 6-8 thousand years old, understood? Huh? Maybe? Furthermore Bible fool, where did I mention that the earth was flat?
YOUR SHAMEFUL AND TOTAL BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE: “can you quote some bible verses saying that the earth is between 6-8 thousand years old? thank you.”
You are telling the membership that you are totally unaware that the inspired word of Jesus explicitly states that the earth, as we know it today, and creationism is between 6-8 thousand years old?!!! OMG, and you call yourself an assumed Christian? Surely you jest, yes? LOL
NOTE: I will ONLY discuss this biblical axiom with the #1 and #2 Bible stupid fools Tradesecret and ethang5, where in this way, I will add to my ever growing list in showing just how dumbfounded of the Bible these 2 inept pseudo-christians are. That is, if they do not RUNAWAY again from my biblical superior knowledge over their ever wanting sophomoric pitiful knowledge.
YOUR QUOTE OF STEPPING IN THE PROVERBIAL POO: “You seem to believe that Meliorism and Christianity are contradictory. Well, this is not the case. Meliorism is the belief that the world can be made better through human effort [2]. this is complementary to the bible”
First thing, thank you for actually spelling your faith correctly this time. Heads up, relative to your Meliorist faith and the JUDEO-Christian Bible, how can the world be made a better place when we are instructed by Jesus to do the following:
JESUS SAID: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)
JESUS SAID: “If any man come to me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
JESUS’ INSPIRED WORDS SAID: If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death,; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
JESUS’ INSPIRED WORDS SAID: "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, BUT KILL HIM. Your hand shall be the first raised to SLAY HIM; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall STONE HIM TO DEATH, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
The direct passages above are only a few of MANY passages from Jesus the Christ that are disturbing to say the least, therefore, how can the world be made a better place when the true Christian like myself, and the pseudo-christian like you, has to follow Jesus’ words above? GET IT?
For the sake of you being made the greater biblical fool, I suggest that you DO NOT bring forth that the passages in the OT shown above are not to be followed anymore, understood? If you promote this misnomer, I will Bible Slap you Silly®️ in response! Understood? Yes?
Always remember; “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)
With you promoting various links in stating the reason a young earth creationism is false, only shows in how blatantly Bible ignorant you truly are. Where in turn, you are calling Jesus’ inspired words that show the creation of man is approximately 6-8 thousands years old within the scriptures, you are then calling Jesus a LIAR, or the least of which, you show the Bible contradicting itself which is BLASPHEME!
In closing, I am sorry that you didn’t thank me because of the fact that I corrected you on the spelling of your contradicting faith relative to the Bible, where you are incorrectly spelling your moniker as "TheMelioist," whereas it should be spelled the correct way herewith as "TheMeliorist" to at least give you microcosm of validity within this forum! How embarrassing.
NEXT BIBLE IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN OTHER THAN THE MISPELLED OF FAITH “THEMELIOIST” WILL BE…?
.
-->
@TheMelioist
thank you for your post.
Thanks for responding.
"are you basing your belief on the age of the earth on scripture, or scientific consensus?"If I can answer a question with question, does the Bible say what the age of the Earth is?
I believe it actually does. It doesn't tell us specifically how long according to Greenwich Time, but I don't see the reference to time being that much different than someone today telling another on the first day of their vacation they flew to Hawaii, and the 14th day flew back home. We know that they were gone 2 weeks because their definition of time is universal. So it might depend on what the definition of day God is using in reference to time.
If the Bible doesn't say the age of the Earth, it would make it kind of hard to make my belief on the subject based on the Bible. Some Christians say it indirectly does, and we can talk about that if you want to. I personal see no reason why we can't follow the scientific evidence were it leads on this one. humor me as you will. The Bible doesn't say the best way to treat lung cancer. So, where does the Christian get there belief on how to treat lung cancer? well science of course. So similarly, if the Bible is mute on the subject of the Earth's age, therefore we can, and should, follow the scientific evidence were it leads.
Jesus would at times use parables not necessarily meant to be understood at first hearing. They were meant to draw people in who were interested in finding out their actual meaning. Those who were not interested would either walk away, or take it upon themselves to understand and consequently take the parables out of context. With Jesus' parables, one either understood upon hearing, or needed to receive it's meaning directly from it's source. There was no philosophical, literary, or of course scientific method to figure them out on our own.
So the question becomes, is the time reference of creation in Genesis any different? Is there a challenge to scientists (or anyone) to seek the answer to the age of the earth directly from the creator? George Washington Carver was a young earth creationist. He is alleged to have asked God to reveal the mysteries of the universe to him. His alleged response from God was that this would be a bit too much for him at this time, but guided him to discovering significant and valuable usage of the peanut. If this is true, which I believe is, what would happen if all scientists did what Carver did?
The bible is also quite clear that man at his most intellectual amounts to very little in light of God's wisdom. This suggests to me that the secular science community as we know it today is probably wrought with error, whether we can observe it or not.
As far as curing cancer, the bible of coursr doesn't mention the disease, but instructs believers to lay hands on the sick. This allows all of us, doctors or otherwise, to take part in someone being cured....healed. Today we are far more advanced in medical science, but there's no question that there are doctors who are believers that pray for guidance. If you agree with that, do you feel man finds cures on our own, or is God instrumental somehow in medical advancement?
can to be more accurate, I get my beliefs from the scientific evidence not the scientific consensus. In science, we don't settle debates based on who has the longer list of scientists, but rather what the evidence says.
And there are some scientists who are young earth creationists. Jerry Bergman is one of a number of fully qualified scientists who is a YEC. It's safe to say that YEC scientists are a minority, but would that necessitate them being in error in regards to the age of the earth?
-->
@TheMelioist
on the bible, and I assure you, they are quite knowledgeable on the subject.
I love them.
I've learned from both.
-->
@Soluminsanis
thank you for your post.
If I am correct, the main arguments are:
- soft tissue have been found in "ancient" fossils, therefore these fossils are not ancient
- Carbon-14 has been found in "ancient" fossils, therefore these fossils are not ancient
- Bacteria have been found in "ancient" salt crystal, therefore the salt crystal is not ancient
Frankly, I have heard these before. Young-Earth Creationists seem to use the 20 or so arguments, which all have been refuted by a paper written by [1]
Rebuttal:
- Yes, it is true that soft protein tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. But it is fiction that such protein will decay with time. If that were possible, we as humans would be having trouble with our own bodily proteins decaying, and we could not survive. The proteins can last a long time where the bones have not been "cracked open" to allow water, oxygen, or bacteria to enter that would destroy the proteins by common chemical processes. In many places the bones are mineralized so that they are sealed and pores are closed through which any fluids, oxygen, or bacteria could migrate, and, therefore, the proteins can last for an extremely long time. The breakdown of tissue from animals is not even a dating method. the protein survives because it was sealed in an air-tight, water-tight seal. it is water and oxygen that breaks down proteins, without exposure to this, the proteins can survive for millions of years.
- presence of C-14in trace amounts in ancient fossils, coal, and diamonds is not because of the real existence of this radioactive isotope in ancient fossils, that was produced from N-14 in an ancient atmosphere but because of the impossibility of eliminating trace contamination of modern C-14 in the laboratories where the analyses are made. Contamination is the most likely explanation.
- Again, the bacteria were in a found in rock, which would have protected it form the air, and water. the oxygen and water would have broken it down, but since they were not present, then the bacteria could survive millions of years
the soft tissue argument is number 6, the carbon-12 argument is number 6, and the Lazarus DNA is number 3, though it was the same explanation as number 6
Again I'm not a young earther, but hopefully this will make for a good discussion...
thank you for playing devil's advocate.
-->
@Amoranemix
hello. sorry it took so long to get my rebuttal done, but it took a lot of re-watching the video, and doing my own research.
because my rebuttal is 11 pages long, I have not posted it on this website, but on a google doc that can be found here:
I will address every one of the points, and add in some evidence for a 4.6 billion year old Earth for good measure.
-->
@Theistic_Evolutionist
.
Theistic_Evolutionist,
YOUR SOPHOMORIC HIGH SCHOOL QUOTE: "BrotherDThomas has to chill down"
The only one that has chilled down is YOU because of your ever so weak 1st post!
You can only dream about making just one paragraph within my post shown in the link below, where I have easily taken down, TheMelioist, that can't even spell his Satanic faith correctly. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5575/post-links/240881
To save yourself further embarrassment within this prestigious forum, just run along kid and find a "Children's Religion Forum," thanking you in advance.
.
-->
@The_Meliorist
Your document is behind a password wall.
-->
@Amoranemix
The only way I can think of to get it to you is through a email, because it's too long to post here.
You can either give me your email (or just create a temporary g-mail account so I can send you the document, and you can delete that g-mail account when you finished, if you don't want to give me your email)
Or you can suggest another way to get the document from me.
Sorry this is inconvenient