You're absolutely right. Don't do that for my sake - post a host of links to support your assertions. I'm not in a dialogue with "links." You and your ideas are more important to me than that. Links may be handy for some things, but it's overkill - when dealing with me - to post links and scientific articles. Just speak your point in your own words, and I'll ask questions and/or point out where you might have made assertions worth questioning. Okay?
I take the account of creation in Genesis as a literal presentation. I'm not going to link it as a "proof text" for you or expect you to treat it as a scientific exposition on every detail of creation.
Does one of your links assert how many people, on a percentage basis, have been granted the tools and intellect to directly verify the age of the universe? If so, just state the figure, and I'll let you know if a "citation" is needed to convince me. Okay?
Why would links presenting the evidence on a physics/astronomy/nuclear chemistry question worry about some kind of population demographic issue?
Huh? A) I don't have the time to rewrite all of the evidence from many scientific papers here on a thread, B) post huge screeds where a link will suffice, and C) attempt to format equations into the limited HTML here.
READ THE LINKS! I give them to you for a reason.
Does one of your links assert how many people, on a percentage basis, have been granted the tools and intellect to directly verify the age of the universe?
How about many thousands of people!
Maybe something needs to be mentioned about how links work. You click on the link, see, and you go to a whole article on a subject.
That keeps this thread from getting too big. We could copy the contents of the links to you, but reading them on the thread is no better than reading them on the sites that host them now. In the end, you have to read the stuff because we aren't there to read it to you. Anyway, links would be OK for someone who actually had some intellectual curiosity on a subject and was trying to learn.
Your point in disavowing the use of links, of course, is to stay ignorant. Now, when I say creation science is militantly ignorant of evolution and mainstream science in general, people say I am demeaning the opposition, arguing ad hominem, etc., and shame on me.
Well, here's you on this thread with a world of evidence in your lap and refusing to click. These are the arguments for creationism, the "You can't make me see" science!