Not me. First off, while he's got some valid points, he's clearly a "believer" in Christianity, whereas I'm agnostic. When I make posts defending christian positions, it's usually either because I'm playing devil's advocate (and I say so), or to point out the few areas in which they may be "correct", but often for the wrong reasons.
On some areas, he does seem similar though. Like the whole "mountains can change height" argument. He's not saying that he's proven that a global flood occured. He's simply arguing that it's not "impossible" for such a flood to occur (or even to have occured). That is the sort of argument I do tend to get into, since it's not uncommon for those I'm arguing against to assume that if I am arguing that something isn't "impossible", that I must be arguing that it happened (and add in a bunch of other assumptive stuff somewhat tied to it).
Kinda like when I argue against global warming, I'm not arguing against US industry making an active effort to reduce their pollution, but am questioning the validity of the arguement that "since global warming exists, we *must* do <list of things>". My arguments are rarely black and white, but many of those I argue against tend to view the issue we argue about in black and white terms and can't seem to grasp that not all of us do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please