The only issue I see is that you use too much italic and it makes you look like a wuss.
And your opinion of me is what I care about most, of course. I'm just crushed.
Also I tried to read the articles you linked, but for the most part they suck.
Actually having to process a "flood of boring information" is too challenging or something? Well... okay, then.
I guess you provided that article to make it clear that people with a Ph.d. are competent only if they agree with your specific vision of the world.
I was interested to see how you'd process it. And yes, unfortunately, it went about like I suspected it would. There's a reason why there aren't any flood geologists in the oil industry.
Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they look for the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone making money doing this? (I can suggest one possibility...)
In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.
BTW, that's the case with the Theory of Evolution. Here's my favorite example. (Some actual math here.) Interestingly, we know the Tree of Life with greater prescision than we know the gravitational constant G!
That doesn't work. Verbal debates are stunts. They allow no time for review, or for detailed examination of points raised. Which is one reason why creationists love them - they invented the Gish Gallop.
They don't stop everybody, they stop, say, every third car. And they use high-pressure sales techniques to try to get "biological samples". But they actually don't arrest people they find impaired; they try to arrange transportation for them. And they don't claim to actually collect or register DNA, just the presence of drugs. I don't think that makes it right, but let's at least be accurate about what they're doing.
More information and links to past examples of these "studies":
Pointing out that people can successfully choose not to avail themselves of anonymity - that one can choose to express oneself openly despite risks - is simply not the same thing as saying anonymity should be banned, or even that the option for anonymity isn't important. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. If you want to start a fight, you'll have to look elsewhere.
You need this environment. Even if none of your current opinions are controversial. Because one day yours, or your childrens' opinion won't won't be welcomed by government.