betsy

and next.... MR CONFUSION *note: MR stands for "Major." http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=660 And he did give a source. But... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=705 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=720 --------- http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=810 Priceless! That also explains their phobia of cut-and-paste.

So here they are - The Blues Brothers - doing their duet, whining about the same old story. Both wear the required dark glasses, that's why I have to do HUGE FONTS - in bold - to help them out. Together, they are formidable....a mighty and noisy gale of gas to be reckoned with, like the hot air balloon on a sultry July noon. Separately, they're meanly tenacious (perhaps because mostly everything fly over their heads?), and at least we know one doesn't read! Such tenacity deserves some recognition. So let me explain how by their own mouths they have earned their titles. Let's start with...... tadaaaa..... PROVEN NO-READ MAN http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=525 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=180 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=195 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=240

Huge Fonts don't work. Not bold print either. Several signs posted throughout to show the way didn't help at all. Detailed explanations, to no avail! Because he doesn't read! On top of that he relies on MR CONFUSION! This one is hopeless!

Speaking of convincing anyone... how can you even think to convince any thinking minds to take any of your rant seriously, SHELLSHOCKED DRE? How can you make us think you know what you talk about....after showing us what you know about the history of western civilization, and how you butchered it thoroughly? Just to refresh your memory, here's what's been immortalized on the web: your argument and my rebuttal from the other segment (Moral), under the topic, Teachers Brainwashing Our Children. I must admit I'd be impressed by anyone who could describe the history of Western civilization in a single paragraph. However, you managed to get everything wrong (even the little you said). First, you, like most people, don't understand the historical concept of separation of Church and State. The point was to prevent the interference of either in the other’s affairs and areas of jurisdiction, not to "boot" the church out. Although developed in the West, the concept is expressed, first as far as I know, in the Bible. When tempted by synagogue officials as to whether He believed He should pay taxes to the Roman authorities, Jesus said "...render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Is there nothing new! A relatively recent example in Canada demonstrates the wisdom of such separation. In the early 1960s, the Duplessis government and the powerful RC Church in Quebec tried together to restrict the rights of a particular business by disallowing a business licence. The real reason for the restriction was the fact that the business owner was a Jehovah's Witness. The court found Duplessis and the involved church people guilty of whatever they were charged with. The church in fact has always been the major and essential social influence in the West, both in our day-to-day lives and in our institutions. All our major universities are the product of the church - in most of Europe, the Roman Church and since the mid-sixteenth century, Protestant denominations, and in England, the Church of England. Come to think of it, where would all the atheist professors like Dawkins make a living if it wasn't for their ill-gained tenure. Our legal systems also are based on Biblical law and teachings. The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament and the Judeo-Christian Gospels are the basis of the law of all Western societies. Our Common Law in Canada (Quebec's civil law is based on Roman Law, but its criminal law is based on the Common Law) and most if not all the U.S. was imported directly from England, which was there developed based on Christian moral standards and the process of precedent. The booting out of the church started later. Napoleon, Marxism, Stalin and the U.S.S.R., Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler are some examples of the benefits of secular thinking. You may not see them as tyrannies in the severe sense such as Cromwell, or the Pope, or Louis XVI, but still... However, the "booting out" that you so enthusiastically praise is somewhat different but every bit as insidious. It is the legislation preventing the teaching in public of Christian doctrine and is much newer and differently motivated, although it is equally based on the desire for power and control. Even in the middle of the 20th century, the idea that the church was not, let alone should not be, a major influence on society, was considered ludicrous. And it still is ludicrous. That's why it has been necessary to propagandize, lie, legislate, and coerce poor children and mindless adults into believing what they know to be ludicrous. Like most of those poor souls, you too have become a victim of the indoctrination of a secularist tyrant who has spent the last 60 or 70 years manipulating the population with the collusion of a large portion of the scientific community. And the indoctrination is not into a doctrine of science - a doctrine of science could live comfortably and happily alongside any other - it is an indoctrination into an ideology whose proponents intent to control, dictate and regulate. They understand the importance and power of Christianity and are intent on seeing it gone. They understand that those who believe in God don't see secularists (or scientists) as important or authoritative. So they will restrict your freedom of speech and expression until they are meaningless; they will restrict your right of access to information to only what they want you to believe. They already are. Maybe you imagine going along with it will protect you. It won't. Maybe these are the people you refer to. and maybe you're okay with them. Poor you. Okay, what does this mean? I can accept "knowledge" in a loose sense to mean something like information being passed along that the teacher hopes will become the opinion of the kids (its truth believed or not by the teacher), but what about "doctrinal"? I take it from your context, and your nature, that you mean by doctrine, religious belief, and therefore don't see scientific doctrine, as doctrine. But of course, you're wrong. Scientific theories and methodology are doctrinal if anything is. So what you must mean is that it's really unacceptable to teach something in school, but it's okay if it's your doctrine. That of course, doesn't really mean your doctrine; it is "your" doctrine only in the sense that it is what you learned in school, or on the net, or wherever. Btw, what do you mean Do you mean the doctrine of Christ? Jesus was crucified by the Romans. They killed thousands of Christians in the 300 hundred years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Quite apart from the fact that it is decidedly not a doctrine of the Roman government, what does the age of a doctrine have to do with its validity? One last point. If you teach scientific methodology in science class in the public system, things have certainly changed. We were taught science - told what science had "proved". That certainty is still the case today when it comes to the theory of evolution. Anyway, to suggest that the theory of evolution explains what we see in nature is, to say the least, a contradiction. "What we see in nature" is now and observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain what we don't see in nature. And come to think of it, what we don't see in the fossil record either. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18125&st=255 Teachers brainwashing our children p 18. And why is that? What's the biggest reason why? Teachers brainwashing our children! Chances are those "religious people in the industrial world" who believe the apes and the chimps are our poor relations got brainwashed as children too! They got fed with that mythological fairy tale about The Frog Prince! And its fairy tale sequel: The Emperor Chimp! That's the most effective propaganda tool of our secularist society! Furthermore, all Creationists believe in evolution to some degree! That's all been explained, numerous time! So you're getting all frothy for nothing. I guess I'll have to patiently endure you as you go through your stages, praying that eventually you'd come to your senses.

So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." Just for the record, here's the complete statement: He didn't want to confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion! Can you read that now? Is that any clearer? Of all people, aren't you supposed to approve what he said??? Boy, you're truly confused. No wonder you're like a flea-bag doggie biting its tail (no offense to DOP)...on and on and on and on and on....going circular. So which one do you prefer? CIRCULAR MAN or FLEA-BAG DOGGIE

I'm just the messenger delivering the news. Blame Science! Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument Blame Camp and Luskin! A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis Casey Luskin You're just going through the stages of shellshock. Denial, anger, spitting and spewing. It'll pass. Give it time.

And this one too, which is another long article but quite detailed. So I just give the table of contents and the conclusion. http://www.conservapedia.com/Jericho_chronology_dispute

Furthermore...your argument is outdated, since you're just basing it on Kenyon's conclusion. These seem to be the latest findings. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=995

You only quoted a fraction from your last source (biblearcheology) - which is actually just the introduction to the whole premise of the title. Perhaps you did not bother to read any further thus your "conclusion" is false....or misleading? The article is very long since it's quite detailed. Here is your quote, and the subsequent information you've neglected to add, including the the conclusion: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx In other words, it's like the Nelson Glueck -Khirbat En-Nahas scenario in the sense that previous archeological assessments that favored the Bible are getting vindicated in the end. Puzzle pieces falling into places.

Addle-brained? What was that again? Excavations happened on the moon and did they find or not a flashlight hiding underneath all that cheese? It's not me who mistook cosmology/physics for archeology, Mr Moon Dancer! There was Anchor Man, Mesopotamia Man, Proven No-Read Man, Dino-Cuckoo Man....and the latest discovery, Moon Man! I'd like to break tradition with Moon Man, and instead name him Moon Dancer - for the cute imagery the name evokes. Oh boy, monkeys are evolving again! They're turning into noisy excellent agile deflectors but poor-aiming X-men! If that makes you feel much better - though I don't know why - let's go along with your statement. I issued the challenge by posting a FACT. A fact about archeological discoveries which was stated by a reputed archeologist - Gleuck - who'd just been recently vindicated by the discovery and dating of Khirbat En-Nahas. Apparently you don't agree to the posted fact. You want to contradict the statement of Glueck. You challenge the posted - and Glueck's - statement. The onus is on you to provide something to support your argument! You obviously can't! Or you wouldn't be here trying all the semantic gymnastics and yoga-contortionists movements....but never producing a single irrefutable evidence! Not a single irrefutable evidence! Hello? Deja vu.....it's like evolution all over again! Cite something that shows archeology irrefutably contradicts all those! After all that's what we're arguing about, isn't it? ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES DID NOT CONTRADICT ANY BIBLICAL REFERENCE. Not Moon Dancer's opinion that said it did! So stop bouncing - or dancing - all over the place! The classical deflecting strategy which translates to: therefore, you cannot refute it! Loud and clear.

Never mind finding fault to those who wrote the Bible! Unlike you, they didn't have the luxury of science daily subscription and yet they got some things scientifcally proven. Let's deal with your response! You issue a challenge about archeological finding! And when you're called on it, you give a cosmological reply! Moon and light....archeology??? I mean really? Furthermore... you're all over the place BUT never in the right place! Like the other devolutionists, your aiming apparatus is askew! You can't hit the bull's eye. And just like the Biblical reference of the tree and its fruits...you guys are sounding more and more like Preacher Dawkins.

God's time. God's days. Psalm 90:4 4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Obviously God's time is not the same as the time we observe. What is the equivalent of a second....or a minute...or a day....only God knows. We cannot even begin to grasp God's temporal framework. God exists outside of time and space, which He created.

And just so you'd understand what I mean by that statement above: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html Neo-Darwinists, you guys are toast!

NO! Oh-ho-ho....of course evolutionists would want the Creation thread to go away....far, far away.... Understandable. Like Count Drac would want the sun to go away....far, far away...

You think that belongs to ARCHEOLOGY ? We're talking A R C H E O L O G I C A L Discoveries! And what are those??? Explain what they've got to do with archeological findings contradicting Bible refernces. Support your argument. CITE!

God's time. God's days.

And rightly so! I don't know why these folks are so eager to be associated with chimps. So determined to elevate the status of apes and chimps - or so they think, with the "grass looking greener on the other side...." Mind you these posters are all responding in anonymity....we haven't seen any of their photos, did we? Who knows, they could all be responding from the lab!

Kicking and screaming....as you reach the end.... Face it! You guys have gotten yourself in a corner with nowhere to go! You've boxed yourself in and making a valiant - yet futile - effort at last stand!

You think archeology contradicted the Bible. Wishful thinking. Then put your mouth where your money is. Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. What "error" is that? It is over zealous scientists who makes errors! Grave errors! As this latest discovery did, it corrected the errors of scientists who were too quick to dismiss Glueck's dating! May I remind you that I've stated way back: the Bible does not support science. It is science that happens to support the Bible.

Although it is my personal belief that the Bible is correct, my posted facts never made any claims that since some Biblical references have been validated that therefore it is correct. You are arguing about nothing. Non-issue. One inaccurate quack I know is Richard Dawkins - accused by a colleague evolutionist, Lewontin! And judging by another article, Talk Origin seems to be a nest for quacks! And those who try to cover up the confusion of Gould(?)....also go quack-quack-quack.

With these rebuttals from Camp, A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Camp Answers Theobald Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique By Ashby L. Camp Copyright 2002 by Ashby L. Camp. All rights reserved. http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp ....and this scathing rebuke from Luskin.... Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html And.....these two latest news.... Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study. http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/ Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/ 29 Evidences definitely went....pffffffffft.

And here's Ashby's reply to Theobald's response to his critique of 29 Evidences. http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

Speaking of your favorite site, Talk Origin. Here's an article accusing it of deception. http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

You brought back 29 Evidences by Theobald. That was critiqued by Ashby Camp; A Critique of Douglas Theobalds 29 Evidences for Macroevolution by Ashby Camphttp://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Furthermore, there's also this article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

The 29 Evidences again? We're back to these again?