segnosaur

I didn't say either. I'm too open minded for that. I accept nothing but debate about it. Illogical is only blind belief. Sorry, guess I didn't state that clear enough. When I said "you don't believe in evolution. You accept evolution" I was not using the word "you" to mean you specifically. I was using it to apply to anyone in general who understands that the logical explanation for the diversity of life on the planet was through evolution. No need for "conspiracy". People have been wrong without it. Really? Listening to people like betsy you'd assume that all scientists were ganging up to quash anything they disagreed with. At the very least it would require a massive amount of incompetence to dismiss large amounts of evidence that we've found supporting evolution. Why it has to? Because, the old observations still exist, and must be explained. (I think you might be confusing observations with theories. An observation (assuming it was legitimate) will always exist in science. Theories/hypothesis are the things that get modified. They have, for example, found plenty of evidence supporting the relationship between birds and dinosaurs. (Transitional fossils, chemistry, genetics, etc.) If tomorrow we found evidence that suggested birds appeared before the Triassic, that would not negate the transitional fossils that were found. Instead, we'd have to adjust the phylogenic tree to put the relationship in the context. But we'd still keep the transitional fossils as a discovery of science. Probably nothing, because as far as I can tell, there were no real scientific observations from the "flat earth" idea. Ummm... first of all, keep in mind that the Coelocanth comprises a whole order of fishes, not just a single species. And despite claims that the Coelocanth is a "living fossil", the species that are alive today are not the same as those that existed 60 million years ago. They did evolve. Secondly, with science it is pretty much impossible to "prove" a species is extinct (or never existed). They thought they had disappeared because they'd never been seen live, but that doesn't mean you can't have isolated populations in areas that have minimal human contact. The fact that they exist now, modified slightly (but similar to) fossil forms is an illustration of how genetic and morphological changes will occur slowly when there is little selective pressure. (Given the fact that the subject of the rate of change of evolution is an area of active study, such information is actually useful.)

Ummm... minor point... this woman was not a "whistle blower". She was not exposing illegal or corrupt secret activity that the government was involved in. She may not have liked the government policies, but that doesn't make her a "whistleblower" by exposing them. Any real whistle blowers will likely be smart enough to understand the difference between "Waaa!! Don't like Harper Policies! I think I'll protest" and "Hmm... this MPs doing something that they would be in jail for... better do something".

If you believe in your evidence you're right. But you're still not believing the evidence for evolution. You're accepting the evidence, because to dismiss it would be illogical. If something appears in a peer reviewed journal (e.g. Journal of Paleontology) we assume the information has been properly vetted by experts in the field. (And the fact is, articles DO routinely get rejected from publications.) For us to reject evidence appearing in such journals would be to assume there's some sort of massive conspiracy to "hide the truth", a position that would be highly illogical. (And conspiracies never seem to work out the way you expect.) I doubt it. The theory of evolution has been around for over a century. There is a mountain of evidence to support it (everything from fossils, genetics, morphology, chemistry, and direct observation.) That evidence isn't likely going to go anywhere. This isn't some "flash in the pan" idea. Furthermore, evidence does not typically "go" anywhere. (Assuming it hasn't been exposed as a fake or faulty in some way.) If new observations are made that require the modification of theories, any such modifications have to incorporate both old and new evidence.

However, "belief" implies the acceptance of something without evidence. If a discovery is challenging existing scientific thought, the existing thought isn't accepted as a matter of "belief", it was accepted because the evidence originally pointed that way. (In many cases, the "revolutionized" science doesn't replace existing thought, but is an addition to them. For example, Newton came up with the laws of motion. Einstein's theory of Relativity challenged those laws. However, Newton's laws still work quite well in many cases. (You only need to invoke relativity in certain situations... high velocity, extreme gravity.) And, lets face it, such "revolutionary ideas" are probably not as common as people might think. Most scientific discovery is through the methodological progression and building on previous ideas.) Two quotes from Carl Sagan apply: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. (I think most people here would recognize that betsy is the "bozo the clown" example, not the "columbus/wright brothers" example.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Keep in mind that while these sorts of lists may be interesting, there's a lot here that we don't really know. They based their ranking on multiple factors, such as: Life Satisfaction, debt, disposable income, life expectancy, etc. But we are never told (at least in that article, although the information might be elsewhere) just how those factors are combined. Is "life expectancy" more important than "life satisfaction"? Less important? The same? We aren't told. Secondly, we aren't told just how "close" the U.S. is to making the list, nor how close the countries making up the rankings are. It could be that all western countries are almost the same in their overall assessments (and the differences between #1 and #10 in the list are really tiny). Possibly. But then, the U.S. has free education and a host of welfare programs. (And while their health care system is not totally free, they do have medicare/medicaid to help many of the disadvantaged.) Yet they didn't make the list. Not that Canada shouldn't take some pride in our accomplishments, we should just take rankings like this with a grain of salt.

I think you've left her with no choice but to utter another "Bwa-ha-ha" in the hopes that she might not appear to be utterly vanquished. Yeah, she's like the Charlie Sheen of the thread. Always "Winning", regardless of how badly things go for her. I'd almost be tempted to classify her as a "troll", someone who doesn't believe the nonsense she's spouting. However, I've actually dealt with people in real life who have that exact same mentality.

Valid questions. You just are unable to answer them. Guess you can't find a site to cut and paste the answers from. In case you forgotten them, here they are again. - who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases? - If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species - What is your scientific definition of a "kind"? - Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas? - Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest? - Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud? Besty.... liar, hypocrite, thief. Liar, because she claimed she wanted "debate", but when issues were raised that she can't deal with she runs away rather than deal with them. Hypocrite, because she "demanded" I answer a particular question she raised, yet she refuses to answer issues others have directed at her. Thief, because she breaks copyright law by taking excessive amounts of material from other sources (and in some cases doesn't give proper references.) I'm pretty sure at least 2 of those actually break commandments.

Actually we have plenty of evidence of evolution: - The fossil record, which in some cases gives a pretty well-illustrated picture of how particular species evolved. (The evolution of the whale has some pretty spectacular transitional fossils). Its true that gaps do exist for many species (and possibly always will), but the fossil record does point to evolution - Genetics, which pretty much matches what we see in the fossil record. (i.e. the species that appear to be closely related in the fossil record also tend to have the most genetic similarities.) The logical explanation is the species appeared via descent and modification (e.g. evolution) - Actual observations... they've actually witnessed speciation in the lab. For example: a new species of Oenothera gigas (evening primrose) was bred in the lab which cannot breed with related species. And then there's Culex pipiens molestus (mosquito in London subway systems; mating between it and other mosquitoes is generally unsuccessful). Given the fact that the subway system didn't exist 2 centuries ago, this new species evolved in the wild in the past hundred years or so Of course there is other information out there: we know the age of the universe through astronomy, and the age of the earth via radiometric dating. That isn't exactly evidence of evolution (since the origins of the planet is a different issue than the origins of species). However, it does debunk the arguments made by "young earth" creationists. It is notable however that it fits in with the idea that evolution requires multiple generations (and possibly millions of years) to occur. (It would be extremely suspicious if evolution required millions of years but astronomy/geology showed an earth only thousands of years old)

So, you're whole argument is based on the fact that you don't understand the meaning of various words! See the phrase "Most people"? Here's a little hint... the word "most" is not the same as "all". So the idea that the bottom of the ocean was "flat" was hardly universal. Oh, and another thing... notice it says "relatively flat"? Do you know that the term "relatively" does not mean "Completely"? So your very own reference doesn't prove "everyone thought the ocean floor was completely flat"... instead, it suggests that some thought it varied, and others thought it may have varied, but just wasn't sure how much. The fact is, your very own bible quotes are incredibly vague.. they do not mention where those "undersea mountains" are, nor how tall they are. Oh, and does everyone else notice that she still hasn't addressed the issues I brought up? (Yet she went through the trouble of cut-and-pasting a bunch more stuff.) Why is that? Could it be betsy is incapable of addressing these issues? - who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases? - If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species - What is your scientific definition of a "kind"? - Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas? - Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest? - Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud? Look besty, I know you actually prefer to run away from actually dealing with these issues, but since you claimed to "want a debate" I figure I should continue throwing them at you. Betsy... the liar and the thief.

The problem is not that you're not convinced of the science. The problem is that you're acting like a brain damaged idiot who doesn't want to even understand the science. Your whole argument is "Pliny don't understand, so Pliny thinks he can be right". Sorry, in the real world such willful ignorance is both stupid and outright dangerous. Yes, that's right. But here's the point... there must actually be new observations. Its rather idiotic to say "I have no proof, but because I am to lazy/idiotic to learn, I'll assume its wrong". Yes, I do mind, when A: your waiting is gong to cause people to die, and B: the whole question of the effectiveness of vaccines and the links with autism have been studied to death. So, you don't think 25 studies denying the link between autism/vaccines is enough. Then how many is? 30? 40? You don't think the 2 studies posting the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine is enough... then how many? 5? 10? (Hint: I can easily post more than just the 2...) Here's a list of 8 different studies.... all of whom actually did experiments (comparing those who got vaccinated vs. a placebo control group), none of the sources were from "drug company literature". And this was only after a very short search... could have found many more. And every one I found ended up with the same results... vaccines reduced the number of people who got sick with the flu. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/10/908.short http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00004497 http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7581/1241.short http://www.passporthealthusa.com/files/PDF/Effectiveness-of-Vacination-Against-Influenza-on-Healthy-Working-Adults.pdf http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9580647/reload=0;jsessionid=96AB8DA0F2EB6506E91C5DCB2317D29E.jvm1 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/2/e24.abstract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/13/1677.short Ummm.... you do realize that the issue with Vioxx was not over concerns over efficacy, don't you? Vioxx worked. In fact, it worked very very well. Studies showed that, and the experience with the medical community showed that. It was the fact that there were unexpected side effects. Oh, and Vioxx was only on the market for 5 years before it was withdrawn. Some of the studies I gave regarding the effectiveness of vaccines were around 2 decades old. And they were specifically testing for it. Similarly, some of the studies that show no link between autism and vaccines go back longer than the 5 years Vioxx was on the market. But here's the problem... what if you're a brain damaged idiot who doesn't understand science, who doesn't want to understand science? What if you're such a moron that you're incapable of understanding how tiny the risks are compared to the benefit? You see, even with the minor risks from vaccines, you're still better off getting the vaccine than not. Well, unless of course you like the idea of getting sick. By all means, look at the risks, but actually try looking at the risks using a little intelligence. Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of doing so. Oh, and consider this... you say you're "not in the high risk category". Well, in the U.S., there were ~9000 influenza-related deaths and roughly ~160,000 hospitalizations for those in the 18-64 age range in 2009-10 (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/pdf/graph_April%202010N.pdf). These were not the elderly, nor children. On the other hand, the main severe reactions to the vaccine are allergic reactions (easily handled by getting patients to wait 15 minutes after vaccination) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which would only affect ~1 out of every 1 million people. (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#h1n1) So, 9000 deaths from influenza (in the US), vs. maybe a few hundred people getting sick from GBS, a disease that people usually recover from completely. (Oh, and it gets better: While there have been some cases where the vaccine is linked to GBS, its also quite likely that the risk is even greater for those who don't get vaccinated and contract influenza naturally!) Never claimed that you should be forced to get vaccinated. I do however have no problem with requirements that schoolchildren, health care workers, etc. get vaccinated because of the risk of spreading the disease. I would also have no problem with an employer firing people who were too stupid to get vaccinated. (Why should they pay for idiots who might have to take extra sick days off? And who might spread disease to others in the office.) By that I assume you mean "Pliny is an idiot who doesn't understand basic science". Which of course is an idiotic brain damaged argument that I've already debunked before. Of course, you'll stick to it because facts are not on your side. They likely didn't "pound the drum" because A: they predicted the flu season would be relatively mild, and B: one of the most common circulating strains would be the H1N1 (pandemic) virus (which they'd be protected against). Still, the government of Canada states that people are encouraged to receive the vaccine (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/10vol36/acs-6/index-eng.php). In the U.S. the CDC also "recommends a yearly flu vaccine as the first and most important step in protecting against flu viruses." (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/preventing.htm). So, the governments are still pushing people to get vaccinated. Very bizarre claim to make. As I pointed out before, courts do not always make the correct "scientific" decision. Ummm... its the job of scientists to do studies, even if those studies are controversial. You love to tout the Vioxx case as somehow proof of problems in science, but articles indicating problems with Vioxx were in fact published in science journals. So obviously science journals have no problem publishing results that question current drugs when the evidence is there. So, you fail once again. I have asked before, but I've noticed that once again you ignored the questions: Any time did you actually read the study (The ones written by lawyers studying the autism/vaccine link), in particular the part where they admit their study "is not science" (pretty much their own words)? Or the part of the study which points out that they don't really have proof that the government is wrong? And did you actually notice that the people doing the "study" are lawyers who earn their money with vaccine lawsuits? Since you seem to think science is "in doubt", do you think we should start teaching the Flat Earth idea in geography class? What about holocaust denial in history class? After all if your argument is based on "you can't trust anything", then how do you know the earth isn't flat? Or that millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide? Does your "open mind" concept extend to these as well? Eagerly awaiting your answers to those questions. (edited to fix one of the links)

There's also no proof that an invisible pink unicorn isn't living in my sock drawer. Just because there's no evidence refuting something doesn't mean that we should accept its existence. Sometimes the null hypothisis is correct. There is no confusion. There may be elements that are currently unknown, but the vast, vast majority of scientists (>99%) accept the theory of evolution (not to mention the big bang/evolution of the universe) ID (I assume you mean intelligent design) is not a theory in the scientific sense. To be a "theory" it has to explain observations and make testable predictions. However, you cannot "test" ID, since anything that doesn't make sense can always be explained by "god did it". Except of course you can never actually "prove" anything in science. Science deals with evidence, validation, and probabilities. (We may sometimes slip in the word "proof" now and then, but strictly speaking proof really only applies to math.) I have confidence that the theory of evolution is correct, because the evidence points that way. Your claim of "proving" the existence of god illustrates how you don't understand basic scientific concepts.

Of course, we should be fair and point out that we're not sure of all the details regarding Avian origins. The evidence points to them being related, but exactly when they "split off" is unknown, as is the origin of the mechanism of flight. Over time I'm sure science will fill in the gaps. Until then we can come up with hypotheses. Or, they engage in the "galloping Gish" (which looks a little like what she is doing here). A "Gish gallop" refers to creationist Duane Gish, who developed a method of "debate" whereby he would present a large number of half-truths, lies and distortions. Each of them is easy to debunk on their own, but when inundated with multiple arguments concurrently, it becomes harder for the debunker to address false claim properly. As a result, the creationist ends up happy that they managed to "win" not by presenting clear and reasonable arguments, but by drowning their opponent in bull cr*p. Betsy has made over a dozen "claims" here. None were in her own words (thus she required no effort or brain power to actually make the claim). Instead of trying to handle any of the responses, on she gallops, with yet more cut-and-paste. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Wonder if she'd be more convinced if we did like she did... cut-and-paste long rambling passages from sources (doing so illegally I might add), without actually adding any of our own material?

Hah! Several dead-on Biblical facts and you dismiss them....yet you want to sell me macro-evolution - riddled with hoaxes/frauds/unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims - and with not a single valid evidence to boot! Nice try! First of all, everyone should note that once again, besty did NOT address the main point... that the existence of one or more "facts" in any work of literature is not evidence that the entire book should be considered factual. Instead of attempting to address that logic (she can't) she instead attempts to change the subject, to divert the issue by attempting to smear science. Secondly, notice that once again, she has ignored the fact that while science may have had problems, so has creationism. Say hello to Hovind. He's in jail. He was also a creationist. Lastly, she makes the rather false claim that there's "not a single valid evidence". That is a lie. The fact is, there is a mountain of evidence, both regarding evolution, and the development of our universe as a whole. (Everything from astronomical observations, genetics, geology, radiometric physics, etc.) While she almost urinates with excitement over her "fraudulent" Archeoraptor, she completely ignores the multiple fossils of Archaeoptryx, the genetic analysis of T-rex material, and the observations of feathered quill nobs on the skeletons of velociraptors, none of which has been shown to be fradulant, and all of which support the idea of the descent of birds from dinosaurs.

Not to mention the other issue I raised earlier... Genesis has god creating the stars on the "Fourth day". Did he create all the stars? Because astronomers pretty much observed the creation of new stars/planetary systems that started long after the earth was created.

If you don't want to be called a "spam bot", then stop posting information you find on the web, over and over again. If you don't want to be called a thief, then stop breaking copyright law. I see no need to play "nice" with someone who abuses the rules of the forum, breaks copyright laws, and is unwilling to address issues that are brought before them. Nope, I'm not deceitful. I may be rude, insulting, and condescending, but I make an attempt to address the major issues that are brought forward (within of course my own personal time constraints). Furthermore, I actually make an attempt to learn about the issues I've posted so I can make statements in my own words, rather than cut-and-pasting from some other source. Yet nowhere in this thread have you explained who on Noah's ark had aids, or how saltwater fish would have survived the decrease in salinity brought about by the flood, or why jebus had 2 different paternal grandparents, or why the bible was wrong about rabbits chewing their cud. So, what exactly is the value of your "responses"? I have no problem with you providing articles/sources. I do wish they were from a more reputable source. (Believe it or not, creationists web sites are not always the most informed when it comes to science.) What I do have a problem with is the way you cut-and-paste from sources, in some cases breaking copyright law (which makes you a thief by the way), without doing any of your own analysis. Oh, and I dislike the way you tend to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" whenever an issue is raised that debunks your claims. Be like me? You mean someone who doesn't spam the forum with a whole bunch of articles cut and pasted from web sites with questionable scientific credentials? Yes please! Be like me! I post references when they are necessary. The fact is, most of your "arguments" are so bogus that they can be debunked without ever referring to any outside sources. (For example, I do not need to refer to any outside source when I point to the fact that the bible gives 2 different orders of creation. After all, its all right there in the bible.)

Dear kettle... I would like to make a particular observation regarding your color. - Signed: The pot Perhaps if you're going to complain about people "not answering questions", perhaps you should deal with some of the issues you've left outstanding. Such as the scientific problems with the flood (e.g. diseases requiring a host). Or the rather obvious contradictions I pointed out (Ancestors of Jebus, death of Judas, etc.)

Just answer this. You're actually asking me a question? First of all, in your previous post you said "bye". Sounded pretty final to me. Secondly, its a bit rude to go around asking me questions, when multiple issues that I addressed to YOU have gone unaddressed. But then, I guess that's par for the course. However, being the better man than you, I will address your question... Well, where to being? You've been spamming this board so much that its hard to know where to being. Your "facts" fall into several categories. Things that are wrong. Examples: - The claim that "stars are incalculable". They aren't. Astronomers have calculated the number to be in the order of 10^21 - Prophesies have come true. No, they haven't. Any "prophesies" are so vague that they can be applied to multiple events (or they only have the bible as proof... which isn't exactly "proof" of anything) Stuff that's correct but doesn't mean much (kind of like the mention of the city of London in the Harry Potter books... it might be true, but its hardly "proof" of anything special) Examples: - Mountains and trenches in the sea. That's something that would likely be obvious to any sailors of the day - Existence of ocean currents. Again, something that would probably be obvious to any sailors of the day - Water Cycle. I'm sure pretty much everyone back then knew that moisture disappeared into the air, and that rain came down Stuff that's a coincidence Examples: - Universe has a beginning. Pretty much every religion has creation myths. So what? There's nothing in the bible that supports any of the other scientific observations, such as red shifts, etc. Misleading claims Examples: - All of the famous scientists that were "creationists". Misleading because most of those names came from a time prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory (And, as I pointed before, if you assume being famous makes you correct, then I should point out that Newton believed in both creation AND alchemy. That does not mean we can turn lead to gold. Stuff that's contradicted: Examples: - Earth is round (but then there are multiple parts in the bible that suggest the earth is flat, and its only through invoking super-jebus that you can explain it away) Stuff that's just bat-sh*t insane Examples: - Finished creation. In the bible, god creates the stars. Yet astronomers know that new stars are being created all the time. You were suggesting "god does not create new matter", but stars are distinct objects. They're specifically mentioned in the bible as being created in genesis. But we know stars are being created now. - Science remains baffeled. Not sure how this is supported by the bible. - Noah received the dimensions of the ark... And so? What's that supposed to prove? What is the scientific merit of that? We've never found evidence of a wooden ship anywhere near the size suggested Now that I've dealt with your question, why don't you try addressing the issues I raised? (Oh, and do so in your own words, without resorting to cutting and pasting): - who on Noah's ark had AIDS? Who had herpes? Who had Ebola? Or one of any number of diseases? - If there was a global flood, how did the fish survive? After all, most species of fish have very specific salinity requirements. A massive flood is going to make the water far less salty and probably kill most of the fresh water species - What is your scientific definition of a "kind"? - Why is micro-evolution acceptable but not macro-evolution? What is limiting micro-evolution to prevent large-scale changes? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give different paternal grandparents for jebus? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? - Why does the bible (which supposedly has no contradictions) give a different method of death for Judas? - Why does jebus (the "son of god, the creator of everything) not know that the mustard seed is not the smallest? - Why does the bible not know that rabbits do not chew their own cud?

Actually, dachshunds probably wouldn't exist in the wild anyways. Nature tends not to favor "extremes" (such as short legs) unless there is selective pressure. So if we let natural breeding take place, dachshunds would disappear. (They only exist because we keep breeding them that way.) The only way they could exist is if they became isolated in a population, and through genetic drift became a separate species. Then they would deserve their own slot in the Canidae family.

Please explain what a 'kind' is. Is a 'kind' a species? Is it a genus? Are dogs/wolves the same 'kind'? What's the "scientific" definition of a "kind"? And please, give your explanation without resorting to massive cut-and-paste. Do so in your own words. (My prediction: She won't be able to provide any sort of real explanation for 'kind') So, what exactly is the difference? Just how much "micro-evolution" is allowed? And by what mechanism does successive "micro-evolution" changes not result in a distinct species substantially different from its distant ancestors? What are the limiting factors? And again, give your explanation without resorting to massive cut-and-paste. Do so in your own words.

And hey, I'm still waiting to hear about who on Noah's ark had AIDS, Herpes, Syphalis, Small Pox, Polio, and a whole host of other diseases.

Your argument fails. The fact that some things appearing in the bible are true does not mean that all parts of the bible are true. (After all, Harry Potter mentions the town of London, yet the fact that it is accurate in mentioning a real life place does not mean that we should be believing in flying broomsticks and magic wands. Of course, I'd also doubt all your claims of "biblical declarations that have been proven true". Given the fact that you tend to cut-and-paste/spam from creationist web sites (who themselves have a pretty poor grasp at science) your claims of "biblical declarations proven true" is rather... questionable.

Ummm... just so you know... even though there have been frauds/mistakes in science, those errors tend to get uncovered by, guess what... science. Science is self-correcting. And while there may have been frauds/mistakes, there is still plenty of evidence that still points to evolution being the proper explanation for change and diversification of life on earth. Any such "frauds" have composed only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been found. So, Hovind is one of the well known proponents of "biblical creationism". He's now in jail for income tax fraud. So does that mean you're going to discount all of creationism as a result?

Why is it "indisputable" if it's interpreted out of context? But I'm not taking anything "out of context". You see, you are stuck in a circular loop... you assume "the bible is 100% correct/accurate/perfect", and so whenever someone points out a flaw in the bible (such as contradictions), you stick your fingers in your ears, shout "la la la I can't hear you". And then since you are ignoring any problems in the bible, it reaffirms your false assumption that the "bible is perfect". You see, this is why you fail. And fail badly. You yourself admit that there are other interpretations. Yet you claim yours is correct because its "more logical". I didn't claim any one interpretation was more logical than another, I just claimed that other interpretations existed. And when you're dealing with a book that features a talking snake, claims that bats are birds, and can't even be consistent in stating the order of creation, logic is something that doesn't really account for much. It's part of the explanation of the subject being discussed - Mosaic Law! Nope. It was a different section of the bible, involved different characters in different circumstances. There is no way to know whether the authors were making the same references or were not. I already did. Yet you ignored them. Why exactly is that? Oh, that's right. Because the way you deal with problems is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I can't hear you!". From post 125 (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=180&p=675297entry675297) Matthew 27: Judas hung himself. Acts 1: he tripped and fell, "bursting asunder" Genisis 1: God creates animals first, then man. Geneis 2: God creates man first, then animals. You'd figure he'd be able to keep the order of creation straight. Luke 3: The paternal grandfather of Jebus is Heli. Matthew 1: The paternal grandfather is Jacob. (Hey, maybe they had same sex marriage in those days, and Joseph had 2 gay dads.) No, you were cherry picking arguments and ignoring anything that contradicted your beliefs. Ummm... no... the passage mentioned the "blast from god's nostrils"... something physical. (You do realize that wind is something that can be observed.) And don't you think that if you were right (you're not by the way), that its a little strange that the author is using foundation in two different contexts within a couple of sentences of each other? Hey look! Here it means a physical foundation! Oh, but a couple of lines later it means "moral foundation"! Sounds like the author was really bad at explaining himself. So indeed He was shown. Supernaturally. I see. So jebus had super power vision. Did he also have laser vision like superman? If he had this "supernatural vision", then why did he need to bring him to the "top of the mountain"? Of course, there's also Daniel 4, which describes a tree "height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth". So, such a tree is visible everywhere on earth, and not one mention is made of jebus with is super-powered vision in that passage. Well, you made the claim that it (the ability to see "all the kingdoms from the mountain") was possibly a "figure of speech". But if you're going to assume parts of the bible are metaphors, then how do you know all of it isn't a big metaphor? Now, once I pointed out the failure of your argument, you run away and suggest Jebus had super-vision. Yet you've been spamming this board almost non-stop with junk that suggests we should believe it when it comes to genesis, the flood, etc. And once again, if you don't think the bible should be taken literally, then how do you determine what is literal and what is a metaphor? Except jebus wasn't around when the bible was written. It was cobbled together years after his supposed death, and the selection of what books to include was basically done by committee. Actually when I read your argument about the Mountains and the trenches....that really mess up all your cases! I get it... so when you're shown yet another case where the bible is not consistent with real life observations, you once again stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la! I'm not listening". And I couldn't believe you're really serious about that! The fact that your only response is to issue a flippant remark shows how poorly you can actually think for yourself. So what DO you think ancient sailors might assume if they can't find the ocean floor in some areas but they can in others? Do you think they assumed there were sea monsters grabbing their anchors? I've given cut and paste where appropriate... No, you haven't. Sections that you cut and paste should be used to support your arguments. It shouldn't actually be your argument. Really? Where did you address the contradictions in the order of creation? Or in the paternal grandfather of jebus? Where did you address the fact that the bible got certain basic facts wrong (like claiming rabbits chew their cud, or that mustard plants have the smallest seed)? I made that post a long time ago... you had plenty of time to address those points. But you didn't. Yeah, you did address the whole "flat earth" thing... but you did so by claiming jebus had super-vision. Yeah, that's not going to mean too much to us. No, we really hate the fact that you do a cut-and-paste spamming from those sources, without ever actually taking the effort to understand anything resembling real science, and without ever addressing real issues that were brought up in post 195. Nope, we just want you to actually debate like a reasonable logical thinking person, not like some cut and paste spambot. I did read the guidelines. It specifically mentions "Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums.". The rules of copyright allow only short sections to be posted. Even if you're not posting an entire article, posting more than a few sentences is considered infringing on copyright. Oh, and by the way, just so you know... I have actually did searches on some of your postings and found that you have copied information from sources without giving proper attribution. Edited to add: Oh, one more think, the guidelines also state that you are required to provide a through summary for others. Something you often fail to do. No, you came to this forum to spam it with a constant stream of cut-and-paste, from web sites that have as feeble grasp of science as you do. And when you post things that science has debunked long ago, and people don't respond to it, you'll dance away thinking "Hey I must be on to something"!!!! Here's a suggestion... educate yourself. Get a REAL education. Quit reading all those creationist web sites and try to actually, you know, find people who are credible in the scientific community to follow. Who cares what you want to be a part of? Your postings are pointless. In terms of copyright law, you're a thief. Your attempts at "interaction" have basically involved ignoring arguments that debunk your claims and issuing flippant remarks. You add absolutely no value to any conversation. I do not respond to your posts because you have anything valuable to say. I respond to them because there may be others who could be swayed by your spamming, and wanted to illustrate to them just how flawed your arguments are.

Of course. That's why I didn't nitpick and only copy and pasted info from the net. In that case I don't quite understand. I had assumed you were being honest when you suggested that there had been ships built "as big as the ark". (I hadn't remembered seeing any postings from you in this thread, so I wasn't sure what opinions you held.) If you made your post as "sarcasm" (mocking the way betsy spams this board with information she doesn't understand herself) then the sarcasm got lost in the inter-tubes.