segnosaur

Actually, we know some of how 'life started here', but there are still some details to be filled in. Of course, that doesn't mean that "creationists are right". Having unanswered questions doesn't make what you do know "false", so its possible to say "we don't know the chemical details of the first 'organisms'" without throwing out the entirety of evolution.

Ummmm... the difference between a religious and scientific zealot is that the religious person is basing things on un-confirmed beliefs. On the other hand, the scientific actually has real observation behind them. Further more, when contradictory evidence exists, science tends to adapt. It incorporates the new data and changes as a result. Religious beliefs tend to be static, and anything contradictory is typically ignored. That's because you're willfully ignorant. You're more akin to the religious zealot, who is unwilling to use observation, and instead depends on deep-seated "beliefs" to develop an opinion.) Bull cr*p. I've provided references to over a dozen scientific studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism. I provided several more showing the effectiveness of the influenza vaccines which involved actual experimentation. I could have provided many many more. If I said "the sky is Blue" and you said "The sky is yellow", it makes no sense to assume it could be yellow. If observations show it to be blue, and you provide no observations to show its yellow (only vague insinuations that "scientists might be wrong"), then it is idiotic to assume a yellow sky, whether there were 100 "blue sky" observations, or only 2. Similarly, there have been many scientific studies showing the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine via experimentation. I only referenced 2 (I could have published more). You, on the other hand, referenced exactly zero studies showing they don't work. Hmmm... what's a bigger number, 2 or 0? Nope, its not. Like the fact that they did multiple studies in an attempt to show a link between vaccines and autism. No link was found. The results were not dustbinned, in fact they were published for all the world to see. Ummmm... so? Guess what? Science is dynamic. Its able to accept new (and sometimes unexpected) observations into its body of knowledge and adjust itself appropriately. Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that the investigation of H. Pylori as the cause of ulcers was actually published in scientific journals such as The Lancet and presented at scientific conferences. So rather than criticizing "science" the whole investigation into H. Pylori is actually an example of the success of the scientific method.... observations were made, publications were made to disseminate the information, the results were reproduced, and now we have a better understanding. No, I've been pretty clear about that. A skeptic follows the evidence, where ever it leads. There is a difference between "holding another view" because you have evidence, and "holding another view" because you are a willfully ignorant who doesn't care if people die. I think the words of Carl Sagan say it best: 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. If you're going to hold opinions which run counter to so much of what we know about epidemiology and vaccinations obtained through multiple studies and experiments, you'll actually need to provide evidence, not claims of some massive conspiracy to "bury the truth". By the way, 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?

You're whole argument comes down to that. Nope, not really. My argument comes down to "They gave the vaccine to some people, the placebo to others. People who got the vaccine got sick less than those that got the placebo". That particular experiment has been done multiple times, with pretty much the same result. The fact that you're so willfully ignorant that you're not willing to read such articles or spend a couple of minutes trying to figure out what it means doesn't mean that those experiments were wrong. If the death rates increase annually, on average, I don't see how the incidents of the flu are less. Ummm... first of all, I never said that incidents of the flu were necessarily less. What I said is that increases in the death rate from the flu does not mean that vaccines are ineffective. Heck, even with the flu vaccine, you're always going to have an increasing number of deaths, for no other reason than the fact that we have an increased population. Actually, it didn't assume the vaccine was efficacious. It actually did experiments to test the effectiveness. They gave the vaccine to one group, a placebo to another group, found how many sick days resulted in the 2 groups, and did an economic analysis based on the experiment results. Totally conjecture about how many years of life have been lost and impossible to prove. Statistics are great, aren't they? So, despite an explanation for how the vaccine extends life, and models showing just that, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la". How can they make a living off lawsuits involving vaccines? The "science" is clear. Are they idiots? Ummmm... in case you didn't notice, government policy and/or court rulings are not always done on the basis of science. They are sometimes based on (possibly uninformed) public opinion, current events, etc. A lawyer bringing a vaccine lawsuit does not have to convince scientists/doctors/experts that their case is valid, they have to convince a judge/jury, composed largely of people who may not know anything about medicine themselves. Most of it is pretty good - if it isn't promoting some political concept. Something like over-population - purely political. Red herring. Scientific journals do not, in general, promote any agenda. They give data. Its the population at large (including our politicians) who tend to make the decision to politicize it. I don't see anything wrong with what you say here. Yet when I point out the experiments where they did just that (and found that vaccines reduced influenza) you ignore the results. There is nothing "political" about the fact that the influenza vaccine keeps people from getting sick and ending up hospitalized (or dead). You could say its "political" to make a decision to vaccinate. On the other hand, you could also say "I hate children and the elderly and want them to suffer", in which case you will look at the same studies and say "Lets not vaccinate. I want people's grandparents to be ill". But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines work. Actually, such "null cases" are published all the time in scientific journals. Results do get peer reviewed and scrutinized. For example, you seem to be touting Vioxx as an example of the failure of science, yet it was science that provided the evidence that there was indeed a problem. (Here's a reference to a meta-study which shows that, rather than "burying" the data, scientists published the results for all to see: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/13/1619) You will have to excuse my point of view. No, I don't. Your "point of view" is one that risks the deaths of innocent people. There should be no excuse for that. Politics is different. There is often no clear "right or wrong". What "Al Gore says" is not necessarily science. And even if he is over-hyping things, that doesn't mean that the science behind it is wrong.

This is the case I am referring to. I see... So, at any time did you actually read the study, 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? A policy based on dozens of studies that indeed there is no link between MMR vaccines and autism. What do you know... governments can sometimes make the right policy. That's because those receiving compensation are not receiving compensation for autism related to vaccines. Not all children who have symptoms of autism actually have autism (any more than an individual who sneezes is necessarily suffering from a cold). And even if a child actually has autism and receives compensation, it does not mean that their compensation is related to autism. Given the thousands of cases, there is going to be some overlap. Yup, many drugs have side effects. Sometimes side effects are overlooked. But there are major differences there: For one, when there are problems with drugs, they are often reported in situations that hadn't been anticipated. On the other hand, the Vaccine/Autism link has been studied. Extensively. Dozens of studies. None showing any link. More importantly, when those drugs like Vioxx are recalled, its because scientific evidence exists indicating problems. Yeah, there were problems with Vioxx. Guess what? Those problems were reported in scientific journals. Oh, and while I'm sure you can point to plenty of drugs that have been recalled, I can probably point to many many more that have been released with no such problems. I find it quite ironic that you're basically accusing science of bias here. Once again, I should point out that the big Vaccine/Autism study you were trying to push was written in part by lawyers who made their living off of vaccine lawsuits. The type of people who would probably get more business if they could start launching lawsuits over autism. Where is your sense of distrust in that particular article? Nope, not premature at all. Over 2 dozen studies showing absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. Many others showing the flu vaccine keeps people from getting sick and dying. These studies have been going on for years, if not decades. More than enough time to draw conclusions. There are things that science doesn't know yet. There are things that are currently open to interpretation. But the value of vaccines in general (and the influenza vaccine specifically) is not one of them. [quot]...and I don't accept your interpretation of the science, and it is an interpretation. Correction, its the correct interpretation. Your problem is not only that you won't accept the proper interpretation, its that you're willfully ignorant. You get pleasure from being a dangerous idiot. Actually, I have plenty of questions. Just none involving the value of vaccines in this case. Trying to question the value of vaccines is like trying to question the value of the wheel in the transportation industry. Questioning why tires are round on your car (and not square) is basically a waste of time. I'd prefer to save my inquisitiveness for things that haven't been answered yet. You have things backwards... I'm not finding the science that convinces me. In fact, I'm convinced because of the science. Yeah, but sometimes those questions are not necessarily of any value.

Well, technically he's not "all kindness" in the new testament. For example, in Luke 10, Jebus tells people that if they're not treated well in a city they visit, it "shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.". Given the fact that Sodom was, you know, destroyed its not exactly a "friendly warning". Jebus doesn't mess around. And don't forget all the fun in Revelations... "I will kill her children with death" (nice Jebus, really nice...). "a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." (hmmm... wonder how a horse would do against an Abrahma M1A1 tank?)

And of course, it is an interpretation you reject. Actually I'm not accepting or rejecting any interpretation. The point is... once you have a book where you have to do any interpretation, then that book is no longer "indisputable", as it now based in part on the ideals of the interpreter rather than the author. Ummm.... so? I never used Acts 15 when I was pointing out contradictions in gods law!!!!. What you're doing is presenting a red herring! I did. That's how I found all those contradictions that you keep pretending aren't there. Things like differences in the order of creation in Genesis, differences in the way Judas died or who the paternal grandfather of Jebus was in the New testament. Like in the way it was totally consistent in stating who Joseph's father was? Oh wait. It wasn't consistent at all. Or how about in the way Judas died? Oh, wait... it wasn't consistent there either. But at least genesis was consistent. Oh, wait... that's not consistent either. It can't get the order of creation right. Yet in Psalm 18 it refers to "The foundations of the world". Ummm... the earth doesn't have a "foundation" Because you're reading the wrong "foundation." "foundations of the world" is not the same as "foundation" of a house. ... And it is within the context of moral grounds. Actually, once again you're wrong about context. Earlier in Psalm 18 it specifically mentions "foundations" as the tangible base, associating them with the "hills". So obviously you're not dealing with "moral grounds" if you're talking about foundations for hills and earthquakes. Yet in the new testament the devil brings Jebus to the top of a mountain to see "all the kingdoms of the world". If the earth is round, he wouldn't be able to do so. Even if the world is flat, any ordinary person wouldn't be able to do so! Ummmm... that doesn't necessarily help your case at all. After all, the bible is specific that Jebus is "showed" the kingdoms of the world. If things are too far away to actually see, then the bible is lying when Jebus was "shown". Ummm... figure of speech? Time and time again you have attempted to claim the bible should be taken literally, and now you're suggesting that something in it could be a "figure of speech"? That's quite... inconsistent. Why are you assuming that the whole "can see everything" from one point on earth is a figure of speech not to be taken literally, but stories about creation/the flood/etc. must be taken literally? Don't see anything in the bible that says "Ok, this is just an allegory now... but take the rest of the bible literally". Except that you would be unable to see the skyline of kingdoms that were, for example, in the Americas. DONE THAT! Genesis 22:15-17 15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky Actually, that doesn't exactly help your case any. In all of human existence there have been approximately 100-115 billion humans. (And this is assuming evolution is correct! If you believe creationism there would have been fewer.) Even if every one of these is a "descendant of abraham" (actually only a tiny fraction would be...) the lord has only gave Abraham 0.0000000000033% of the descendents that he promised (assuming he promised him as many descendants as "stars in the sky"). And if you look at the percentage of the population that's actually Jewish, you're talking 0.000000000000067%. Even if you consider future generations, there will not be enough time to have "300 sextillion" descendents of Abraham before the sun goes red-giant and wipes out everyone on earth. Check out your science. We're talking mountains and trenches UNDER the ocean! How would've sailors navigate that???? How could've they even suspected, what more determined that there are mountain ranges and deep trenches and valley in the depths of the ocean! You're trying hard. Ummm... you do realize that boats have these inventions called anchors, don't you? Do you really think a sailor would be too dumb to notice "Hey, if I drop my anchor here it hits the ocean bottom, but if I drop it over there it doesn't. Maybe its because the ocean floor isn't flat!" Here is when you know they realize they're losing their argument. They start with the insults and the name-calling! Well, first of all that doesn't mean much, coming from you, considering the amount of name calling you've engaged in. Something about "living in glass houses and throwing stones" seems appropriate. And here's a thought... if you don't want to be seen as a mindless "cut and paste" bot incapable of actually thinking, then perhaps you should stop making the majority of your posts to be mindless cut and paste jobs. Seriously, why exactly should we respect your intellect when you knowingly steal the majority of the stuff you post?

And don't forget the fish... Most species of fish are very specific about where they live... they can either handle salt water or fresh water. What exactly do they think is going to happen with a 'global flood'? Will it make the sea salty? There goes all your perch, snakeheads, and anyone one of a number of freshwater species. Will it make the sea fresh water? Goodbye great white shark and clownfish. Assuming they survive. Some animals have very specific dietary requirements. Cats require taurine or they will die. Koala's require eukaliptis leaves. None of which would be available on board Noah's ark.

Did you ever, you know, actually read the information in the reference you provided? The Wyoming's "total length" includes the length of the jibbloom. The useful length (i.e. surface area that could be used for cargo) is listed at 329 feet. (It says so right in your reference!) Counting the extra wooden beam at the front of the ship is kind of like claiming that a creationist is 7 feet tall because they're wearing a 2 foot tall dunce cap. And the reference goes on to say: This American ship had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle. This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to be pumped out. So a ship that's 100 feet shorter ends up leaking like a sieve. Do people really think that that proves the Ark is feasible? Wonder if Noah had a diesel pump to empty the water. And there are many sources that deny it. Considering they've never actually found a complete ship I think there are reasons to be very skeptical of the claims of such large ships.

Which 10 commandments would those be? The ones from Exodus 20, or the ones from Exodus 34 (which has such demands such as "Don't boil a goat in its mother's milk")? You know, you'd think that an all-knowning god would be able to remember what commandments he gave to Moses the first time around. Maybe god has alzheimers. Actually, yes there is. You just prefer to make an interpretation that pretends there isn't. The intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la... I can't hear you". By the way, I notice that even in your responses, all you ever seem to do is cut-and-past from other sources. Tell me, do you have any original thoughts in your brain? Or is your way of thinking "If someone else didn't say it first it doesn't exist"? Oh, and by the way, given the fact that you're posting from sites without giving proper copyright attribution, you're in effect stealing from the original author. Pretty sure there's a commandment against that somewhere. (Unless of course you decide on an interpretation that actually allows you to steal. Wonderful thing about the bible... more flexible than gumby.)

Yeah, I know. But then, people like Betsy are pretty simple-minded, and their arguments are easy to debunk. Not that I'd ever expect to convince her of anything; I think she's too far gone. However, there may be people who do have the capability of rational thought who may not have seen her arguments before and might be fooled. That's why I sometimes answer her posts. The most annoying thing though... pretty much all she can do is cut-and-paste. I sincerely doubt she has the ability to even put together her own thoughts. All she can do is parrot what she sees others post.

More appropriately, this is the interpretation that you have decided to follow. It does not mean that it is the only possible interpretation, nor whether your interpretation is actually correct (as in the one the imaginary sky-daddy would actually want you to follow.) Which is one of the other problems with the bible.... if this really is supposed to be the "word of god" why didn't he make things a lot more clearer? Oh, that's right... because the "bible" is basically the result of random writings written by various unknown authors crammed together, without them making any sort of effort to be consistent.

Yet in Psalm 18 it refers to "The foundations of the world". Ummm... the earth doesn't have a "foundation". Yet in the new testament the devil brings Jebus to the top of a mountain to see "all the kingdoms of the world". If the earth is round, he wouldn't be able to do so. Except we can calculate the number of stars. 300 Sextillion. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/01/the-estimated-number-of-stars-in-the-universe-just-tripled/ Why exactly is that "proof" of anything? I'm sure sailors have had to navigate around islands in the ocean for millenium. Knowing that the sea floor is varied would be something that would be considered common knowledge. Kind of like saying "The sky is blue". Yeah, its true, but knowing that fact doesn't mean you have some sort of special knowledge. The biggest wooden ship ever built was 300 feet, and it had to be pumped out constantly. Noah's ark would have been 50% bigger than that... you really think it would be sea worthy? Ummmm... so? We've really only been using the "scientific method" in the western world for the past few centuries. The fact that some scientists believed in "the bible" prior to that is not surprising, when we hadn't really built up a significant degree of scientific knowledge to understand the world. Oh, and Newton was both a creationist and an alchemist. Just because Newton discovered the laws of gravity does that mean he's correct in being able to convert lead into gold? Of course not. Why is that proof of anything? Almost all religions have had creation myths of some type. Something sailors would have already been familiar with. There are a lot of unanswered questions that science doesn't know the answer to. That doesn't mean the bible holds the source of the answers. Nope, they haven't. Strange how "prophecies" tend to come true only after the fact, when people can look at the results and distort the wording of any such prophecies to fit their observation.

I think the bigger question is.... Who on Noah's ark had AIDS? And who had Herpes? And who had Ebola? And who had measles? And who had Mononucleosis? And who had Leprosy? After all, some of these are pretty serious diseases, and in many cases the virus is primarily transmitted from person to person and is incapable of surviving outside of a host's body for any significant length of time.

Except that if its an "expansion" of the laws, then the old testament laws still exist and must be followed. From 1 Chronicals 16: Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. From Psalms 119: Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. From Luke 16: It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. So, looks like whatever "rules" that are in the old testament must be followed, since they are "everlasting" and "endureth for ever". Oh, but don't worry, you also have Galations 3: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. Hmmmm... so parts of the bible say "Old testament laws must be observed forever", and another part says "Oh, don't worry about those old laws"..... could it be, a contradiction? (Well, of course it is, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it.)

Be specific. Mathew 24: Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light (Ummm... the moon does not produce her own light. It reflects sunlight), and the stars shall fall from heaven (umm.. no, stars do not "fall from the sky". A star is quite a bit more massive than the earth, not to mention millions of miles away. No chance of them "falling" Shouldn't the invisible sky daddy know something about astronomy?) Revelation 7:1... I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth (Also: See Matthew 4:8)...the earth is round. It doesn't have "corners"... nor can people see all parts of the earth from one vantage point. Matthew 13: Jebus claims that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. But its not. Yeah, it was only a parable, but don't you think the son of god would actually know his biology? Numbers 1: Says that there are over 600,000 Israelites. Yet only a couple of hundred years earlier there were only around 70. That's a heck of a lot of begating. Leviticus 11: claims that rabbits chew their cud. But they don't. Only ruminants do. You'd figure an all-knowing creator would know a little about the biology of the creatures he created Leviticus 11: Bats are birds. Hmmm... biologists recognize them as mammals. Guess god doesn't know his physiology Then of course you have the things that supposedly happened in the bible, but for which there is no actual physical record: Joshua 10: God makes "the sun stand still"... ok, ignoring the little problems with astronomy (like the fact that the Sun is always in motion throughout the day), how come there are no recorded incidences of the Sun stopping in any other culture? There were no mentions of the massacre of first born sons by Harod made by contemporary historians, even though that would have been a quite notable event. Same with the "dead rising from their graves". And then there are all the contradictions. 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.)

I think the difference between a kidnapped journalist and a kidnapped "tourist" is that while the journalist did voluntarily go into the war zone, their actions do provide a benefit to society at large. (Accurate reports help us citizens determine how our actions are impacting places like Afghanistan.) On the other hand, a tourist who decides to travel to Afghanistan for "thrills" is largely only providing benefit to himself.

Yeah but what good would dropping Pamela Anderson on Libya do? Oh, sorry, my mistake... I thought you said dumb blondes.

Because the expectation is that a car will be used on a public land (i.e. a road) in a frequent basis, and will regularly interact with other individuals in the same environment. On the other hand, your average firearm will likely spend the majority of its existence outside of public view. A significant number may not be used for years, if at all, and when they are used, the usage is tightly restricted (e.g. private land, or areas outside urban areas.) I could also point out that the number of deaths caused by vehicles is substantially higher than for firearms. There is approximately 1 death for every 7000 vehicles on the road (17-18 million vehicles, ~2,700 deaths). On the other hand, there is 1 death for every 11,000 firearms in the county (~800 deaths, ~9 million firearms). Because the number of deaths is higher for cars than firearms (on a per-item basis), greater attention/intrusion is warranted. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Publications/statistics/cvs05/chapter1.cfm?attr=0 (Vehicle count) http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Sask+leads+provinces+number+deaths+roadways+Transport+Canada/4180411/story.html (vehicle deaths) http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm (firearm count) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html (firearm deaths) What, are you a mind reader? How do you know the reason people might object to the registry? Some might object to the cost, some may object to the intrusion in their life, and some might object to it based on a combination of the 2 factors. Sure they are, for the same reasons they confiscate guns, doing something illegal. Hard to understand? But unlike cars, there is also a risk (well, I should say greater risk) that the firearm will be confiscated not because its been used for some illegal purpose, but simply because the simple possession of it is considered illegal. For example, in 1991 they passed bill C-17, which placed restrictions on the ownership of handguns with a barrel below a certain length. Anyone owning such a firearm, even if they do not have it confiscated, are severely limited in their ability to sell such an item. Given that precedent, some gun owners are concerned that those 'restrictions' will gradually be expanded until they include all firearms.

Yet in your previous posts you suggested that you "don't understand" science, expressing a wish for the researchers to explain their work in "non-scientific terms". So, basically your whole argument comes down to "Pliny doesn't understand science, Pliny doesn't want to understand science, and so Pliny thinks science is wrong just because he doesn't agree with what he doesn't understand". And yet you somehow think you're not an idiot. Probably because you don't understand science. More importantly, you don't want to understand science. Such willful ignorance is very dangerous. Ummm... no. First of all, there are more statistics around besides the death rate that are significant... days spent sick/hospitalized (unless of course you think people like being ill and spending time in the intensive care ward) and costs (I've pointed to studies that show that preventing the flu via vaccine costs society a lot less than having to deal with lost productivity from sick days+costs of treatment). Secondly, simply looking at the "death rate" is an idiotic way to go about it since the "death rate" alone says nothing about the length of life. The issue is not "how many have died from influenza", but "how many years of life have been lost". Unlike diseases like small pox or polio, there are multiple strains of flu that constantly change. Its quite possible to avoid a deadly influenza infection (because of vaccination) when you are 65, and still die of it 10 years later when infected by a different strain. End result: it still counts as an "influenza death", but the individual received 10 more years than they would have otherwise received. In fact, there have been statistical models that have shown just that... See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16104466 (Hey, wait... I know that's more science, and I know its scary to you. Scientific articles generally contain information giving potential conflicts of interest, and are peer-reviewed by people who are not stakeholders in the publication. Oh, and once again... I note the incredible hypocrisy... You condemn "economic/political influence" in science, yet you willingly listen to people who actually make their living off lawsuits involving vaccines!!!! Except what appears in scientific journals (you know, the stuff that you don't seem to want to understand is not political in any way. Its data. If you give a vaccine to one group of people and a placebo to another and examine the results, there is nothing political about the process. There is only the data. Nope, skeptics use science to develop their model of how the world is. We don't need to interpret science. Nope, its a battle between those people who have rational, skeptic view, who are willing to base their opinions on the quantity and quality of evidence provided by scientific observation, and the brain-damaged idiots who are willfully ignorant and cannot apply any sort of logical thinking, and who's arguments are based on claims made by snake oil salesmen and other idiots/scumbags. And here's a little word of advice... being a willful idiot by sticking your head in the sand saying "I don't understand science so its false" is not "having a mind of your own"... it is being a willful idiot.

Wait a sec... are you referring to the article from the Pace Law school that supposedly shows a link between autism and vaccines? If so, I'd suggest you actually read the article, which even admits: This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP. From: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr Notice the part I put in bold? Even the authors of the study recognized that they're full of cr*p. The article does not appear in any medical journals, it conducts no actual research (in a scientific sense), no double-blind studies, and the authors themselves are definitely not doctors. (They made at least one significant medical blunder that even I, a non-doctor, was able to point out.) All it does is say "some kids have autism, and some were vaccinated". Just a little bit more on this particular article... From: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/742471 Dr. Offit (Who by the way, is a real doctor. Actually works on developing vaccines)said the study authors reach erroneous conclusions due to an erroneous definition of autism. A child with measles encephalopathy, he said, may have severe cognitive deficits that fall into the autism spectrum, but such symptoms themselves do not necessarily translate into a diagnosis of autism. A spokesperson for HRSA mounted the same defense — shared symptoms do not make 2 different conditions identical — in an email to Medscape Medical News. The spokesperson affirmed that while the US Court of Federal Claims has granted awards for encephalopathy, it has never granted awards for autism per se. Furthermore, there's this... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link 83/2500 results (the number of cases the article's authors examined) in an estimated prevalence rate of approximately 3.3%. On the surface, this seems to support the claim that the prevalence of autism is three-fold higher in VICP-compensated children than it is in the general population. Of course, there's at least one problem, and that's that the authors admit that, of these 83 children, they could only find documentation of autistic symptoms for only 39. This results in an estimated prevalence of autism of around 1.6%. This is rapidlyfalling into the range of what we would expect in the general population. And lets consider the authors of this study, shall we? Not only are they lawyers, and not doctors or scientists, some had already been involved in the anti-vaccine movement prior to this study being released. Krakow and Collin are trial lawyers who specialize in vaccine injury cases... hmmm.... no conflict of interest there (sarcasm is intended). Holland had written a book called "Vaccine Epidemic"... hmmm.. no conflict of interest there either. Of course, I am assuming that this 'study' is the evidence you were claiming exists which shows the autism-vaccine link. Perhaps you are aware of other "evidence", but I doubt it.

It would help if he had a name that didn't sound like my cat coughing up a hairball.

You're welcome. Of course, I should point out that the data I provided is a lot more than you ever gave. Actually, the increase appears to be a natural statistical fluctuation (combined with an overall increase in the population, which is going to lead to an increase in overall deaths anyways). Want evidence? Here's an article that pointed out the number of pediatric deaths from influenza also decreased between 2004 and 2005. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/4/805.full.html Well, how about because you seem to be incapable of interpreting it yourself. Seriously, here's a suggestion... try reading at least the abstract/intro/conclusion of some of the scientific references I provided. You'll find that even though a lot of it is quite complex and over the heads of many of us, there are usually short one or 2 sentence descriptions of what the article is actually saying that anyone should be able to understand. Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense. You want the "science data" to be presented in "non-scientific terms"... but why? Is it because you don't understand science yourself? If so, then why are you trying to argue about something that you don't seem to understand yourself? And are you really so incompetent that you can't even read an abstract of a scientific paper and understand what it's about? Its the job of a scientist to engage in research, in a way that is understandable to other scientists. There are plenty of doctors who do make it a point to "educate" people, but that's not the job of those actually doing these studies. Maybe you should consider sitting in on an elementary science class. And something tells me that if a scientist does explain what things mean, you'll somehow dismiss him has being "in on the conspiracy". Nope, no more information is necessary... You are incapable of actually analyzing things properly, so to you no data will ever be enough. Wait a sec... are you referring to the article from the Pace Law school that supposedly shows a link between autism and vaccines? If so, I'd suggest you actually read the article, which even admits: This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP. From: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr Notice the part I put in bold? Even the authors of the study recognized that they're full of cr*p. The article does not appear in any medical journals, it conducts no actual research (in a scientific sense), no double-blind studies, and the authors themselves are definitely not doctors. (They made at least one significant medical blunder that even I, a non-doctor, was able to point out.) All it does is say "some kids have autism, and some were vaccinated". Once again, I need to point out that the authors of this article were not scientists. The fact that "science cannot convince you" is pretty much the reason why I'm assuming you're an idiot. Actually, yes it can. This is not some ambiguous area based on morality or personal preferences/experiences. In cases like these, science can be used to follow the truth. If you give a vaccine to a large group of people and a placebo to an equally large group of people, and the number of people who get ill with the vaccine is less than with the placebo, then you're pretty much guaranteed that the vaccine helped prevent illness. Repeating the experiment multiple times only strengthens confidence in that conclusion. Science has helped us cure smallpox and could possibly eliminate polio and other diseases. Its helped us place man on the moon, given us insight into our origins as a species, and has given us a quality of life never before seen.

Ummm... first of all, what happened in Australia may not have been an accurate predictor for what would happen in the rest of the world. (Australia is relatively isolated, is pretty far geographically from the origin of the infection, and their flu season occurred fairly early. It might have been different in North America, where we have greater transportation links with Mexico, giving the chance for the virus to become better "entrenched" before the actual start of the flu season.) It turns out that what happened in Australia did match what happened elsewhere, but like I said, there was no guarantee that it would. Secondly, as I stated before, the problem was not in how widespread the flu was, it was how it impacted various groups of people, hitting children a lot more severely than adults. Ummm... why would I owe you a beer? I've been pretty consistent in admitting that the H1N1 pandemic might be "over-hyped". But once again, that doesn't mean that those refusing to get vaccinated aren't amoral idiots who are contributing to other people's death's. From: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14853&st=60&p=476450entry476450 (A post in Oct2009) Hey, I've been quite willing to admit, there is likely a certain amount of over-hype regarding H1N1. I've already stated that multiple times in this thread. However, even if it is 'over-hyped', the fact is: - Some people will die from H1N1 - The vaccine has the ability to reduce the risk for influenza - People who do not get vaccinated will die unnecessarily. Others will get sick unnessarily, and perhaps pass the virus on to others who will die. Even if this flu season is not any worse than previous years, those 3 facts outlined above will still apply.

Understandable, given the fact that you seem to lack a basic understanding of science, epidemiology, or rational thought. Yes, that's the flu "off-season" where very people people are getting sick, and thus deaths would be reduced. Yup, 2 things probably accounted for that: - The H1N1 flu season started relatively early, and would also have peaked early - There was widespread vaccination that took place in late 2009. Given that it takes a few weeks for the vaccine to trigger full immunity, a drop off in 2010 would be the expected time frame. Nope, you fail again. The first cases of H1N1 in the U.S. started back in March 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5gRa3URY4 (Note: That's why there's no real "break" between the 2008-09 and 2009-10 numbers... as I said before, the H1N1 virus started early and there was no real "off season" as there were other years. You could, but then you'd be even more of an idiot. There has never been any study which shows that the H1N1 influenza vaccination has ever caused anyone to come down with the flu. It can't. The virus used in the injections is attenuated. Dead. Deactivated. Want more proof? The H1N1 vaccinations didn't begin until October 2009 (around week 40). If you look at the graphs of pediatric deaths, the number of deaths at that time was already higher than in the 2007-08 and 2010-11 flu seasons. So children were dying more often and the vaccine wasn't available at the time. The reason you had the big frenzy around October 2009 is because that's when the vaccine became available. Here's a graph going back to the 2005-06 flu season. http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/upload/2009/10/whats_the_harm_pediatric_flu_d/IPD39.php 2005-06 - 46 deaths 2006-07 - 78 deaths So, going back an additional 2 years shows the same low death rate for children, far below that of the H1N1 flu season. Well, I've provided data for 6 flu seasons. (6 seasons should be more than enough to establish what the "normal" rate of child deaths is.) Actually, no. You need to be able to think rationally. The fact that you look at the data and reject it is a sign of your failing, not a failing of the data. Ummmm... I never claimed that the overall death rate for H1N1 was high... what I pointed out was that it affected children much more severely than other influenza strains. That's why my graphs have been concentrating on pediatric deaths. And there isn't. The main "evidence" of a link was by a doctor named Wakefield. Since then, its been found that he falsified his data in at least one of his 'studies', co-authors of the paper he wrote have asked that their name taken off the paper, and he was barred from practicing medicine. On the other hand, there have been multiple studies showing absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. See: - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960175-4/fulltext - http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1960277-1,00.html - http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf Nope, no announcement. At least not from a reputable source. (Hint: Quoting some no-name snake-oil salesman is not exactly convincing.) Ah yes, the whole "evil conspiracy out to suppress the truth". Sounds a lot like the people who claim "The Moon landing was a hoax", and "9/11 was an insider job". And there still isn't.

First of all, as someone already pointed out, much of that information is restricted. For example, revenue canada can't necessarily release your income to Statscan. Secondly, even if the information could be released, the information is spread across multiple databases. Attempting to tie it all together would be almost impossible. For example, children may not have an identifying social insurance number, so you risk either counting them twice, or not counting them at all. I have to agree with Smallc here.... not filling out at least the short form is a very foolish thing to do.