Surely if there is a creator then creationism can explain the following... In the view of modern science, it's become apparent that a world wide flood is...Well, simply put, impossible. Creationists often make the claim that the Grand Canyon and other canyons are the result of a world wide flood-as opposed to the geologically sound principle of erosion over millions of years. Below is a picture [1] from Arizona of a specific feature of the Colorado River-which is totally explainable via current geological models-but unexplainable for creationist flood geology. [img]http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-sw/usaz8946.jpeg[/img] How the above is remotely possible with a world wide flood? Are we to believe that the flood waters came crashing down into what is today known as the Colorado River and then made such a precise 180 degree turn? Another good and quick question for the flood fans, that I dug up on [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#history]Talk Origins[/url] is as follows: [b]Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?[/b] [i]Biblical dates ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20kin%206:1]I kings 6:1[/url], [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gal+3:17]Gal 3:17[/url], various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C."[2][/i] [b]And, on the same page:[/b] "How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [[url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+10:25]Gen 10:25[/url], [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=gen+11:10-19]11:10-19[/url]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.[2]" Can you please explain the following in light of an intelligent and benevolent God: Oh, and before I forget, if you are going to appeal to 'it's because of the fall' or some variation, you need to do better then that. You should give us the exact causes and mechanisms that created the follow-remember you are trying to be scientific, right? (Taken from(Taken from [url=http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm]here[/url]) "Lions (Panthera leo). As zoologists have long observed, these rank among the most efficient terrestrial killing machines on the planet. The lion's combination of speed, stealth, brute strength and state-of-the-art weaponry is beyond repute. A lesser-known lion fact is that adult males, when they take over a rival pride's territory, seek out and tear apart every one of the loser's cubs. As a result, their mothers come into heat sooner, which lends certain benefits to the males. As before, this instinct is difficult to explain without invoking a design hypothesis. The lions need to track down cubs, positively identify them as someone else's, and only then kill them. How would such an elaborate series of complex instincts…just evolve?"[3] Creationists in general often say that there was no death before the fall. This is an odd statement in light of creatures such as the lions-who if they were truly vegetarian before the fall they would have required a massive amount of evolutionary change in order to become the killing machines they are today. In fact, the sort of change they would require would be macroevolution-as their entire digestive system, teeth, and I'd even argue their skeletal structure would need to be changed (after all, why do vegetarians need to be a strong and swift as lions?). The same vegetarian critique of creationism can also be applied to sharks[4]: [img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:iH69Xfsx3k4J:http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/images/shark-mouth.jpg[/img] [b]Are these sharp teeth for eating seaweed?[/b] Please also explain why a benevolent and intelligent God would create an organism that routinely kills babies from different males? Remember, appealing to 'the fall' isn't an answer. Creationists need to explain [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4122119.stm]why whales get bends[/url] Evolution, of course has a good answer, which is to say that [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]whales evolved from mammals[/url] but creationists naturally can't appeal to evolution for an answer to this question. Was God not benevolent to want to see them suffer from the bends? Or perhaps God didn't have the ability to prevent them from suffering from the bends? BTW-why are whales mammals to begin with? Certainly it would be a much more optimal design to have created them as fish. It would also prevent them from being evidence of evolution, and thus avoid the inevitable conclusion that many people accept that they descended from terrestrial mammals. Was God just trying to trick us? I'm not trying to include a comprehensive list of nature's poorly designed oddities that creationists must-but don't-have to account for. Others have done so and if you are interested in seeing more, please check out the following websites: [url=http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm]organisms taht looked designed[/url] - by Winace [url=http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm]some more of god's greatest mistakes[/url] - by Oolon Colluphid [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html]Why believe in a creator[/url] - by E.T. Babinski (Talk Origins) Another question for Creationists is, what is the order of creation (check out this [url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html]site[/url] for the 'order')? Is it the chronology presented in Genesis chapter one or the chronology in chapter two? Since creationism is supposedly a competing scientific theory, I think it's only fair that we should be able to examine the bible-which would have to be infallible in order for creationism to be coherent-right? What other reason would their be to accept creationism instead of all the scientific evidence to the contrary? According to creationist theory, how can we use paternity tests to determine who is the father of a child? DNA doesn't represent common descent after all. If you, as a creationist, think we can use DNA testing to determine paternity then please explain why it can't be used to trace common ancestory. Also, why would god create similar DNA in species? The stock answer that creationists give that DNA represents a common designer is quite bizarre. Is god trying to deceive us into believing in common descent? After all, there is no reason why god would have created all the animals on earth using the same amino acids. Furthermore there is no reason why primates and man should be anywhere remotely similar-so why are they? Why would god put evidence down that shows evidence of common descent? Especially when there is no reason for us to share similar DNA? If creationism is true, then why do primates and man share the same endogenous retroviral inserts at precisely the same loci on the genome? The following is taken from this [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses]Talk Origins page[/url] "Endogenous retroviruses provide yet another example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. [b]Confirmation:[/b] [i]In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA ( [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Sverdlov2000]Sverdlov 2000[/url] ) There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced ( [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Bonner_etal1982]Bonner et al 1982[/url], [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Dangel_etal1995]Dangel et al 1995[/url], [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Svensson_etal1995]Svenson et al 1995[/url], [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Kjellman_etal1999]Kjellman et all 1999[/url], [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Lebedev_etal2000]Lebedev et al 2000[/url] [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Sverdlov2000]Sverdlov 2000[/url]) [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#fig4.4.1]fig4.4.1[/url] shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#Lebedev_etal2000]Lebedev et al 2000[/url] he arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendents of that organism. "[5] Why Do humans and primates share the same mutation that prevents both groups from producing vitamin C? How can the creationist model explain the incredibly small odds that we share the same mutation with one of our 'primate' relatives, let alone that we share them with the other primates as well? Luck? [/i] The following taken from this Talk Origins Page: "Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#Nishikimi_etal1992]Nishikimi et al 2000[/url] [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#Nishikimi_etal1994] Nishikimi et al 1994[/url] [b]Confirmation:[/b] Recently, the L-gulano-ã-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs ([url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#Nishikimi_etal1992]Nishikimi et al 1992[/url] [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#Nishikimi_etal1994]Nishikimi et al 1994[/url] t exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#OhtaNishikimi1999]Ohta and Nishikimi 1999[/url] And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#OhtaNishikimi1999]Ohta and Nishikimi 1999[/url]. "[6] [b]And finally we come to the Skull Challenge:[/b] Below are some legitmate transitional hominid fossils taken from Talk Origins [7]. How does creationist theory explain them? [img]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg[/img] Above is a picture of skull fossils, over millions of years that shows our evolution from a primate ancestor. How does creationism explain this picture? In the picture above, creationists must tell us which skulls are monkey skulls and which are hominid skulls. They must do so and tells us through what objective means did they come to their conclusion. An explanation must come from them from the 'Creationist theory' or else it is a bankrupt theory. Evolution explains this morphology perfectly, however creationism can't objectively account for them. Furthermore there is no objective means to establish a clear cut off point for a different 'kind'. In fact, according to [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html]this Talk Origins page[/url] page, creationists have tried to give an account-only to contradict each other! On the same page is a graph comparing the opinions below the text comment: [i]"As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, [b]they are not able to tell which are which[/b]. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, widely differing views are held by two of the most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion, as does Cuozzo in his 1998 book on Neandertals. Cuozzo has taken the most extreme stance yet for a young-earth creationist, saying that even H. erectus fossils (in which he includes the [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html]turkana boy[/url] should not be considered human. (Old-earth creationist Hugh Ross takes an even more extreme stance, claiming that not even Neandertals should be classified as human.) It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do.[/i] [b]Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case."[8] [/b] And finally some sources for you: 1. Horseshoe Bend of the Colorado River near Page. Arizona, USA, [url=http://www.terragalleria.com/america/arizona/page/picture.usaz8946.html]http://www.terragalleria.com/america/arizo...e.usaz8946.html[/url] 2.TalkOrigins-Problems with the Flood, [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#history]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#history[/url] 3. Organisms that look designed-Winace's website, [url=http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm]http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designe...nisms/index.htm[/url] 4. Picture from [url=http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/images/shark-mouth.jpg]http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/im...shark-mouth.jpg[/url] 5. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses[/url] 6. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html[/url] 7. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Picture, [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...termediates_ex3[/url] 8. Comparison of All Skulls, [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compa...uoteEEnd-->[/url]

Evolution,is supported by evidence from many fields of science. The fossil record is the history of life recorded by remains from the past. Fossils include skeletons, shells, seeds, insects trapped in amber, dung, DNA and other chemicals, imprints of leaves, and tracks of organisms that lived in the distant past. Most fossils are at least 10,000 years old. [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/pro_plfr.gif[/img] The fossil records of some protist and plant groups. The width of the shaded space is an indicator of the number of species. [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/animalevol.gif[/img] First appearances and relative diversity (width of shaded area) for major groups of animals. he fossil record traces history of life and allows us to study history of particular organisms. Fossil evidence supports the common descent hypothesis; fossils can be linked over time because they reveal a similarity in form, despite observed changes. Transitional forms reveal links between groups: Archaeopteryx is between reptiles and birds; Eustheopteron is an amphibious fish; Seymouria is a reptile-like amphibian; therapsids were mammal-like reptiles. [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/archie.gif[/img] Archaeopteryx, once considered the first bird.The fossil is from the Solenhoefen Limestone (Jurassic) of Germany. The fossil record allows us to trace the history of the modern-day horse Equus. The earliest fossils in this lineage is Hyracotherium , which was the size of a dog, with cusped low-crowned molars, four toes on each front foot, three on each hind foot--all adaptations for forest living. When forests were replaced by grasslands, the intermediates were selected for durable grinding teeth, speed, etc. with an increase in size and decrease in toes. Living organisms resemble most recent fossils in the line of descent; underlying similarities allow us to trace a line of descent over time. [b]Stages in the evolution of the horse.[/b] [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/evolhorse.gif[/img] Biogeography: Separation and Divergence Biogeography is the study of the distribution of plants and animals throughout the world. Distribution of organisms is explained by related forms evolving in one locale and spreading to other accessible areas. Darwin observed South America had no rabbits; he concluded rabbits originated elsewhere. Biogeography explains why many finch species are on the Galápagos Islands but not mainland. Physical factors, such as the location of continents, determine where a population can spread. Cacti are restricted to North American deserts and euphorbia grow in African deserts. Marsupials arose when South America, Antarctica, and Australia were all joined; Australia separated before placental mammals arose, so only marsupials diversified in Australia. Comparative Anatomy: Similarities Due to Common Ancestry Organisms have anatomical similarities when they are closely related because of common descent, as substantiated by comparative anatomy. Homologous structures in different organisms are inherited from a common ancestor. Vertebrate forelimbs contain the same sets of bones organized in similar ways, despite their dissimilar functions. Vestigial structures are remains of a structure that was functional in some ancestor but is no longer functional in the organism in question. Most birds have well-developed wings, although some birds have reduced wings and do not fly. Humans have a tail bone (the coccyx) but no tail. The presence of vestigial structures is explained by the common descent hypothesis. Embryological development reveals a unity of plan. During development, all vertebrates have a notochord and paired pharyngeal pouches. In fishes and amphibian larvae, the pouches become gills. In humans, first pair of pouches becomes a cavity of middle ear and auditory tube; second pair becomes tonsils, while third and fourth pairs become thymus and parathyroid glands. This makes sense only if fish are ancestral to other vertebrate groups. [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/jawevol_2.gif[/img] [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/jawevol_1.gif[/img] [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/jawevol_3.gif[/img] Steps in the evolution of jaws by modification of gill arches Biochemistry: Differences and Similarities Almost all living organisms use the same basic biochemical molecules, including DNA, ATP, and many identical or nearly identical enzymes. Organisms utilize the same DNA triplet base code and the same 20 amino acids in their proteins. Many organisms share same introns and types of repeats, which is remarkable since we know of no obvious functional reason why these components need to be so similar. These similarities can be explained by descent from a common ancestor. This is substantiated by analysis of degree of similarity in amino acids for cytochrome c among organisms. [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/cytochromec,2.gif[/img] [img]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/cytochromec.gif[/img] Interpretation of results of biochemical study of cytochrome c among the eukaryotes. Also read this: [url=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051220_building_blocks.html]Life's building blocks found in space[/url] It is hypothesized that life came from the sea onto land, at least that is the basic argument of this, and here is the evidence to hold this hypothesis up: [img]http://www.brazilmax.com/fotos/pl_amazon16.jpg[/img] [i]The pirarucu must come up for air. An adult needs to surface every 15 minutes to gulp oxygen through an organ called a cellular swimming bladder. keep in mind taht it is not a mammal like dolphins or whales[/i] Also, check out the lung fish, a fish that can breathe air also: [img]http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/lungfish1.jpg[/img] "The Dipnoi are a group of sarcopterygiian fish, are are commonly known as the lungfish. Their "lung" is a modified swim bladder, which in most fish is used for buoyancy in swimming, but in the lungfish also absorbs oxygen and removes wastes. Modern lungfish in Africa and South America are able to survive when their pools dry up by burrowing into the mud and sealing themselves within a mucous-lined burrow. During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills, and reduce their metabolic rate dramatically. These fish will even drown if they are kept underwater and not allowed to breathe air! Fossilized lungfish burrows of Gnathorhiza have been found in rocks as old as the Permian, with the lungfish still inside, and older (empty) burrows are known from the Carboniferous and Devonian. The oldest fossil dipnoan is Diabolichthyes, from the Lower Devonian of Yunnan, China. It is not clear whether this particular fish was marine or lived in freshwater like modern lungfish, but both marine and freshwater fossils of other groups are known. " Where is the evidence for your creator in regards to this fish? What does creationism have to say... god did it? Wheres the evidence? [url=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/16_uranium.shtm]Uranium dating[/url] [/quote]

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 16:20

hahaha thats the least of what i've seen from evolutionists thats a laugh,and the grand canyon thats pre-school stuff,the only canyon that was observed being formed was a result from Mount st helens erouption and formed in less than five hours and a river formed at the bottom of the canyon not the canyon being formed by a river,the fossil record lacks million even billions of half-evolved fossils (cross fossils)there would literaly be more cross fossils than fossils of the animals we see today,now i am not going to sit on here for hours and explain every thing to you,you want proof i am your proof of God,but we'll know for sure when you die and stand before God.

[quote][b]sonoftheking wrote:[/b] hahaha thats the least of what i've seen from evolutionists thats a laugh,and the grand canyon thats pre-school stuff,the only canyon that was observed being formed was a result from Mount st helens erouption and formed in less than five hours and a river formed at the bottom of the canyon not the canyon being formed by a river,the fossil record lacks million even billions of half-evolved fossils (cross fossils)there would literaly be more cross fossils than fossils of the animals we see today,now i am not going to sit on here for hours and explain every thing to you,you want proof i am your proof of God,but we'll know for sure when you die and stand before God.[/quote] [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html]And you're wrong.[/url] That claim has been refuted dozens of times, now address my posts.

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 17:02

I'm gonna go ahead and say what I'm sure others will think when they see this: First off, it looks like a cut and paste. I don't believe for a second that someone sat here at their keyboard, typed all those words out, and assembled the pictures to match. It's insulting to anyone to come with a cut and paste post and expect a personalized answer... regardless of the length of the copied post. But a larger issue is this reads like someone venting. It's quite lengthy, and I don't think that the poster really wants a dialogue opened about this stuff. If that were the case, we'd be looking at a manageable block of points. I think the idea here is for the creationists to waste their time digging up responses and spending their personal time to answer what took the poster 10 seconds to post, (and likely won't consider anyway) and then no matter how good the answer is, the poster can come back and say "that's fine, but you didn't deal with THIS" I'm not playing that game. We have lives. You want to talk? Let's talk. YOU talk, we'll answer. I'm not answering a scripted post.

[quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] I'm gonna go ahead and say what I'm sure others will think when they see this: First off, it looks like a cut and paste. I don't believe for a second that someone sat here at their keyboard, typed all those words out, and assembled the pictures to match. It's insulting to anyone to come with a cut and paste post and expect a personalized answer... regardless of the length of the copied post. But a larger issue is this reads like someone venting. It's quite lengthy, and I don't think that the poster really wants a dialogue opened about this stuff. If that were the case, we'd be looking at a manageable block of points. I think the idea here is for the creationists to waste their time digging up responses and spending their personal time to answer what took the poster 10 seconds to post, (and likely won't consider anyway) and then no matter how good the answer is, the poster can come back and say "that's fine, but you didn't deal with THIS" I'm not playing that game. We have lives. You want to talk? Let's talk. YOU talk, we'll answer. I'm not answering a scripted post.[/quote] Copout, i've offered points from which a creationist to attempt to refute, i'm not going to play the whole "your court or mine's" thing.

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 21:17

Then don't play. Go somewhere else. Or if someone does have that kind of free time, I'm not gonna hold it against them. But I don't. I have a life. And we're not on your computer proselytizing you. You're on our server, trying to convince us to believe what YOU believe. You do realize the admins pay for this server? Why should they pay their hard earned money, or deserved donations, to host somebody else's webpage? You want us to see what's on a webpage? Give a link. In fact, I wonder if it's copyrighted. This goes beyond fair use.

[b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] [quote]Then don't play. Go somewhere else. Or if someone does have that kind of free time, I'm not gonna hold it against them. But I don't. I have a life. And we're not on your computer proselytizing you. You're on our server, trying to convince us to believe what YOU believe. You do realize the admins pay for this server? Why should they pay their hard earned money, or deserved donations, to host somebody else's webpage? You want us to see what's on a webpage? Give a link. In fact, I wonder if it's copyrighted. This goes beyond fair use.[/quote] This isn't a copy and paste as a whole, it's actually a well formulated challenge devised by a friend of mine in Virginia, not an article. Secondly i know how web servers are ran, such as hosting, etc I'm a network admin for healthcare services company. What does this have to do with the topic, you're beating around the bush because you can't refute this. Thirdly, links are allover this, have you bothered to actually read it, you're lazy.

[b]vincent wrote:[/b] [quote][b]MattBob_SquarePants wrote:[/b] [quote]Then don't play. Go somewhere else. Or if someone does have that kind of free time, I'm not gonna hold it against them. But I don't. I have a life. And we're not on your computer proselytizing you. You're on our server, trying to convince us to believe what YOU believe. You do realize the admins pay for this server? Why should they pay their hard earned money, or deserved donations, to host somebody else's webpage? You want us to see what's on a webpage? Give a link. In fact, I wonder if it's copyrighted. This goes beyond fair use.[/quote] This isn't a copy and paste as a whole, it's actually a well formulated challenge devised by a friend of mine in Virginia, not an article. Secondly i know how web servers are ran, such as hosting, etc I'm a network admin for healthcare services company. What does this have to do with the topic, you're beating around the bush because you can't refute this. Thirdly, links are allover this, have you bothered to actually read it, you're lazy.[/quote] The first post had enough links. The second post had all of two links, and neither were to the original article.

[quote][b]MisterNathan wrote:[/b] The second post had all of two links, and neither were to the original article.[/quote] Of course not, because it wasn't entirely a copy and paste job. Still waiting for a refutal man you're dodging... Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 23:15

Post edited by: vincent, at: 2007/01/23 23:15