Over Palpazzar's objections, I'd like to continue the discussion on the burden of proof: Many of the Bible's claims would seem to conflict with what we know of the world today. The Bible alleges, for example, that a race of giants once roamed the earth (Genesis 6:4). Now, of course we've never found any extra-Biblical records of these giants--no bones, no tools, no ruins, nothing; and no, they aren't dinosaurs, unless dinosaurs could breed with man--but there are those who argue that, because we can't disprove it, the story stands. Imagine that one day you get arrested. For witchcraft. They drag you into court and accuse you of using your magical powers to bring misfortune on your village--and what's more, the concept of "innocent till proven guilty" hasn't been invented yet; to get off, you have to prove that you're not a witch. How do you do that--how do you prove an abstract negative? Does the burden of proof rightly rest on you, or those who argue in the affirmative? Belief that you're right isn't enough; kids have believed that putting on a Superman costume enables them to fly, but gravity still takes precedence when they jump off their tables or out their windows. Now if I claim to have seen Bigfoot, but offer no evidence, would you take my story at face value? If you knew me and trusted me, maybe; I wouldn't be the first to make that claim, and there's (questionable) evidence in Bigfoot's favor. What if I claim to have seen Bigfoot wearing a cowboy hat and a police uniform dancing around and singing "YMCA?" I'd better damn well be able to back that up, lack of disproof or no.