Messages Dated January 1998
1 - 20 of 7,140

Your moderation of UFO
Yes, that is the way I took it, and your misinterpretation of the following is further proof. No, David >claimed< he had not yet read his incoming netmail. The point is, he was asked repeatedly to move the discussion to netmail, and he refused to do so for several days, before finally giving up the ghost. You call me a liar when the proof is staring you in the face? His exact words are printed above... Both his language and

Deer? Atleast reindeer are notoriously stupid, and will happily wait until getting _bumped_, to move out of the way. /%/)+Eddy

Let me get this straight you implied in an earlier message to me that it was what was said that was at the root of an argument, now how it was presented clearly implying that one should be able to overlook spelling, grammatical, etc., errors. In other words, the medium is NOT the message. (You were, at that point, conveniently ignoring the fact that the medium became the message in that particular case because

sin and failure
Perhaps you meant Galileo? <g> Tag-X Pro v1.60: 01/01/98 at 04:13:08

Faulty genes
Ok, let's assume that God created two people (Adam and Eve) from which all humanity is descended. For these subsequent generations to have enjoyed 'safe' breeding, i.e. breeding with no chance of birth defects, they would, as you rightly point out, have had to have perfect, fault-free genes. So where did all these defective, imperfect genes come from? EEAS

As I said before, I've seen this either on Ripley or <snicker> Unsolved Mysteries. Whichever, they made a point of stressing that NO scientific tests have been allowed on this piece of cloth because of it's 'fragility'. They admit that the conclusions Willie makes are all just what they 'speculate' that scientific investigation would find. I just did that with my paint program. I have an eye in which, if you look closely, you can see the image of a

or [snip] John, I take it from your answer that you don't realize that the topic of discussion is Chris's condescending refusal to answer some questions that Ron Vass put to him? Even after being told about Ron's problems with communications, Chris's stock answer was that he was 'tiresome' and not worth even considering.

Oh, brother!
I've never been into conspiracy theorys George. Fred just goes rather overboard on the line that fundies and various other loons have severe mental problems in the insanity sense. I've always thought that by far the most likely explanation for particularly kids being very interested in ideas like ETs etc is just that thats much more interesting than the much more mundane idea that suggestible people see the current folk myth. Thats the way kids are, and you see it

Dead Strange Universe
Thats the way these 'debate' type echoes work George. You try to score political points yourself on occasion, and did so below. Sure, but the fundamentals like that are just the detail used when attempting some point scoring at times. You could try bursting into tears in the privacy of your bedroom. Probably not a triffic idea to do it here tho, you'll likely get pretty comprehensively savaged if you do And here you are attempting to go for

Re: Jack's "moderation"
Your problem. Reread your messages in this particular thread. No thanks, you have flaunted the fact that you are completely hopeless as a moderator, so that would be pointless. Corse you might conceivably be telling a complete pack of lies about your moderation, but you dont matter enough to bother checking that. Pity my list of echoes too badly moderated to bother with has absolutely NOTHING to do with the SKEPTICS echo. EOT:

Creationism vs Evolution
yep, and many other infectious diseases that mutate at a high rate would to. some of those would actually be rather better examples, just because the bird flu is a bit too new for all the fine detail to have been fully worked out yet. HIV is actually rather better, mainly because its been studied much longer and quite a bit of that has extended to full DNA sequencing thats allowed quite a bit of the detail of its evolution

Blue Genes.
It is bewildering to notice just how confused so many evolutionists really are! Maybe this chap is a bit of a kid, whose parents have just bought him his very first computer and modem? Best wishes for 1998. May it be rewarding and fulfilling for you and yours. Laurie

Hi Finn, (Re: yours of 04-Jan-1992, "Dimensions") [Seems like David Sparrow must have given you a free Bible for Christmas eh Finn? You are probably right. And. Laurie

The Judo Argument.
Sort of 'hit and run' eh? In other words you know that it is all so pitifully weak that you don't want to risk it being "blown out of the water"! I don't blame you. It is nonsense from beginning to end and if you believe all that then Asimov is the same thing as a mystical Indian GURU to you and you are little more than a faithful unthinking and unreasoning zombie! Laurie

Ants & Anteaters!
I doubt if they would have to bother. Why wouldn't they have fed themselves? After all, as I said, I thought that Noah's biggest problem might have been in trying to keep the pesty insects OUT. If anything, I would not blame Noah of he took a couple of EXTRA anteaters along just to make sure that there was enough of them to keep those ants under control! Laurie

Moon Dust Blunder.
Hi Rena, (Re: yours of 26-Dec-1997, "Moon Dust Blunder.") Sounds like you are hoping to get a Ph.D. in Astronomy or Cosmology all in one short message, or you fancy yourself as already a Professor and you are setting me the questions to tackle for my Ph.D. Sorry "No Banana". However, no evolutionist KNOWS how galaxies form and neither do any of them know how stars form either. I will be prepared to "Answer

Blue Genes.
Why would God want to do that? Why not make them different? Surely as the "Ultimate Bioengineer" He could do that! Inbreeding can only INCREASE such things if there are ALREADY faulty genes in one of both of the mating partners! It was YOU who wanted the term "sons of god" explained wasn't it? So the Book says that Adam was the son of God and thus Adams sons (except Cain) would also be sons of God. No doubt the

Blue Genes (b)
Hi Rena, (Re: yours of 26-Dec-1997, "Blue Genes.") My my my. You ARE becoming a big contributor aren't you:-) It is the evolutionary view that has humans developing from apes and ignorance. The Creation view is the opposite. Humans have "fallen" from a high state of knowledge and understanding. Modern doctors know that we not only have perhaps 1,500 genetic defects, but that the number of such defects is increasing! I suggest that you try to avoid

Giant Tanning Booth.
On the contrary. It is your comment that is trying to do the side-stepping. You give the impression that you know so little about this particular subject that it would be hardly possible to explain it to you anyway! However, Sir Fred Hoyle gives all the explanation that need concern us here. He writes; "In the latter part of the nineteenth century, [that] Kelvin and Helmholtz independently calculated that gravitation could provide for the Sun's radiation over

Jack's a specific example
<laughing!> This "radiating unfriendlieness" is a delusional mental construct _you_ concocted in your own head, Jack. It is an artifact of years of trying to justify continued belief in soundly debunked notions; it has become habit to you to contrive notions to escape the truth about things and when you apply them toward your intellectual superiors, you find yourself digging yourself deeper trying to defend your dishonesty. This is an earmark of the contemporary believer these days. From John Mack