Messages Dated September 1998
61 - 80 of 4,251

Dinosaurs went extinct
Bwahahahahahahahaha I am Murray, the all powerful demonic skull Bif the reason dinosaurs went extinct. Why did dinosaurs become extinct? They couldn't afford to pay the copying costs for their DNA! You see, we all marvel at what a miracle DNA is, how faithfully it is copied within bodies and how flawlessly it is passed down through the generations. Well, who's gonna be expected to pay for the copying costs? That's right, we are. There's this guy,

PA Murders 01/ [1]
There are several variation of Christianity in England too. Why is there no English Catholic v. English Protestant terrorism? Could it be that England is not partitioned? David Flechard

Re: The Jen You Wine Index
REPLYTO 1:2424/11.1 UUCP REPLYADDR holysmoke@gryn.org GID GIGO+ sn 245 at tor250 vsn 0.99.970109 From: emilz@mcsi.net (Ed Mills) Subject: Re: The Jen You Wine Index X-Ftn-To: Marilyn Burge Or perhaps he's in a marriage of convenience, as suggested by my girlfriend. If he and Hillary are only roommates, then he's only guilty of offending Puritans. Which I don't think is a bad thing a-tall. edweird Gated by the premier Fido Technology Networks gateway Providing USENET, Internet Email

Dreck
I need to stop you here. I was commenting on the nature of "Adam and Eve" from the point of view of the Genesis story. I don't believe in the literalness of the Adam and Eve account. Clearly I don't. David Flechard

Sexual Acts
The story is even more delicious than that. I can't remember the artist's name, but apparently the Tate were not particularly impressed with the "pile of bricks" display, and decided to remove it, at which point the artist consigned it to a rubbish tip. In the meantime, the story of the pile of bricks as an "objet(s) d'art" gained some notoriety, especially from the tabloid press, and interest soared. So the artist-creator was asked to re-exhibit, and had to make

Monkey Murders!
That is a good point. Several organizations (CAFOD for instance) have learned the hard way that simply distributing food in areas with a low-performing agriculture facility have resulted in the shutting down of that facility, and my main point here is not invalidated. In the short term, food distribution will serve a need, but if conditions of desertification are not addressed, all that will happen is that indigenous populations will remain dependent on food parcels. I think it is true

Paluxy Footprints.
That does not represent my beliefs in the smallest iota. Making unwarranted deductions like this on the slightest of conjectures is something that some might say would put you firmly in the camp of Duane T. Gish. David Flechard

Dating Blunders.
Your 'deep' and profound messages are always welcome! When are you going to send some? In the meantime the following might interest you; "A Popular teacher encourages young people to raise the big issues and think for themselves, and gets in trouble for it. A bright young student takes a stand for freedom of thought, and runs smack into a wall of official dogma. The authorities use the law to intimidate dissenters and try to discourage citizens from thinking for

Lost the Plot.
Oh well, in that case here it is again. Who knows, your mind might be a little clearer today! As I have said, Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author Chandra Wickramasinghe, both atheists for much of their scientific life, put it just as clearly as did Richard Dawkins, when they wrote, repudiating their atheism that; "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes

Outside of Science.
Being criticised by ratbags is a form of flattery! I have yet to be "spanked" by any honest and intelligent person here! Should you ever have an inclination (or the courage) to read something by an intelligent writer, then I recommend the book entitled; "DEFEATING DARWINISM, by Opening Minds". It is written by a professor of law, Phillip E. Johnson. (1997). The following is a quote from his book. "One of the truly bizarre things about our current cultural situation

Dim-sim Fossils.
Ah well, you are wise to make the most of what you DO have instead of forever complaining about what you do NOT have. So how is our mutual friend and tornado devastated Baptist Minister these days? Are you still turning up at his place perhaps like a 'bad penny' to enquire after his welfare and to provide anything that seems to be needed by him? Do you use your Holysmoke vocabulary when you are there too? Anyway,

Balanced Treatment.
What? You mean that you have not had another tornado in your area, where another Christian had their house blown away and yet yours was not damaged! Are you starting to think that this is the only evidence you have that evolution is true after all? Do you happen to remember the following that Paul Rogers left on the Evolution Echo in April? Abstracted from transcript of the PBS Newshour for 4/21/98. www.pbs.org/newshour/ TERRY SPOHN, Liberty University: Well, I

Narrator or Translator
Sorry, I should have said hundreds of thousands! It is not my fault if you have been 'protected' from the facts of the real world and are thus pathetically ignorant of such straight forward matters. e.g. "Thousands of clay tablets have been found written before the Patriarchal age and altogether there are about a quarter of a million cuneform clay tablets distributed among the various museums of the world." (New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, P.J. Wiseman C.B.E., 7th edition

Narrator or Translator.
It was YOU who wanted to know how those clay tablets "survived Noah's flood"! So why talk about it at all if you were so certain that it never happened? Alternatively, if there was a Noah, a flood, and an Ark then where is your problem? No doubt it follows that your use of the word "Dickhead" is a sign that you know that your case is hopeless without such anti-social words and antics! As I said the only evidence

Outside of Science.
Just right. I fully agree. Well said. Why indeed do such people use such words unless; "it is the effort of a feeble mind trying to express itself forcefully!" One gets the impression that this "foul-mouthed abuse" characteristic tends to be a peculiarity quite often found in people who believe that humans came from some common ancestor of apes and orangutans etc! Laurie

Outside of Science!
A pecliarity rather often noticed in sport and specially the classical game called Cricket! The bowlers just bowl and bowl over and over again! Guess what? They nearly always get a different result sooner or later! Would that be a testimony, more to the fact that your educational environment did not include Balanced Treatment? Could it be that your evolutionism has no more conviction to it than many young people had to their being sort-of "christians", because that was

Outside of Science.
It would be bullshit if the question did not make logical sense. It is a perfectly sensible question, even if Colley did not get the answer he sought. One interpretation, which naturally I wouldn't dream of offering myself, is that an inability to attack the question is resulting in an attack on the questioner instead. I am coming to understand that, from certain quarters at least, educated debate is going to be absent. I really don't mind. If that includes

Pagan/Wiccan/Gaian Death
Sure, I don't dispute that. But throughout the NT you only find that Jesus was to rise "on the third day," not that he would be dead for three days and then rise. Mark 9:31 is typical "For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day." David Flechard

Outside of Science.
Well, you have the advantage of me in seniority, that's for sure. I haven't seen anyone trying to impose anything, in the sense of making physical threats. All I've seen is people expressing a point of view, not always coherently, that most others take great exception to. Isn't this called freedom of speech? I mean, the so-called "fundies" are vilified because they apparently seek to "impose" their views on others, yet are apparently criticized for exercising the freedom of speech

Outside of Science.
Surely the antidote to unreason, for the benefit of the lurkers you refer to, is reason? Otherwise, someone happening on a string of obscene epithets directed at yourself might conclude, in the absence of reasoning, that your opinions were likewise being shown invalid. That's assuming you think that lurkers are incapable of coherent or critical reasoning. David Flechard