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