Discussion page archives

man is man-made.

Discussion Page Archives

Month of February '98

Marline:I think all atheist are in great need of seeking the real truths about life, soul, and their very origen of how it all began. - 4:01:54 on 1 Feb 99 GMT

M_A_R_L_E_N_E:RICKY- Yes, many of us are interested in the "truth" about how life originated. I'm also very interested in the universe and how it all began, if it had a beginning of course. This is why I have carefully weighed the evidence (or lack of in the case of a creator) that has been presented so far in serch of that "truth". I also have found lack of evidence for "the soul" so that one's on the scrap pile too. - 4:13:25 on 1 Feb 99 GMT

MAN IS #2...:This is som much better-one can see all the posts on one page.... - 11:39:50 on 1 Feb 99 GMT

Steven :ALL/ANY <<>> this is the link to the Man is Man Made II page. The MiMM2 page was created because of the jerk/jerks that decided they would attack this page. It is a threaded message board, and it is admin'd by me, so there will be absolutly no spam. Please come and join. It is apparent after months of crap on this page that the admin either does not care, or does not have the ability to block the spammers isp, or delete their posts. - 14:23:07 on 1 Feb 99 GMT

Poor Steven, Wah Wah Wahh, someone give steve a passifire! - 5:04:58 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:By their misspellings ye shall know them. (and me) - 5:49:52 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Je Te Faire Enculer - 18:30:41 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Tu ere una bella frecata. - 18:41:40 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Where Atheists Say the Darnd'est Things! D:```Down the subway stairs of this dannutu. : - 18:44:22 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

payment - 18:45:50 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

trefoil - 18:46:12 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

for the druids you know who you are - 18:49:19 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:I die smothered in Aunt Bee's muff... - 18:56:42 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Where Atheists Say the Darnd'est Things! D:```Down the subway stairs of this dannutu. : - 18:57:20 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Where Atheists Say the Darnd'est Things! D::```Down the subway stairs of this dannutu. : - 18:58:39 on 2 Feb 99 GMT

Grant1:Sigourney Weaver's maybe, but only 'till queasy. But I'll not pass judgment on your fantasies. - 6:22:32 on 3 Feb 99 GMT

NASAQU - 7:30:43 on 3 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Steven.While I will make it a point to visit your site, I refuse to give up this one. If some shitheads think they are going to spam me off my preferred site they have another think coming. If spamming an atheist site is the best they can do for their religion, both they and ther religion are in sad shape. So much for their god, a helpless deity who has to rely upon such followers. All powerful - Hah - what a joke. - 20:57:12 on 3 Feb 99 GMT

PAPASAM:Anonymous critic. Go back to school and take some spelling lessons, stupid. You are the one who needs a PACIFIER. - 21:02:53 on 3 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:P'SAM, o'course that sad shape includes those that wanna'do the tree huggin'thing too! In either case, the preference to not see the world as it is weighs heavily on these types. Perhaps the effort is too much of strain for these types. - 21:35:05 on 3 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:Down the subway stairs of this dannutu. : - 5:23:35 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

The Druids emerged from the ancient Celtic tribes, at a time when the people had to live close to nature to survive. By the light of the storyteller's fire, and with the play of the harp, the Druids dreamed magic for their people. In the deep woods they would gather, bringing together their mysticism and philosophy, their insight and learning. Their spirit emerged from the the tides of the sea, the light of the sun, the wind in the Oak, the cry of the deer. In this way, they created an institution that inspired, frightened, and uplifted their world. The moon still dances for us now as she did then, and so the wonder of Nature remains as awesome as in those lost days. The Druids may be gone, but their magic is not. It may yet emerge from the earth again, if we remember her and love her again. - 5:27:17 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

NASAQU - 5:27:58 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

phrenology:Figlio di puttana, sai che tu sei un pezzo di merda? (1) Hm? You think you're cool, right? Hm? Hm? When you kicked out people [out of] your house I tell you this, one of three Americans die of cancer, you know? Asshole. You're gonna be one of those. I [didn't too / don't have the] courageto kick your ass directly. Don't have enough courage for that,I could, you know. You know you're gonna have another accident? You know I'm involved with black magic?Fuck you. Die. Bastard. You think you're so cool, hm? Asshole. And if I ever see your fucking face around, In Europe or Italy, Well I'll -- That time I'm gonna kick your ass. Fuck you. Fucking Americans, Yankee.You're gonna die outta cancer, I promise. [Bang bang / Deep pain]No one does what you did to me. You wanna know something? Fuck you. I want your balls smashed, eat shit. Bastard. Pezzo di merda, figlio di puttana. (2)I hope somebody in your family dies soon. Crepa, pezzo di merda, e vaia sucare cazzi su un aereo! (3) (1) Son of a bitch, do you know you are a piece of shit? (2) Piece of shit, son of a bitch.(3) Die, piece of shit, and go sucking dicks on a plane! - 5:34:13 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

k:NASAQU Warwick weighs heavily --(-)EllA - 5:42:11 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

The alchemical idea of transmutation of the soul can also be traced back Je Te Faire Enculer - 6:01:16 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

Ron:If some shitheads think they are going to spam me off my preferred site they have another think coming. - 6:02:32 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

RON:If some shitheads think they are going to spam me off my preferred site they have another think coming. - 6:03:05 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

weighs heavily :Nekemtum your penis - 6:22:57 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANY, if there is anything that becomes a scenario for the adherence of any to religious strictures or deeds as the sheer nonsense of the spam stuff here, it is the open doorway of thoughtlessness. I have to say that that doorway must always stand open. Why? Well, the thinking of things is difficult and the saying of them the only connection to the neverending dynamics of all. I of late wondered what does one say of "atheism" once one is comfortable, really comfortable with the so-far nothing of the supernatural as a knowable whatever? With the spam thing as it appears here, apparently there is nothing much to say of magic and spirits and other such whatnots but acts and words of redundency. Maybe F.N. was on to something when he said as have others that, 'there are no facts, only interpretations'. Perhaps he was only trying to encapsulate the wide spread way of most all who are simply not eager or willing to work or exert themselves. So what do such types do? They pray for or pray to a supernatural "thing" or they invoke spells and things for magic to happen, again and again and again the same, redundency is nonexertive and best of all it is, thoughtlessness. - 22:04:54 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:phrenology. Apparently the lumps on your head have affected what passes for your brain. Why waste our space here venting your rage on someone not known to us and who probably does not even visit this site? Gutless as you are, you could send an anonymous snail mail to whoever it is. Or are you scared so shitless you are afraid he might trace you? Besides, that's no way to talk to your father, just because he didn't marry your mother. - 22:33:13 on 4 Feb 99 GMT

dave:they dodn't call them cretins for nothing! - 4:06:04 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

dave:they don't call them cretins for nothing! - 4:06:22 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

dave:hey ; ITIE NON ROMPERMI IL CAZZO! LEVATI DAI COGLIONI! MERDONE,FINOCCHIO, ITIE! VATTI A FARE UNA PIPA! USA USA USA PISS OFF ITALY! HOME OF PEDIFILE CENTRAL(VATICAN CITY) - 4:31:13 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:My thoughts exactly - 5:38:02 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Where Atheists Say the Darnd'est Things! D:```Down the subway stairs of this dannutu. : - 5:38:45 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Is Sigourney friend or foe after quite literally getting a baby monster off her chest? - 5:42:18 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

how many times are you gonna hit my site lucid - 5:43:33 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Dorn:I am new here? Does anyone discuss why there are only two atheists here? Instead of this thoughtless cream. This is an atheist site? Right? Nonetheless, does anyone care to discuss Kai Nielsen? Anselm perhaps? You are just like me? - 5:50:47 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Joette--->Dorn. Anselm's not an atheist? - 5:52:50 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

I am an atheist. Darn what darn things I darn say. - 5:55:24 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Rob -- a darn word for that darn saying oh darn:ALL. flippant phren? atheist perhaps Jo? - 5:58:07 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:Dorn... Good to see you again. You are welcome here. Atheist??? - 5:59:49 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Steven:Dorn...Here is my site again. Darn? - 6:02:11 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

diatribe on the way any religion sucks? - 6:04:44 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

hit me &&& - 6:06:49 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:My thoughts exactly - 6:07:29 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Quake:dave. I agree but are they cagey??? - 6:10:57 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

David:Quake. You won bitch! Get some fresh air! I like censorship you know? - 6:16:06 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:diatribe on the way any religion sucks? - 6:17:14 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Joette--->Carl. That was not Pam. Pretend perhaps? I am an atheist really? Darn the labels touch a thought? - 6:20:19 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

O pen: This (s)pammer vibrates? - 6:23:16 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Brad to Carl... whine is to redundency as the following: You are a murderous doll sitting in an elevator. An old couple pops in. As they step out, the woman blurts: "What an ugly doll." What do you do if you follow Chucky's actions in the first CHILD'S PLAY movie? - 6:50:48 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

"What are you doing out here all alone? Aren't you afraid of me?" (Golding 143) Simon's intense fear of --(-)pig-on-a-stick led him to imagine that it actually had a voice and was deliberately chasing and trying to scare him. This is typical of imagination: it can't be escaped. How do I post? for&&& but I agree with your thoughts on a theist's imagination -Carl- especially this evil druid. It serves no advancement for humanity. - 7:00:32 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:My thoughts exactly. I say again. Darn. - 7:02:18 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Ex-Atheist to cugel. I used that line more than once but you would not believe me anyways. - 7:04:46 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 7:06:03 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

O pen: This (s)pammer vibrates? - 7:06:38 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

how many times are you gonna hit my site lucid - 7:07:57 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

O pen: This (s)pammer vibrates? - 7:08:24 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:Quake. ? = BOC tune. Is that where you are going? - 7:11:52 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

dana:? = Contact. SHEESH! Marlene get it right. - 7:13:16 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 7:15:13 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 7:16:26 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Legba - 7:52:14 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Rob a c.s.lewis irk:The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - 8:03:50 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky:bokors - 8:04:28 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

--(-) - 8:04:52 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

the real Marlene:Aren't druids supposed to take some dead days? - 12:33:28 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

doug:druids are theists: "hiraethu" thats a welsh word for a longing that will never happen.rdywi siarad yn cymraeg.Ydych chi yn dysgu cymraeg? trans;I speak welsh. ARE you learning welsh? If you want to be a "derwydd" druid you have to speak the langauge. Wales has a proud freethough tradition but also mired in fundy though pseudodruids are just another theist con of "new age" bull how about the "mari lwyd" y "cadi" horses head and fool; because only a fool would be king for a day,time to meet the wicker man. People today just don't uderstand the true meaning of sacrifice."dyn dall dyn dall" blind man. ********I thought this was a Atheist site not new age rubbish. "pob hwyl" so long - 14:17:14 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:My thoughts exactly. I say again. Darn. - 18:50:25 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

diatribe on the way any religion sucks? - 18:50:58 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

EX-ATHEIST:doug my phren I guess ALL.aitia.See what I mean. - 19:00:32 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

He cast a grim shadow...Through the busy streetSaid he was a junkie... And he punctuated his walk with a gun...Motiveless murder...The papers scream The cops all said...The crowd was iced by the sight Oh baby don't it make you feel so bad...Dark clouds are over the street After what I read, I can hardly feel my heart...My heart beat Down the subway stairs...After him they leap..tAn echo snap and scream of fire... The hot pursuit was done...For the last time he felt the light And gave up his last fight...Oh baby don't it make you feel so bad Dark clouds are over the street...After what I read, I can hardly feel my heart... My heart beat - 19:03:48 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate:"Michael(!)" - 19:04:59 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pour milk onto the ground - 19:06:03 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky:bokors - 19:08:14 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Joette--->doug. That was not Pam. Pretend perhaps? I am an atheist really? Darn the labels touch a thought? - 19:09:13 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene to Joette. I lost my Redwood. - 19:10:50 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

O pen: This (s)pammer vibrates? - 19:11:27 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Brad to --(-)EllA... whine is to redundency as the following: You are a murderous doll sitting in an elevator. An old couple pops in. As they step out, the woman blurts: "What an ugly doll." What do you do if you follow Chucky's actions in the first CHILD'S PLAY movie? - 19:12:41 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate:"Michael(!)" - 19:13:19 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 19:14:12 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Ex-Atheist to cugel. I used that line more than once but you would not believe me anyways. - 19:14:49 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

doug:druids are theists: "hiraethu" thats a welsh word for a longing that will never happen.rdywi siarad yn cymraeg.Ydych chi yn dysgu cymraeg? trans;I speak welsh. ARE you learning welsh? If you want to be a "derwydd" druid you have to speak the langauge. Wales has a proud freethough tradition but also mired in fundy though pseudodruids are just another theist con of "new age" bull how about the "mari lwyd" y "cadi" horses head and fool; because only a fool would be king for a day,time to meet the wicker man. People today just don't uderstand the true meaning of sacrifice."dyn dall dyn dall" blind man. ********I thought this was a Atheist site not new age rubbish. "pob hwyl" so long - 19:16:24 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:My thoughts exactly. I say again. Darn. - 19:17:23 on 5 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Druid lover. How much would you talk about your beloved druids if you had to pay for each posting? I'd bet my last dime that you would keep your mouth shut and your fingers off your computer. It's too bad you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. As it is, you're boring the shit out of us. Why don't you use a little common courtesy and log off. - 6:41:38 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

doug:Here is a fairly popular message board. The discussion tends to be intellectual (philosophy, ethics, language and rhetoric, etc.). It also features occaisional long rants from religionists. - 18:34:17 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:-->David you are just a charlatan. - 18:36:06 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:I am 83 you know.They are just another theist con of "new age" bull. RTL SPEAKS. - 18:39:38 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pour milk onto the ground - 18:40:11 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Christopher Lee. PapaSam but please more soup! - 18:48:45 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

GORT - 18:49:09 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

the real Marlene---I like sensible (s)pamming Delirious Bulldogs; --- echoing calls My daughter, --- green as summer grass; --- The long supine Plebeian ass, The nasty crockery boring falls; --- Tom-Moory Pathos; -- all things bare, --- With such a turket! such a hen! And scrambling forms of distant men, O! ain't you glad you were not there! - 18:54:01 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

--(-) - 18:54:40 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 18:55:54 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam... I am a Druid lover too; I swim of Brionnfhionn.People today just don't uderstand the true meaning of sacrifice. - 19:03:43 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Christopher Lee:PapaSam but please more soup! - 19:04:31 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

GORT - 19:05:09 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Steven:Here is a fairly popular message board. The discussion tends to be intellectual (philosophy, ethics, language and rhetoric, etc.). It also features occaisional long rants from religionists. MIMM2,GIVE IT A TRY, but Druid lovers spark my cum. - 19:07:17 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky:Give me the boy! - 19:08:56 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

white bread and milk - 19:09:24 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

jaywilson---Are you finished phren??? - 19:11:03 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

doug:Here is a fairly popular message board. The discussion tends to be intellectual (philosophy, ethics, language and rhetoric, etc.). It also features occaisional long rants from atheists. - 19:13:53 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Robert T Lee:Here is a fairly popular message board. The discussion tends to be intellectual (philosophy, ethics, language and rhetoric, etc.). It also features occaisional long rants from religionists. - 19:15:19 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

nature offends them --(-)EllA. Sounds lucid - 19:17:14 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:-->David you are just a charlatan. - 19:17:50 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

David:I am an atheist; I study for 20 years. Shall I continue? Though Pam I enjoy your Druid loving posts, we have never spoken but of a Redwood perhaps. Sounds offensive. Joette, I gave you what you wanted. - 19:22:16 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Ex-Atheist to cugel. I used that line more than once but you would not believe me anyways. - 19:24:59 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Steven:Oh ALL. The Oregon Vortex. Sounds a charlatan. My site is nice. - 19:31:11 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

GORT - 19:31:48 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Thorn is the third rune in what is believed to be a group of 33. That part is only speculation due to the different beliefs through the years. But, it is speculated as the third rune. Thorn is also known as Thurisaz, pronounced thu-ri-saz. Thu...ri, like rig...saz with "a" as in father. The base meaning to this is "Gateway, with thorns of resistance." It also has been known as Dorn, you can see there are many synonyms for this rune. Thorns can be looked upon in two ways, as a barrier and as a protection or a separator from the "other side" of change. So, there is good and bad in thorn. In accordance to that, thorn is a rune of testing and challenge, as well as protection and defense. To simplify this, I'll try to state it like this. Its Divinatory meaning is: Hardship, painful event, etc. Obviously, this fits Michael to a "t." Its magical uses are to aid in study and meditation and self meditation. I find this amazing because Michael had TOTAL self control and meditation. After researching, all of this is finally coming together. To understand thorn, you must realize all that's behind it. So, it helps to understand where it falls on the tonal axis. It spans from the fourteen (Earthly father), through the four (the place of the Animals...possibly explaining his eating of the dog in the first Halloween),the ten (the mind), the three, the thirteen, and the one. The one is the place of Fire. Obviously the fire explains the RAGE in Michael Myers. Some of the potential negative trends are Demonic Influence, damage, deception, and perishing of enemies. Well, looky what we have here! All of those explain Michael Myers. To help understand Thorn, here is the POEM that goes hand in hand with thorn: A third song I know: If urgency tells me to tie the opponent w/magic Then I dullen the steel of my foes So that their swords will not cut anymore. This poem can explain Michael's influence of thorn. They believed a person was inflicted with this curse so that they could spare the lives of all other people in that "tribe." Here is something you will find AMAZING! Under Christian proselytizing influence, the Latin alphabet was generally adopted, and only two runes survived: the wynn (yes, you read correctly, the WYNN), which looked a lot like a P, and the thorn, which looked like a "p" with a neck splint. Isn't that amazing, that WYNN was one of the runes that survived? Could this explain the fascination that Dr. Wynn has with Michael's powers? Maybe this led to his name of "Wynn!" Weird Stuff. Lastly, I'll leave you with something that could possibly be used for HALLOWEEN 7. The lesson of this rune is to learn you must suffer. Not only literal suffering, but also in the biblical sense of allowing one's destiny to unfold as it should, and allowing one's self to experience all that life offers us. There is talk of "Giants" when talking of Thorn. Thorn is the name given to the Giant. The Giants (not the football team or the baseball team) may seem to be evil and destructive to the Aesir, but they bring about change, and eventually clear the way for a new age. Could Michael finally turn out to be "not as bad as he appears?" After he does "his job" maybe he'd clear up. I'll leave you guys with that last thought. Hope some of this gives you a better understanding on H6. I know this info surprised me a lot and helped me understand H6. I really loved the WYNN part. Thorn isn't just an evil rune. It can be both good and evil. Depending on which way the rune is set, can determine whether it's good or evil. This depends on which way the triangle part of the thorn symbol is facing. You see, it can also play a part in taking the evil OUT of the person cursed with it. This also goes along with what I said they could possibly do at the end of H7. How it can bring about that change it's seeking. You never know, something could trigger Michael to let the evil out of him, that protective rune, perhaps? Anyhow, I also thought I'd let everyone know how the thorn rune can also double the size of any animal for the duration of the spell. A doubling in this size would increase the weight by four times. With this, a gain of 50% over the "creature's" natural strength is probable as well. Could this explain why Michael is not affected by bullets or anything else? Can this explain why he got so BIG between parts 5 and 6? Discounting the fact that George Wilbur put on weight, could this be the explanation? The whole time that Wynn had Michael locked away (the six years) could this curse be building up in Michael? Thus, making him so much BIGGER and STRONGER than ever? I think this seems too coincidental not to be looked at! Look at the great storyline this presents. This finally could explain why Michael can't be killed. He gained all that strength over the years. Once that curse is lifted by that protective rune, I feel Myers would slowly lose all that power and bulk, returning him to a "normal" individual. - 19:34:13 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky-"My thoughts exactly(!)" - 19:35:20 on 6 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:All. It's the weekend and once again the kids are out of school and playing with their computers. Considering the wide vistas open to them on the internet, it is a shame that they waste their time spamming. Christopher Lee. If you want more soup, ask your mommie to open a can for you, in between her entertaining her clients in the bedroom. - 6:30:59 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

As a P.O.W. you will have a lot of time to kill . . . time that could be spent running those 9,600 to 12,000 thoughts that we spoke about earlier. You're not going to have a lot of entertainment facilities provided by "you know who." You must learn to entertain yourself through the power of your own imagination. Some might call this technique Escape. What better time in life to escape.:PapaSam - 18:42:04 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

charlatan:The wrong war. I [didn't too / don't have the] courageto kick your ass directly. Don't have enough courage for that,I could, you know. They borrow. Eyes - 18:48:56 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

white bread and milk - 18:56:09 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Oliver:PapaSam. Sounds a "No!!!". - 18:57:26 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pour milk onto the ground - 18:58:15 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

doug:Ist ein falscher Gedanke nur einmal kuhn and klar ausgedruckt,so ist damit schon viel gewonnen. - 19:02:36 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:-->rOB does that mean we all have to start speaking German??? - 19:03:43 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Pam... I can think o' alot better reads than Wittgenstein; he is good though. Wierd! - 19:05:17 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Joette-->Carl I think that was a Golding book. - 19:06:34 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

whine like a bitch - 19:07:15 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

fairy gold - 19:07:40 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky:Tonton Macoute - 19:21:16 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Ron:"Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now..." When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions Gotta find a way to find a way when I'm there Gotta find a way - a better way - I had better wait Never met a wise man, if so it's a woman "Just because you're paranoid Doesn't mean they're not after you." - 19:26:41 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

GORT - 19:28:08 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

EX-ATHEIST:doug.SEE what I mean!!! hi i am an atheist really. ```Down the subway what again??? Sounds lucid. - 19:34:39 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

John Goodricke To PapaSam...And this leaves us to Pam. Your struggles as you refer to them. Have a pleasant day; my back hurts not. - 19:44:57 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Lith... I [didn't too / don't have the] courageto kick your ass directly. Don't have enough courage for that,I could, you know. They borrow. Eyes - 19:46:04 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

I haven't been posting much these past couple of weeks because the main topic of conversation has been about Free --(-)Willy. It seems that conversation of him has saturated the entire internet, maybe because so many Americans have access to the web, and consider only their country to be of interest. - 20:00:34 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate:"Michael(!)" - 20:01:28 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

EX-ATHEIST:test - 20:02:32 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Steven:This is another bulletin board that could use more participation. - 20:14:49 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

fairy gold - 20:15:23 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate:"Michael(!)" - 20:17:54 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Melissa:Pam. How come there is no (s) and a (k) at the end of your (s)pam. I tell a joke I Carl. - 20:19:44 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

charlatan:The wrong war. I [didn't too / don't have the] courageto kick your ass directly. Don't have enough courage for that,I could, you know. They borrow. Eyes - 20:20:37 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

fairy gold - 20:21:42 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

charlatan:The wrong word. I [didn't too / don't have the] courageto kick your ass directly. Don't have enough courage for that,I could, you know. They borrow. Eyes - 20:22:29 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pour milk onto the ground - 20:23:03 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

John Goodricke :Give it a try. man is man-made anways. Hope to hear from you again PapaSam or all. Marlene the druid cums out of the coffin. You??? - 20:27:53 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

lucid dreaming - 20:30:25 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate:"Michael(!)" - 20:30:56 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pour milk onto the ground - 20:31:28 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:Your function --(-)EllA---dajjanutu : : - 20:55:18 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

John Goodricke :Give it a try. man is man-made anways. Hope to hear from you again PapaSam or all. Marlene the druid cums out of the coffin. You??? - 22:56:46 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

(y) - 22:57:25 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:Your function --(-)EllA---dajjanutu : : - 22:58:17 on 7 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Just a few questions for you people who believe in evolution! Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonable smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? - 1:46:53 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:What evidence is there that information, such as DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers recieved an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? - 1:53:42 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? Where did all the helium go? If the Big Bang occured, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the Clock?" - 1:58:05 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to creat a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a "written, scientific debate? - 2:04:05 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky; thats alot of questions you've asked there are lots of transitional fossils and new ones comeing along all the time.A good site to find out is talks origins http://www.talkorigins.org/ you can debate there with some of the best on the net! - 4:32:29 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:RICKY; What do you think of bell"s theorem and non-locality. - 4:38:57 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky; what text book are you quoting from?have you ever taken a science course in school? - 4:46:01 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky; do you have an opinion of the this months article in the annals of the entomological society 1999 vol.2 "Hematophagy and Hormone Relaese" - 4:52:02 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky;there is a great article this month in ASLO "LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY" Carbon utilization in yhr Eurasian sector of the Arctic Ocean. Have you read it?Wow and I thought is was Oligotrophic. - 4:57:47 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

PETER:Ricky--Do you in fact get all your 'anti-evolution' information from pro-creationist sources? - 13:43:46 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

perhaps wittgenstein was forthright without fluff and stuff - 16:40:58 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

zik:what do you think about religion? - 16:41:25 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Steven:A new message board started by some solitary regular atheist at the original Man Is Man-Made board. Give it a try fairy gold. - 17:11:23 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

John Goodricke :Give it a try. man is man-made anyways. Hope to hear from you again PapaSam or all. Marlene the druid cums out of the coffin. You??? - 17:12:12 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

fear gorta - 17:12:32 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:Your function --(-)EllA---dajjanutu : : - 17:14:22 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

rOB... perhaps wittgenstein was forthright without fluff and stuff. can't you get anything right???; I could've left awhile ago but i like that in a --(-)insect. - 17:17:36 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

doug:he was momentarily caught off stride, but he recovered so swiftly only a druid would have recognized the uncertain shimmer in the air around him. just talk, Ainvar, just talk. one would not say such a thing casually. i think you'd better explain it to me. You had no compunction about using the products of my thnking to impress those men with your shrewdness. You owe me for that. so i demand in payment that you tell me what you meant about the germans. - 17:25:42 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pinch of ginger - 17:26:23 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

wittgenstein---so i demand in payment that you tell me what you meant about the germans. - 17:28:12 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

zik:diatribe on the way religion sucks??? - 17:29:47 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Stowarzyszenie... Geomorfolog�w... Polskich... - 17:33:29 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Keith:Ricky; what text book are you quoting from?have you ever taken a science course in school? I and Carl do,but we love the spirits also. - 17:35:39 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

EX-ATHEIST---ALL. of the above statements---see what i mean. - 17:36:54 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pinch of ginger - 17:38:18 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

The Boogens - 17:39:16 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

PETER...The Boogens - 17:40:38 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

The Boogens:Do you in fact get all your 'anti-evolution' information from the facts of m. valdemar??? - 17:42:18 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Li(tt)le Miss Muffet. the Boogens--- well yes and no depending on how I post. - 17:44:11 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

payment,,,trefoil, pinch of ginger - 17:44:51 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

lithium:You can use WebElements to calculate an isotope pattern for an arbitrary chemical formula: Enter a formula : Joette to SKIPPY - 17:48:59 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:I love you Skippy. - 17:50:42 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Pam... We respect science; David enjoys my posts even at other postings he finds them nonsense.EXPLETIVE - 17:55:26 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

and more bright blessings to you Pam - 17:57:05 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

I know who you are. - 17:58:15 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

James ..this lith character does not sound good. Grant, politics anyone??? - 17:59:50 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Lith:Signs of anemia are to some extent due to the underlying cancer. Certain signs, however, can be attributed to reduction in the ability of blood to carry oxygen. These are: fatigue, weakness, loss of energy, paleness, shortness of breath, low blood pressure. In severe cases, patients may become dizzy while trying to stand up, or they may even pass out. - 18:02:56 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Chucky:Reler - 18:14:34 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel:Your function --(-)EllA---dajjanutu : : - 18:15:11 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

the girl can stop the range Michael!!! - 18:17:13 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

bob---I do not what do bE part of your delusions...hummm - 18:18:19 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

my thoughts exactly - 18:18:57 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Yes Keith! Taking a science course in a small University in NC, and I'm finding out more and more these questions I ask about evolution really fire you non-believing atheist up. Am I hitting a nerve, or is it just that you don't have the answers? If you do, givem to me, if not, keep blasting me for letting my little light shine! - 18:43:35 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

thats right!:Right while I'm in the question asking mode, Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a "written, scientific debate? ps. Keith, I don't have to quote from a textbook, however I can refer some for you to read! - 18:47:29 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Keith, Here's a question straight out of my science book. Tell me this, Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA---which can only be produced by DNA? - 18:50:17 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Difficult questions all round::Ricky: What happened to the ducks in the great flood? How many of each animal did in fact go on to the arc? Who made god, else how can he just be there? If the existence of bacteria implies a very intelligent creator, what would the existence of a such a tremoudously complex being as god imply? - 19:19:14 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY, so its tricky question time, eh? Okay, so lets say creation happened, see genesis in bible, what did the godthing do in the eternity prior to creation, sit in nothing, all alone? - 19:54:50 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY, tricky question 2, the sun spews forth all kinds of energy,i.e., sunlight, true? This planet is not but a fraction the size of the sun and in this regard, it barely gets but a minute fraction of the sun's energy, true? Isn't the other energy, that which spews forth in all directions away from this planet, isn't that a waste? So if this planet was or is so special, why must so much of the sun's energy become as a waste? Has a godthing explained such nonsense? - 20:03:55 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:ricky; how come pi is 3 in the bible instead of 3.1416*****? You god gets a big red F in math. Or more likely the goat herders who wrote it. SO YOUR GOING TO COLLEGE! WOW; THATS BIG TIME. Ricky I'm going over to Harvard tomorrow and I'll ask Scott. He did his phd at DUKE U. - 21:52:13 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Carl, the Bible says that in the beginning was God. God has always been. God has never been alone. Scripture says that not only was God, but was the Son of God, and all the Angels. The "God-thing", as you put it, has many mysterious questions, that I nor no one else can answer. I just weigh all the evidence between evolution and creation, and find that no mater which way we tend to lean towards, we have to except it on faith. There are some evidence that supports both sides. However, I find more logical evidence leaning towards the creation side, and if there is a creator, then what the Bible instructs us to do must be valid and according to the plan of God. - 21:58:55 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Who created god? a. goat herders b. Gene Rodenbury c. Carl Sagan d. Pat Robertson Gene Rodenbury( god would have more imagination) c. Carl Sagan( smarter than god). So take your pick, - 22:02:49 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug, you may get a big red "f" in salvation on judgement day! That's going to be a shame. That is going to be an eternal ring in your ears to here the Lord say, "cast Doug into the lake of fire, because he rejected my name!" - 22:03:23 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:THE mind what a terrible thing to waste. god causes brain rot in clincal study. Atheist mice unaffected. - 22:06:30 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Luke 14:26 (I go to large sporting events and hold up that sign. - 22:07:58 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Who says that the excess energy is going out in waist? If the solar system evolved, why do 3 planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? Where did the helium go? Why aren't there meteroites found in supposedly old rocks? "Answers Please" Because we live on an earth created by God some 6000 + years ago, with a reason for all these unexplainable questions we have today! - 22:10:47 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:God means Hate.If thats true then I"ll slap your god in the face for being such a twit.Oh the holy gost sucks big ones. - 22:11:19 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:God means Hate.If thats true then I"ll slap your god in the face for being such a twit.Oh the holy ghost sucks big ones. - 22:11:31 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

go to a real university and take some science courses. - 22:13:54 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:din din time for me. - 22:14:40 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky the bible boy; does gog have a sense of humor? can god understand math. can you understand math. How come your god hates so much. will you kill for god.will you rape and steal and cheat for your god. or is god love. god says do what I say or ill kill you.fundamentalism was only invented around 1900 ,so don't lay a egg man.your right your world is only 6000 years old. The real world is only a little less than 20 billion years old. - 22:40:16 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky; HAVE YOU SEEN THE MOVIE THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL? GORT, CLATU VARANA NIKTU.The alien used power for good and didn't have to kill alot of innocent people. unlike your god or shall I say lesser god who dosen't know right for wrong. - 22:46:37 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug;:there once was lad named ricky. who tended to be very picky. his god couldn't read between the lines because it had forgotten to take off the blinds. and the world passed them by in a quickie. - 22:59:38 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky boy; If you really wanted to listen and learn I wouldn't be like this. But all you want to do is preach your wares that no one wants. Your Attitude is of a very ignorant person. Your lucky that your parents never made you work hard in school. As you go day to day most of the comforts in your material world were discovered by atheists. that should be a real comfort to you. - 23:32:11 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY, you ol'bamboozler I thought you might know or have a good response for where all that other energy goes. Instead of some godgiven insight, you resort to evasion and deception, about like that lyin'sodomizin'pres.WJC, his "bad" conduct sure fuels such bamboozling deeds by the likes of you. Honest true talk may be at end, for awhile, the lyin'xtian thing will win for now, I guess. - 23:37:46 on 8 Feb 99 GMT

OL. K. Catch ch later - 3:48:28 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Ricky. Who dictated the story of genesis to whoever wrote that part of the bible? There were no eye witnesses. Where is the Lake of Fire with which you threaten unbelievers? Where is heaven located? Have you ever seen your god? have you ever seen angels or imps of satan? If I told you that the universe was created by invisible pink unicorns you would think me out of my mind. Yet you eagerly accept your own version of an invisible god, with his collection of invisible angels, a devil and so on. You like to ask questions, how about answering mine. Do you believe dinosaurs existed, and if so, how long ago. If you don't believe dinosaurs exixted, how do you account for the fossil remains? Please don't brush aside my questions by asking me other questions to explain evolution. I propound no theories. I am merely looking for the truth. If you have answers, give them to me. If you don't, at least have the courtesy to admit it. - 4:11:59 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky boy; What on earth are you studying at college.Come on, we bark but we don't bite (well most of the time).You know Ricky when I don't know something I go look it up and try my best to learn about both sides. I've been a atheist for 40 years, ever since I asked the question, Who made god? I was 4 years old and all I've seen is alot of man made stuff.I've never met or seen a god. Imagine a 6 year old being told we should kill atheists (didn't know what it meant) . Ricky I have been a fly on the wall.Shame on you bad xains, shame, shame.A 6 year old you, people wanted to murder, what ever happened to America. what about all that stuff; bill of rights and so forth . I wouldn't follow your blood thirsty religion anymore than I would follow Charles Manson, or David Koresh or Adolf Hitler. More death and suffering in the history of this world has come about for the love of one's gods and the hate of all others. that any theory of evolution. - 5:02:13 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

88888:EPR Paradox - Bell's Inequality</H1> </center> Referring to Bell's paper "On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox" PHYSICS 1 (1964) p.195-200 and to all EPR experiments in general, it can be shown that there is an error in applying Bell's inequality to the tests which were designed to test it. Therefore all EPR tests which seem to violate the inequality and support non-local effects are faulty and cannot be used to reject all local reality theories of the universe. It can also be shown that the overall logic used in the EPR tests is circular and so the results are non-rigorous. <H3> In the early 1930'S, Einstein and Bohr had been discussing reality at the quantum level. Bohr believed that reality at the quantum level does not exist until it is measured. This view came to be known as 'Copenhagen' quantum mechanics. The usual view of quantum mechanics says that a wave function determines the probabilities of an actual experimental result and that it is the most complete possible specification of the quantum state, and there is no other reason for an event to occur. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) set forth a thought experiment which attempted to show that the quantum mechanics could not be not a complete theory if it assumed things happen for no reason. Contrary to what the Copenhagen Interpetation asserted, Einstein, et al. said that properties of quantum particles must be real even before you measure them if you can know exactly what those properties are. Their paper proposes a case where two particles (electrons?) are known to have the same momentum and equivalent positions from the source of their creation. Momentum and position are one of several 'complimentry' properties of matter at the quantum level which Coppenhagen QM Physicists say can only be known to a certain degree. They argued that since there exist ways to know the properties of one particle then you will know the other particle has the exact same property, so by inferrence, those properties of the other particle must be real whether you measure them or not. Einstein et al. believed the predictions of quantum mechanics to be correct, but only as the result of statistical distributions of other unknown but real properties of the particles. Bohm (1951) presented a paper in which he described a modified form of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment which he believed to be conceptually equivalent to that suggested by Einstein et al. (1935), but which was easier to treat mathematically. Bohm suggested using two atoms with a known total spin of zero, separated in a way that the spin of each atom points in a direction exactly opposite to that of the other. (If indeed this can be said since QM says the spins don't exist yet!) In this situation, the angular momentum of one particle can be measured indirectly by measuring the corresponding vector of the other particle. (Unfortunately, you cannot actually get a good measurement on a quantum particle, you can only get a probability measurement.) John Bell (1964) subsequently put forth 'Bell's Inequality', which seemed to be a physically reasonable condition of locality. This locality imposed restrictions on the maximum correlations on certain measurements. For example, a pair of spin 1/2 particles formed somehow in the singlet state and moving freely in opposite directions. This inequality appears to be testable in a laboratory experiment because the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with any local hidden-variable theory apparently satisfying only the natural assumptions of 'locality' as shown by the predictions of Bell's Inequality. Measuring a property of a single quantum particle gives one of two specific readings: 0 or 1, due to probability based the relative angle between the particle and the measuring device. Einstein would say this choice is not just probability, but is due to other real but unknown properties of quantum particles. Bohr says probability is the only thing which exists on this level and that is the complete picture. Einstein did not use the term 'hidden variables' but he believed a deeper reality exists which would someday be knowable and understood. One or the other man was wrong. The debate went on for 30 years before Bell published his inequality. Bell's paper in 1964 presented a method which seemed to provide a way to test between the two views in the laboratory. By measuring spins, as suggested by Bohm, instead of position and mometum, a real quantitative test could be performed and a situation seemed to exist where QM predicted a correlation will exist in the measurements which should be impossible in a reality as described by Einstein's universe. Many such tests have now been run and the results do seem to violate Bell's upper limit and so most physicists now believe the universe has non-local effects, at least at the quantum level. Bell's 'theorem' seemed to use only a few common assumptions and simple logic to calculate an upper limit for the maximum possible correlations which are possible in any test of this nature. The simple logic includes the assumption that in any real world situation you cannot have more than the sum of the parts summed. You can think of Bell's inequality as the upper limit of the number of items which can disagree on two lists. For example, two students who take a test will have only a certain number of answers which can disagree. Suppose one student answered 95 questions correctly out of 100 and another student scored 98 out of 100 on the same test, then we can calculate, by a linear addition, that there can be no more than 7 questions that disagree between the two lists. So Bell's Inequality thus plots out to be a straight line with a 'kink' at 0 degrees.?! There are reasons why this 'two list' logic cannot be applied to the 'lists' of data produced in the EPR tests. For one thing, there is no master list in the EPR test so we cannot know, even in principle, which events are actually errors. The experiment done by Aspect, et al. in 1982 was considered the final nail in the coffin of local causality by many physicisits. In many respects this particular test should NOT be considered a good starting point for the beginner to try to understand, as it was specifically designed to rule out a single possible loophole in all the previous tests, the fact that it was, in principle, possible for the 'effect' to be caused by signals traveling from A to B at speeds below the speed of light. Aspect showed that whatever was happening DOES actually happen faster than the speed of light. The effect which is measured was travelling FASTER THAN the speed of light. Einstein's special relativity asserted that all cause and effect actions for physical objects happen at or below the speed of light, within a sphere which moves outward from the cause at the speed of light. Such effects are called 'local'. Action at a distance beyond the light sphere would be a non-local effect. Aspect appears to have achieved two sets of measurements outside the lightspheres of each other and showed that a correllation still exists. This was accomplished by using acoustial optical couplers to 'randomly' switch both ends of the test into differently aligned detectors, and showing that the excess correlations still show up which seem to violate Bell's upper limit imposed by his inequality. To really understand the test and the mistake made in each one you should start with some of the earlier tests which were simpler in their setup since what I am refering to is a fundamental misconception in the formulation of the test and not just a loophole. (See "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert for a good simplified descriptive explaination of the EPR tests.) - 6:08:17 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:HEY DOUG! You sound like a new guy. This board has been taken over by a lunatic druid (oxymoron). Try MIMM2 - 7:02:49 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY, the material accounts and explanations for your questions have been reasonably and logically written already by others much more studied on such matters than me. If you prefer magical and accounts that "tell" of the invisible and a supernatural source for those things, go to any church or religious leader type, but, be sure you have some extra cash for "tithing" purposes. If you can document that "tithing" action you'll get a tax break if you are in the U.S.o'A. For this tax thing the myths of religion are handy, as for being a better person, you and your mind as it appears here exemplify why any religious myth is not good for the human organism. - 16:58:02 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

---ADAM....come into the light...:) - 21:10:06 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

Papa Sam There were discoveries in the Paluxy River, about 70 miles south-west of Dallas Texas of both Dino. and human footprints together with a simular finding in Russia proving that dino and man lived in the same world. There are no scientific proof that the fossels of dinos are or are not any certain age, however, evolutionest say dinos lived millions of years before man, which has been proved to be wrong.l - 22:38:17 on 9 Feb 99 GMT

To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funnelled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he or she has been born -- the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to he accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it be-devils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. - 1:14:05 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

We see in religion the decay of every good thing in this world. Mencken is right. He hit upon the very phrase -- the very name and habitation of this holy fraud. It is a pile of garbage. It is the reteaching of superstitions as old as the jungles. It is the dumping round of decayed human faculties, wilted and sour and rancid, blasted in base usage -- fit only to smear the hands of fanatics who wish to throw something at the heads of civilized men trying to guide to noble uses the capacities of thought and emotion that have been so foully abused by religion. - 1:28:09 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Religion glorifies the dogma of a despotic, mythical god[gods]. Atheism ennobles the interests of free and progressive man. Religion is superstition. Atheism is sanity. Religion is medieval. Atheism is modern. - 1:39:20 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Good stuff, whoever you are. - 1:49:36 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

le fast counter - 2:10:59 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

le fast counter - 2:11:41 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

le fast counter - 2:12:12 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Good stuff, whoever you are. - 2:13:58 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Good stuff, whoever you are - 2:14:41 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

retnuoc tsaf el - 2:20:08 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

gnowing - 3:22:59 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

retnuoc tsaf el - 3:23:37 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

retnuoc tsaf el - 3:24:05 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

remmaps dettiw wols eht - 3:42:41 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Atheism sure is modern, however, its about the best way I know to send one's soul to Hell forever! That sounds prety sain to me! - 4:31:49 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

what's hell? - 4:36:50 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

What's a soule,sole, soul? - 4:40:13 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

we'll howdy pilgrim and welcome to the man is man-made page - 4:44:00 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

hell is listening to 12 hours of GOP droning on why WJC should be punished. Well at least he didn't sell guns to people who burn american flags. And monica she's an american not one of those imports. - 4:53:46 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

speaking of imports; who thinks christainity is a foreign religion. How come we don't have a american god. Not some guy who didn't even speak american. In america we like a winner, how about FDR now there's a god (the only fear is fear its self)4 time presidental winner. lets have some other canidates! - 5:03:12 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

candidates, If I keep this up I qualify for a fundametalist christian spelling bee. - 5:06:06 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Well, there's Elvis. People are already acting stupid over him. - 5:09:38 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Oes arian gyda fe? - 17:53:18 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

payment,trefoil,pour milk onto the ground, - 17:54:12 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

ydch chi yn yr cenniog bob dydd. dy iawn - 22:33:56 on 10 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:PAPASAM...given your interest in feminist issues, I am placing this URL here purely to your attention. I hope you see it before the Druid idiot knocks it off the board... - 0:39:16 on 11 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. I have long been a contributor to the Feminist Majority and backed them in their work. I have written to the Afghanistani ambassador and to the government, but as you know, religious fanatics don't give a damn what others think. We must do everything in our power to prevent the Falwells and others of the christian coalition to wrest control from the people of our country and make sure we remain a secular state. - 6:02:17 on 11 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Anonymous Paleontologist. How many courses on paleontology have you taken at a college or university level? How many digs have you worked on with professionals in the field? From your comments on the subject, it appears that you got your knowledge from the old "Alley Oop" comic books. Who are the authorities who proved that man and the dinosaurs were contemporary? Do you think that some man took his pet T Rex for a walk out in Texas? - 6:11:11 on 11 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANONYMOUS PALEONTOLOGIST, here is an account of your dinosaur footprint "issue". - 16:32:01 on 11 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..on the stupid man/dino thing:CARL- Thank GAWD! You've squashed that one! - 20:53:41 on 11 Feb 99 GMT

Your anonymous Paleontologist:Here it is, you hardheaded jackasses! Morris and Whitcomb, " The Genesis Flood, ' pp. 167,174-175, A.E. Wilder Smith, and John D. Morris, Paluxy River Tracks, "ICR Impact Series, May 1976. READ IT IT"S ALL BEEN DOCUMENTED! - 0:24:51 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky: Don't stop to laugh, just read it all, carefully!:Lorella Rouster, "The Footprints of Dragons," Creation Social Science Quarterly, 1429 N. Holyske, Wichita, Kansas 67208, pp.23-28 A complete analysis of the Amazing legends in China, Britain, and other parts of Europe, North America among the CIndian tribes, the Beowulf legend that tells of a 50 foot dragon that was faced by St. George, and other legends from ancient Greece, Egypt, Babylon, etc., which cannot be wiped out as pure imagination. Why did Large Dino's finally DIE OUT? "Why did God create such great creatures only to allow them (at least the larger ones) to become extinct? God has a very powerful message through the extinction of these magnificent creatures before the very eyes of men. 1. Even today there are a thousand animals on the verge of extinction. 2. What message do we recieve from this phenomenon? The message that comes across to us from ascience and scripture is that we are living NOT in an improving world, an evolving world that is moving step by step upward to higher levels of quality, beauty, and functional capacity; we are living in a dying world! In fact, we are living in a CURSED WORLD, because man has refused to acknowledge his Creator and God's word, the BIBLE. God's effective demonstyration that we are living in a dying and cursed world, not an evolving world is found in Psalm 102:25-27, which reads, "In the Beginning, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." God has programmed the world because of human sin to decay, extinction and death! This point is repeated in Isiah 51:6 " the earth will wear out like a garment, and its inhabitants die like flies, but my salvation will last forever" The total emphasis of the Bible is that creatures, instead of evolving are dying, once created they reproduce after their kind until the effects of the Edenic Curse bring them to destruction. Behold Behemoth through the eyes of Job. Yes, he's gone! "Will I be gone (extinct/dead), or do I know Jesus Christ as my Lord, Redeemer, and my Savior forever?" Only those who are in Christ can survive through eternity. I know some of you are really getting a good laugh, but I just ask you this final question. If you except Jesus as your Savior, live a good "Christian" life, and you die and find out there is no God, would it have made as big of a diffrence in life than if you choose not to except Him, and find out after you die, there really is a God and He is real, and there is an eternity, and there is a Hell for those who didn't except His word? Think about that when you go to sleep tonight, I pray someone out there will come to know Christ as their Savior before its to late! - 1:09:32 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

PETER:Here we are a few months from the year 2000, and we stiil have creationists in our midst. This is so utterly mindboggling and frightening to me in that it is still obvious that mind control tactics similar to those used by Adolf Hitler can still work on such a large group of people - 3:16:45 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

PETER:..for STARTERS ,,Creationism CANNOT BE SCIENCE ( Gish HIMSELF admits this )..so we are dealing with a misnomer right from beginning - 3:18:53 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

AP:I beg your parden, but the pioneers of the scientific Revolution were "men of faith" committed to the Christian world view which gave them faith in the possibility of science. The Christian view of nature could be studied, and was worth studing. These pioneer scientist believed that the world was created by a God who thinks or reasons logically. Therefore, men who are created in His own image can use their God-given ability to reason and think God's thoughts after Him. - 4:03:03 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

AP :This has to be one of the most tragic MISUNDERSTANDINGS of the century. The Bible is NOT the enemy of science. There is not a single FACT of science which contradicts the Bible. Of course, unproven theries like evolution conflict with the Bible. But when Christians reject such views, it must not be misinterpreted as opposition to science itself. Our world desperately needs to learn that science is a gift from God for the benefit of mankind and that there is perfect harmony between true science and the Bible> - 4:09:46 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Fundamentalism wasn't invented until about 1900 Most christains have always beleived in metaphors. Fundamentalists cheapen god. thats alright with me i'm a atheist, keep then coming,they are the best thing freethought has outside of truth.Only in america (and islam too)is this sort of nonsense still going on, we are the laughing stock of the modern world.People in other countries can't believe we are so backwards. - 4:33:03 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:MATT. 13:31-32***NOT THE SMALLEST SEED 1 KINGS 7:23 AND 2 CHRON.4:2****PI IS 3.1416ETC. not 3 (AP YOU BIBLE IS A FALSE BOOK NOT THE WORD OF A GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) There are many more false hoods in this book of men.shall I go on? - 4:41:23 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Grant: The incredible arrogance of "Pascal's wager" type statements:RICKY--The proponents of such afterlife insurance policies as yours make an assumption that of the various religious convictions theirs is of such quality or clarity or value that were one to take the "wager," theirs would be the one to wager on. The person who proposes such action also assumes that people are willing and able to select beliefs on the basis of amoral selfish interest alone. There also seems to be an assumption that the current beliefs of the target of the proposal are without merit, an assumption which is not accompanied by any attempt to understand what such beliefs are. - 4:43:38 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Hi DOUG - 4:44:13 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Hi Grant nice to meet another freethinker. I see that ricky wants to convert everybody to "fundy brains".Get a life Ricky!!!! Your bible is full of mistakes ex:20:17 not covet or cor.12:31 covet . well what is it? Sorry pal your all wet. - 5:13:41 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky hows this LUKE 16:9 FRIENDS OF MAMMON (OR) LUKE 16:13 CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MAMMON. What did Jesus say? It's a conflict baby.Cannot do both or be friends what's a mother to do.**** another one of Jesus's contradictions Matt28:20 always with you (or)Matt26:11 not always with you. look it up ricky. I didn't write the bible neither did Jesus.It's full of mistakes and false hoods.Metaphors help young man.And the walls came tumbling down. - 5:30:04 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky: Your curse is Fundamentalism. let's do the metaphor rock. We know you can do it read between the lines If you were a seer you could see the signs Don't get excited everything will be righted Your mind will be hightened hang on by the skin of your teeth. a metaphor shouldn't make you seethe spare the child and spoil the rod with out metaphor there's no god - 5:56:46 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Ricky. Amazing legends indeed. So they can't be wiped out as pure imagination. Why not? Humans have active imaginations even as children. Haven't you had an imaginary friend as a child? Haven't you fantasized about far away and imaginary places? As for your imaginary god, it is the product of somebody else's imagination, which you have swalowed hook, line, and bible. If you actually believe the god of your bible really existed, how can you worship such a mass murderer? The story of the flood alone should turn you off. Drowning millions of toddlers, babes suckling at their mothers' breasts, and, master abortionist that he is, millions of fetuses. What a disgusting specimen of a god! I hope going to college will help to open your mind and teach you to think. - 6:16:48 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Hi PapaSam. Glad to meet you!Ricky had a long list of questions that were wiped off the board by the moron druid. He has to hate his friends and family because jesus said in LUKE: 14:26 he can't be a follower if that hate doesn't flow. Gee, I love my family and friends so I guess Jesus dosn't love me. - 6:28:46 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

botarkniv - 7:07:14 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

GOD:RICKY:Isaiah 45:7,"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" - 14:12:04 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

GOD:Ricky: LUKE 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. - 14:16:40 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:AP�The history of science is a tale of religious opposition. Any concessions made to science by religion are and always have been forced against resistance. I�m suspicious of your definition of "true science," so the statement "�that science is a gift from God for the benefit of mankind and that there is perfect harmony between true science and the Bible" is meaningless unless you are willing to define true science in the same way that science is defined in non-religious terms. In other words, it is meaningless to define "true science" as that part of science which is not in conflict with the Bible and then say that science and the Bible are not in conflict. The claim that we have Christianity to thank for the developement of science is disingenuous at best, IMO. - 14:27:27 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:AP:(k) "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (1 Kings 7:23). How could a circle be 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference? Since pi is 3.14, the circumference must be 31.40 (3.14 x 10) cubits. - 14:48:11 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:AP:Those believing the Bible to be scientifically precise and wise beyond its years should read, digest, and remember the following assertions contained within its covers: (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18); (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21); (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23); (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6); (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5); (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4); (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV); (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8); (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30); (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7); (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13); (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV); (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12); (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3); (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1); (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21); (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44). - 14:52:12 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

DOUG:Hi GRANT; top of the morning to you. - 15:05:01 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

DOUG:AP + RICKY; "And God created...every winged fowl...the fifth day" (Gen. 1:21, 23) and God made the beast of the earth...the sixth day" (Gen. 1:25, 31), versus "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air..." (Gen. 2:19). According to the 1st creation, fowl were created on the 5th day and beast on the 6th. Under the 2nd creation, fowl and beast were created at the same time; they formed one creative act. - 15:06:00 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

DOUG:AP + RICKY:"And the earth was without form, and void.... And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2 and "God said, 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear': and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas..." (Gen. 1:9-10), versus "...in the day that the Lord God made the earth...for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground" (Gen. 2:4-6). In the 1st creation the earth, when created, was covered with water and the land did not appear until the 3rd day. In the 2nd creation there was no water at first; the earth was dry land. - 15:09:35 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:AP, correct you are that the bible does not oppose science. What is also true about it, for the wandering nomads, barely not cave dwellers, it was their version their first science-like thoughts. Perhaps that is why it has errors? Whatever those guys and gals who composed those ol'tales of myth and fantasy while they followed their herds that just went wherever the sweetest grass grew, whenever whatever they didn't know what to write about something, they gutterly grunted "ah-dunno", that grunt that sounded like g-o-d, RICKY et.al.still think it means something special, something supernatural. the g-o-d sound just means you don't know, you must "believe" something is there, because as those ol'nomads followed their few herd animals- these creatures, led them over hill and dale, and in their attempt to keep up with the animals as they headed toward a new mountain, they'd ask whats on the other side, the response,"ah-dunno", in caveman-like talk that is. Gotta remember these guys and gals still had bad dreams of falling through tree branches. - 15:55:38 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

ex says not covet, there's nothing in cor that says "to covet", don't take the writings out of context, they will make more sinse. - 18:14:50 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Peter, you're full of shit! - 18:16:38 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:Doug, lev. don't say foul, it says winged creatures, on down in verse 22 explaines what "winged creatures" its talking about, Grasshoppers, locust, katydid, or cricket. another translation calles them winged insects.(NAS) What translation did you find "Foul" in, the Atheist Comintary? - 18:25:12 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

If I had the time, I'd correct you on all your other "out of text verses" you've come up with, but unfortunately, I have to go - 18:31:08 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene...maybe a rowan tree fell on him?!:Wonders of wonders! An actual conversation here without druidian interuption, it almost seems too good to be true. I'll give it a day! - 19:01:27 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY, while you and the person that you are may not be a confused, the topic you choose, prefer, align, position yourself to, religion is simply, unsubstantiated. While somebody may erect the buildings called churches, or somewhere mass produce books called holy scripture, they are nonetheless nonethemore only what they are and none, not one of these things is your godthing. It is only in your words that you concoct for a godthing that "for you" is there that godthing. To me and a few others the godthing is an unsubstantiated,viz., unevidenced, word and idea. But, as I've seen inquired of elsewhere, what is the point of you saying there is a godthing? - 19:34:24 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

DOUG:Ricky;Can't say ,it's in the latin vulgate I think.It's all the same to me (false). - 21:14:25 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky; when my people came over on the Mayflower they used the "Geneva BIBLE". You know John Calvin+ Cotton Matther. - 21:18:39 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky; as intolerant as they were they weren't fundamentalists.They used metaphors. - 21:20:25 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Ricky;I also have the welsh bible which has more hate in it than than your bible ( all in welsh). - 21:30:40 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG, with all the biblical versions you possess, if you wuz a god fearin'person, you'd be a space case yourself. [he says witha'harmless smile.] - 21:59:56 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Carl; we have to keep our "friends" honest.I have a list of html Xians"Lieble" sayings so I can cut and paste easy.They all seem to run a pattern of psychosis. I'll have to read up on the book the mind of the bible believer.They (bibles)are in safe hands with me even a liberated gideon.Another book is the encyclopedia of biblical errancy by Dennis McKinsey. Science doesn't work with fundys but looking at the real bibles always bring a few to reason.I also have Dan Barkers losing Faith in Faith Autographed. I wish I could in their face with fossils and mathamatics but thats for actual meetings. Clinton's free.Now he has to face Hillary. - 22:31:38 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG, just to see if the bible thumpers know there stuff, over a few years time, I've encountered sites that disclose bible passage problems, I just post that per chapter and verse and ask if they know why the difference is there. Do you figger'WJC has any educational plans for the demo's on how to think? - 23:21:41 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Carl;I think he'll be in a stronger position to push through some key bills health care, education, and SSI.WJC will use this to rout the right wing leadership LOTT+HYDE have some questions to answer.He'll move quick when congress comes back in a week. The media is already going after Lott because of his KKK ties. - 23:43:56 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG, if he is grateful to the legalisms of the constitution, then he won't nor ought any else have any issues with those involved in the process that took him to where he ended. It was his own deed and word that took matters to the extent it went and ended at. What is this, some second rate country still tryin'to come to terms with its own second class resentments? Of course, tho'he is clearly not a man known to do what a better man, the higher type man would do. - 23:58:23 on 12 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:DOUG--so you have Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith autographed...so what? As a person that avoids collectives as much as possible, I am having some problems with how some atheists are now looking to Mr. Barker as the Moses, leading his flock out of the wilderness. Being personally involved with the Barker family, I find it amusing that so many consider him to of such high calibre. He is just a man. He has written some nice articles, and he made his fortune writing Christian songs for children, but that's it. - 2:09:21 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:CARL; Yes WJC is a scum bag. But he can take out the right wing. - 3:09:24 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:JOETTE; I don't think that Dan Barker is my leader, just thought it was a nice touch.He could have made much more money on our side.And Isn't a little bit pleasing that xains still buy his music? I think that my mission is to act as a foil to as many fundy types(tie up troops).After all what idiot would stake out an atheist site where the pickens couldn't be worse(a fundy!). the mind of the bible-believer is the book I'm reading now and they all follow the same patterns.Ricky the fundy is at device 1 (Fear) now but is inexperienced and moves to fast.device 2 is values ,Device 3 logocide, this is very interesting. - 3:25:12 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Joette:He did say that he tried to buy up the music but they wouldn't sell it to him. Could be a cock and bull story.On other fronts have you found out anything new about Afganistan and the enslavement of the women.Sounds a little like Chile in 1970 when the fascists took over.Women were terrorized to wear dresses not pants, and couldn't work if they had familys. - 3:34:40 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Heya DOUG. It occurs to me that you may not know that you can view older posts by changing the 30 in the location or address box to a higher number then hitting enter. - 3:35:43 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Grant; Thanks oh ,I'm not the german named Doug back a ways. - 3:48:10 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Erase all construction lines - 6:33:59 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Steven<><><>Seifert Surfaces here are trefoil knots Give it a try??? - 6:56:47 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:DOUG: with regard to Dan Barker, yes, it's true he tried to take back the ownership to his music, to no avail. He is currently working on other children's material, but without any reference to religion. He is quite talented, and who knows, maybe he'll be the next Raffi or Fred Penner, although the fundies would do everything in their power to stop the sales of his work. I just expressed concern about him, as I have seen many, many atheists treat him as though he holds the key to unlocking the door of religious enslavement, and I balk at "leaders", as it gives "us" the same sheep mentality one sees in religion. - 13:24:37 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:DOUG...re the women of Afghanistan...I have read some other articles, but I have been busy spreading the message around the internet, just to heighten awareness of the issue. If you scroll back, there is a post to Papasam from myself that is highlighted, and if you click on my name, there is a site with lots of information about it, and a place where you can send a letter to your government officials, and the United Nations. (if you ever have a site you want to show, you can just copy and paste the address in the little URL box at the bottom) - 13:28:36 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Joette:The Nazis had the slogan: ein volk, ein reich , ein furhrer.one people , one country, one leader. Yes, everbody should be their own leader.I'll visit the site and send a letter today. - 16:17:14 on 13 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene SSS:Doug, you missing somesing for your life, maybe ein personal relationship wis Adolf? - 5:05:50 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

(p,q) - 5:41:40 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

--(-) - 5:42:12 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

(k) - 5:42:36 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Linear PDE I - 6:33:35 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Elasticity - 6:47:44 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Moebius---Strange shapes light up the night...Never seen them though I hope I might... Don't ask if they are real...The men in black, their lips are sealed... Fantasy it fills my mind...To leave this place before my time... Release myself from earthly care...My dream may be your nightmare... I turn my hopes up to the sky...I'd like to know before I die... Memories will slowly fade...I lift my eyes and say...Come on, take me away... Come on, take me away...Come here, girl, close to me... A thousand stars your eye can see...First star we see tonight... I wish I may I wish I might...I turn my hopes up to the sky... I'd like to know before I die...Memories will slowly fade...I lift my eyes and say... Come on, take me away...Come on, take me away...I turn my hopes up to the sky... I'd like to know before I die...Memories will slowly fade...I lift my eyes and say... Come on, take me away - 7:13:33 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

familiar:Oh, it's a hard load to love you.It takes up all my time, having you So familiar. Like last life's Nursery rhyme. - 7:21:29 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Cugel---"My thoughts exactly(!)" - 7:22:58 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:MARLENE: No adolfs allowed in my life. Had my fill of the nazis types listening to all the storys about the war. My mothers family over in england lost there house in liverpool due to the bombing. And back in the late 1950's i remember haering about how the nazis shot wounded british soldiers, after tubruq. - 7:43:02 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Keri Tate~~~runakefli - 7:50:16 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: Maybe that explains why i don't like the xian fundy types following orders from their little furhrers. Goose stepping about with that superman attitude.Who says It can't happen here! Were I used to live I once had a run in with another nazi type his name was john salvi. yeh thats right 6 mo's latter that piece of garbage murdered two women. - 7:53:45 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

red ochre powder - 8:13:12 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..the druid must have survived the rowan fell, shee-it!:DOUG- I couldn't agree more. The post was a joke on the nazi quote, lol! Like Joette, anything collective gives me the creeps! - 16:29:08 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..may as well throw in a few cowie shells:druid..maybe it's time for the red ochre for you! - 16:31:25 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene; sorry, that one hits a nerve.what is it with this druid freak? Maybe they should increase his thorozine. - 17:33:12 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:DOUG...there was a time where this was the best darn site on the net for atheists. Before this spammer came along, there was a wealth of intellectual conversation, as well as the occassional feeding frenzy when a fundie came to visit. However, our friend here decided to go off his lithium, and now people just don't stay around. That's why the other message board came about...as a temporary measure until the administrator of this board got rid of the spammer. However, the said administrator doesn't keep up with anything in here anymore, and so this is the result. C'est la vie... - 21:43:08 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Moebius - Stick to your strips. Your poetry leaves something to be desired. Joette. Don't let some shithead of a spammer browbeat you into leaving this site. That's what he/she wants. As far as I'm concerned, he/she can pray his/her alleged brain out to his/her imaginery deity and spam to his/her heart's content or until he/she dies of apoplexy. This is an atheist site and will remain so. - 22:27:21 on 14 Feb 99 GMT

Beheading: When the bleeding slows, preparation for decapitation can be started. Continue the cut to the throat around the entire neck, from the jawline to the back of the skull. Once muscle and ligament have been sliced away, the head can be cleanly removed by gripping it on either side and twisting it off, separation occurring where the spinal cord meets the skull. This is indicative of the method to be used for dividing other bones or joints, in that the meat should generally be cut through first with a knife, and the exposed bone then separated with a saw or cleaver. The merits of keeping the skull as a trophy are debatable for two principal reasons. First, a human skull may call suspicious attention to the new owner. Secondly, thorough cleaning is difficult due to the large brain mass, which is hard to remove without opening the skull. The brain is not good to eat. Removing the tongue and eyes, skinning the head, and placing it outside in a wire cage may be effective. The cage allows small scavengers such as ants and maggots to cleanse the flesh from the bones, while preventing it being carried off by larger scavengers, such as dogs and children. After a sufficient period of time, you may retrieve the skull and boil it in a dilute bleach solution to sterilize it and wash away any remaining tissue. - 1:58:34 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

EX-ATHEIST:--(-)EllA. animal magick. This is an atheist site and will remain so. A new logo contest, coinin, pwca down the brannvin stairs - 2:23:25 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord, my soul to keep. But if I die, before I wake, I pray you show these Atheist there mistake! - 3:42:19 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:THEIST: CHAT WITH YOUR OWN KIND AND TAKE THE DRUID WITH YOU. I'LL BE SPAM YOU LATER. - 4:13:40 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

GOOD STUFF :HERE,S some good humor about xians follow the link. - 4:17:47 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..and to all a good night.:Now I lay me down to sleep, on my smooth and silky satin sheets. If I should die before I wake, I'm glad my organs I did donate. If I live for another day, I won't waste it like those who pray. - 4:53:51 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- That is a good site. I don't know about the discussion though. The one thing we really liked about this page was the lack of censor. The "exatheist" that just posted was that druid. We did suggest the same meds you did but it seems to only work for short periods of time. - 5:04:40 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:Anyone have wild and crazy sex for sweetheart day? I had a fine time! Didn't even pray for it! - 5:06:48 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene;The sex will have to wait until later. Roses and Wine are fine. But passion and romance, a magical dance. - 6:20:01 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Grant: No wilder than usual. :MARLENE-- It doesn't work to pray for sex anyway. That's why so many preachers decide to pay for it. - 14:17:16 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Yuck! Wine! Puke! Don't drink, lol! Not that I'm against it, I don't like the taste or the sensation of being intoxicated, even slightly. As for the flowers, I got those too and a dinner of KFC. Oh! we were livin high yesterday! - 14:21:49 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Ha! Ha! You also forgot to state the obvious, nothing fails like prayer! - 14:24:02 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: KFC your fooling me. I do hope you can enjoy the moment because it's the thought that counts. We did chinese "kung pao" you know the hot stuff.Prayer, what's that? - 15:23:31 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene...:DOUG- Hey! I live in the Canadian backwoods, KFC is fine dining here! We both enjoyed the dinner, actually I should say all four of us. We have two dogs who are equal members in the family. We did shut them out of the bedroom last night which of course throughly pissed them right off. The older one is still giving me the cold shoulder this morning. - 15:36:23 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene; That's cool.So your a country gal.Your not into the latest styles that madison ave brings you, ayah? Do you have any sisters who are atheists , who would like to be courted by a gentleman? - 16:27:13 on 15 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:All you loveable atheist sex fiends. I have only one thing to say to you. I would if I could, but I can't. Go to it. An hour spent having sex is better than fifty years spent in prayer. - 5:05:13 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:SEX: one of the pleasures of life no guilt is needed - 5:39:40 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

la dolorosa selva - 6:18:40 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

one-quarter degree 23:carvings of severed human heads re-used as a threshold and stone with carved head flanked by skull-niches - 6:21:04 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

ATENOVX division monkey skull - 6:24:38 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

any NIKOLA TESLA groupies here? - 16:04:59 on 16 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Beheading expert. You sound like a good christian preparing for the next inquisition.Torquemeda would have been proud of you. - 0:44:18 on 17 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:I've played at this site for several years now, to me its' wide openness to be like seeing an untrod country, landscape. Other sites seem to have to have a control-like immediate impression and you know this with your first sight of them. Those other sites are probably like what those old germans saw of the Berlin-wall, or what some USA types want Mexicans to see when looking into USA 'country',viz, you come in here you will be controlled. With that I refer to the wall some USA types want erected between Mexico and the USA. I guess that is how the world is, some can't control their "freedom" as the druid/tree huggers here clearly illustrate and exemplify. So, if RON sees this he might try to put in a feature I've seen elsewhere. That is an "Ignore user" feature. As far as I can tell, when one imposes that restriction on some user, then your own PC neither loses nor does it cost you PC any writing space, and o'course you don't have to see the stuff posted by that one user. It works and has the added good of not having to waste your energy on swimming thru'frustration, anger, ignoring, any mental adjustments for insanity, thoughtlessness, and other acts and words indicative of ignorance. - 19:12:25 on 18 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Furthermore, the "Ignore User" feature does not is not an infringement upon one's constitutional thing of free speech or free press concerns. Whomever it be, can type away to their "heart's" delight and if someone also wants to read of that delight, good. But, if no, a good will prevail, again. No losers everybody is a winner. - 22:54:00 on 18 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Odmience - 9:13:02 on 19 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Moreover, with the "Ignore User" feature, spamin' stuff could be handled to ones pleasure, as it may suit one. Also, like the "Carl:Odmience" thing as an example, if several others had prior to that post-time opted to IU that person\that PC point of origination, only the real or original or in this case the Carl here, would appear to them. Afterall, if someone chose to IU the other carl/pc site, then the other carl would not appear on the screen of the few. Just the good Carl would appear to those who want intelligent relevant communication. RON, it could work for the better site, its good. - 17:36:06 on 19 Feb 99 GMT

Yes, its me! Hi Marlene:True Christians will just rot, the same as nonchristians, after they die "if there is no God", But if there is a God, True Christians will go to heaven. Atheist will also just rot if there is no God, when they die. But if there really is a God, THEY WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER AND EVER. Big question is, do you really have all the facts, or are you taking the word of someone who has twisted the scripture around to sound like a myth? - 5:23:56 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Gelfand-Fuks cohomology:Could it be that certain parties posting herein at the moment are doing so only because MIMM hasn't been working much over the last couple of days, and they still have to get their fix? - 6:18:37 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:It's on line again.WELL YES, THE DARWIN FISH ARE HUNGRY.Worm food of a viking funeral. - 8:17:16 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:true christains rot period.hey "hot steaks are better than cold chops" curly 3 stooges yuk yuk yuk. - 8:21:02 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

8:30:59 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

" rel="nofollow">Doug

8:31:10 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

" rel="nofollow">Doug

8:33:41 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

" rel="nofollow">Doug

Doug:server error? twice Read about the superstring theory.10 dimensions 6 proton size.It will allow us to know what came before the big bang.Any xians who can tell me, if the bible is right has to predict what the superstring will find. If the bible is wrong you have to chuck it away. hey, it hasn't gotten any thicker in 1600yrs. The book of science is always getting thicker. - 8:33:54 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

ATENOVX division monkey skull - 9:19:36 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Jacek Podsiad:Yes doug, the line again. --(-) - 9:50:42 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

ALWAYS INTERESTING...:http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/buchenwald/images/shrunken.jpg - 12:47:03 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:nazis i hate those guys.s+m with riding crops and barbed wire.sicko dude. - 16:29:20 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Yes it's me - whoever you are. Christian or pagan, believer or non-believer. The worms and bugs feasting on a decomposing and rotting corpse don't care. If it makes you feel better to imagine you have a a soul flying off to some imaginery heaven while your body serves as dinner to the crawling creatures, go to it. I find it amusing how you assign me to a burning hell. By what process of reasoning did you find out about the existence of a heaven and hell? Did you use a computer to help you with your math? What is the temperature of hell? Science can tell us the temerature of the surface of the sun. Surely with your influence with your god it should be a snap to find out. - 20:20:53 on 20 Feb 99 GMT

Lea: If a god is going to send me to eternal torment, just because I don't bow down before him. So be it. Anything that evil, that egotistical, that insecure isn't worth worshipping. He can threaten his worse. He can do it right now. It don't bother me. But he'll probably leave it till after I die. After all he wouldn't want to prove his existance by torturing or zapping me with his magic wand right here and now. Or, perhaps, he just isn't there to do it... - 0:16:07 on 21 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:"Sinners have much more fun" the only hell is fundy hell. Imagine having to spend eternity with a bunch of fundy half wits.The thought of that sends chills up and down my spine. - 2:44:33 on 21 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:LEA-- They used to invent gods that were openly malicious and had to be appeased all the time and didn't claim to be malicious for our own good. - 3:01:30 on 21 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- It's bad enough dealing with the fundies now. How does one contest anti-reason and circular thinking? - 3:05:28 on 21 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:fundys are a funny lot. They love you so much until you tell them that god sucks.then the punishments hell fire, mother rapers, father rapers.Keep telling them about how the bible is full of holes and was edited by a bunch of catholic priests 586 to 563 in 400ad alot of stuff was on the cutting room floor. Don't trust that pope now don't trust that pope then.ask what's pi(3.14) then point out in the bible it is 3. They all are flat earthers any how. Hell if they had brains theyed be darn dangerous. But brains in the hands of morons are abie_normal. - 3:16:42 on 21 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:This board is back up... the new board is down. This internet is some unreliable stuff, huh? - 13:50:38 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:RON-- If you ever see this please email me. I would like to host this board. polokov@hotmail.com - 13:56:29 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT, If you do become the host, then you might investigate what features one may add to this site, and of course try to leave this wide open image, this wide open lay-out for viewing. So far I haven't researched how I might handle it here, from this point. Also right now the politics and battle of "control" it happens. Some guys with stock in a particular company are in charge of the things. So, what 'they will allow' to done here, and freedom, will happen after the issue of "control" has been determined. - 15:46:37 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG, yea, the holy scripture hasn't changed. To the simple mind I seem to recall the religious adherents have said that that was what makes the holy scriptures so keen. In todays world it still has meaning, to them. Until I'd seen a diagram of the string thing much of the Quantum stuff had me thinking I was the fox. But now I'm looking for a quantum theory book to buy that includes an account that includes vector theory as well as scalar stuff. Symetry is one thing a nice neat package and all, but there is something about asymetry that pulls me onward, attracts me. - 15:59:28 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

jaywilson the laissez ferret--:GRANT: Hope you get your wish, although this site format is pretty darn slick as it stands; extra doo-dads would be like putting jimmies on Ben & Jerry's. - 16:01:59 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

doug:carl : that is only a theory but it looks really promising.the superstring will unite the oscillating universe (if they find the dark matter)with "Hawkings theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10to the 33power centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective." ***This is way more exciting that listening to bible troglodytes and the pseudoscience they preach. - 17:26:35 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG, Thanks, but this time I think that QT/QP stuff will be a bit more meaningful, will say a little more to me. Like now diggin with a shovel instead of a spoon. - 19:33:23 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Doug, Grant, Carl and other fellow denizens of the dungeon of doubt. As a hard line atheist, I must confess that I have no idea where the first primordial bit of matter which initiated the Big Bang came from. All the talk of string theory is over my head, and all your discussions on the subject, to me, are meaningless. No matter what you say, it all boils down to that original teeny weeny sub atomic particle. No matter how many times you cut it in half, you still have something left. Where did it come from? - 20:16:01 on 22 Feb 99 GMT

doug:PapaSam well we will stop for now at the quark. 10 dimensions 4 are alowed to expand. the other 6 are about the size of a proton and can't expand. the oscillating universe keeps going on and on. Our universe is one of many in a world outside our universe.this can't have a creator. as for the smallest particles I'll put a link after this message. - 1:07:34 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

quark:quark - 1:10:21 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Melissa:PAPASAM: It's a part of the fourth dimension. It's like a sphere meeting a two-dimensional plane. At first, it meets the plane at a point, then it moves on through, and appears as a circle on the plane. The circle gets bigger and bigger til the sphere is cut in half by the plane, then the circle starts shrinking as the other half of the sphere passes through the plane, til its gone completely through it and the two meet at a point again, then the point is gone and the sphere is no longer in contact with the two dimensional plane. Only this all happens when a hypersphere (a four dimensional sphere) comes in contact with a three dimensional space. That's my theory anyway. The subatomic particle is that point of contact. It came from the fourth dimension. - 1:17:21 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Melissa:PS: I don't tout that theory as scientific fact and it is most likely false and highly flawed, but I find it kind of fun to think about. DOUG: Scientific law is not absolute truth. That the existence of a creator would violate any scientific law on two levels, or any level, is a weak argument. gods are by their nature violators of scientific laws, it's their claim to fame and the reason for their great popularity. Also, how can the existence of the universe be causeless? Something happened to make it exist. Something caused it. It doesn't have to be a god. Cause does not imply god. - 1:23:56 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Melissa; this S.Hawkings theory and that's what he said."Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective." I think he has alittle bit more knowledge of it than the math dumb dumbs in the bible. - 3:19:33 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Grant: Humble ambitions:CARL� JAYWILSON� I don�t know if Ron will let me host this board. James was willing to take it on at one time. I�d just hate to see it fade away after, what, 4 or 5 years? I was thinking only of making available some HTML within the text for new paragraphs and such, and of course blocking anyone attempting to interfere with the intended function of the board. I like this place. - 3:58:44 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

ricky:atheist and Christianity are both a religion. You just have to have more faith to believe in atheisim because its a real extreme to believe the earth and all of creation just happened, or poped into existance millions of years ago because of some big bang in outer space. I really admire your faith, unfortunatly, it is going to indanger your soul. An evolutionist would believe that if you parked your car out on the street and removed the sparkplugs, after a few million years, it would start with needing them! That is how life began. - 6:27:10 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

without needing them! Sorry for the misprint - 6:51:09 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

ricky:Melissa, you're totally wrong. Science and the Bible go hand in hand. You need to learn the differance between Scientific thruths, scientific laws, and scientific levels. You make it very clear you don't! Evolution and creation uses the same scientific evidence to try to prove their points. Bottom line is the evidence tends to lean more towards creation. But if you're an atheist, you just automatically rule out any chance of their being a supreme being, or a creator. I'll pray for you! - 6:59:14 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Oh boy, a fundy boy o boy I'm hungry.If evolution is a religion how come were not tax free like your pederast clergy. Why don't you teach us all about genetics.Oh you have to use only the bible. Jesus and the mtRNA bonding enzymes.Paul sways the double helix with glucose.One feature of science that distinguishes it from revealed religious belief (and evolutionists from creationists) is the scientific conviction that new knowledge about the past can be obtained from thoughtfully designed analysis of the modern world. Creationists often claim that, since the origin of species occurred in the distant past, there is no scientifically valid way to study the process today and so evolution is not real science testable by experiment. However, even without actual experiments, a scientific hypothesis can be tested if it suggests a non-trivial prediction that can be verified, or falsified, by the collection of more data. Tax religions - 8:00:11 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:In Matthew Jesus said: Matt. 12:40 " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Yep sounds like he's with his buddy satan making up a hit list. Sort of like the mafia except they don't bathe. - 8:08:37 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14). Was his shlong as long as Clintons,is that knowing in the biblical sense. - 8:11:48 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Grant: Dishonesty, circular reasoning (wishful thinking), and arrogance: :DOUG-- Check out this site. It's another "ends justify the means" xtian. Is St. Peter going to let this guy in the gate? - 14:38:45 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Reason and morals are man made. Some cultures are much more advanced than others. Religion is handicaped by the fact that it is almost imposible for it to advance to a more moral high ground. Religion also likes to claim god=goodness but the equation becomes meaningless when goodness also means bad(evil). Religions of the west breeds intolerance towards diversity.This was and is still a factor in all conflicts in the west today.The USA is unique in that in principle the government is neutral when it comes to religion. This has kept the peace, preventing the strife of theology wars.If this ever breaks down then the intolerance inbred into our religions will rip this country apart such as it has never seen.Concentration camps will become the norm because morals and laws are meant for the believer not the outsider. Most mammal groups follow this system and from what I see ,(bible) western religion is right in the pack with the rest of the animal thinking. Most higher animals don't have wars or do whole- sale destuction to themselves.Man is also unique in that he and she can have sexual relations at any time not just during estrus.This may also have led to much of the intolerance.What I mean is the man had to closely watch his females all the time, not just for estrus like other mammals. The fact is, man is the most sexual animal.Other animals just don't have sex very often.Protecting one's genetic future by religions has led to some pretty awful acts of cruelty.Other animals have mating rituals where the males will fight but very rarely kill one another. But with man, well he kills his own species and invented religion both to justify the killing and preserve his own genetic future.Women rights is the one factor that will lead to the downfall of the intolerant religions. - 15:11:40 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Grant, That guy should get his facts straight Hitler was a good little catholic on another holy crusade for christandom.He had all atheists killed on the spot in the USSR. How come he hated jews so much? Because they (not the Romans) killed god. If that isn't religous thinking then I don't know what it was.The worst holocaust was in the new world when god fearing christians murdered 65,000,000 native americas for jesus.All with gods blessing.This all happened before plymouth rock. - 15:24:07 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Grant; What would you say if there's no god. so we are just going to run down the street with a bag of hand grenades and machine gun throwing+ shooting. Gee, if I knew that sooner I'd...got to go get my bag ....times a wasting....clip.. clip yeah this is how it works..... - 15:33:20 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:DOUG: My, my what a vividly metaphysical assessment you've presented. Is there any way to falsify this glorious theory concerning quarks and superstrings? - 20:58:48 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

doug:Anselm; yes you can falsify the theory. - 22:48:20 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

you can click on my name above and try your self to falsify the string theory. The quarks are a different part of the conversation with PapaSam.This format doesn't allow for new paragraphs. - 22:58:36 on 23 Feb 99 GMT

edwin colebunders:People, people, people what are some of you people talking about. I hate dogma's that means religous AND scientific I think searching for the answers is hard really hard. But is there a need to find answers? Why not just live our life. OK everyone wants to find the answer to the question why we live but well there ever be an answer found. What if there is no meaning of life? What if we are just here now and gone tomorrow. It's hard to imagine life being this way but that's how I feel about it. - 0:07:42 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Clap,Clap;I was try to discuss cosmology and see how my fellow atheists felt about it. Only xians don't like atheists talking on a atheist site about atheist things.Does that make any sense. - 2:02:21 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:Edwin. We are just here today and gone tomorrow. Personally, I find our conversations stimulating. How would you pass the time, discussing the weather? As far as I'm concerned, there is no meaning to life. Philosophy books are written by people who pretend to know more than the common herd. The writers are their own best audience, and try to persuade the more gullible among us of their purported wisdom. If I can deflate an occasional bubble, so much the better. - 5:30:21 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM�How do you view science? As I�m sure you know, many xtians feel that science ought not be allowed to wander into unbiblical territory, but obviously you are not of this ilk. Do you see necessity or at least value in science pursuing observable physical explanations for most everything without regard for the presuppositions of religious beliefs? Isn�t it important to know where the physical evidence leads regardless of ones religious beliefs? While I think it�s wise to be skeptical of string theory and such, especially if one doesn�t understand it any better than I do, I wouldn�t consider it a metaphysical belief unless one believes it only because scientists say it�s so. But I don�t believe that metaphysics can be eliminated entirely. Science can�t justify itself. It must find justification elsewhere, no? - 6:04:27 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Grant the gullible:PAPASAM-- You have a pretty negative view of philosophers. In my view, despite human frailties, philosophers are people who feel compelled to try to understand life and the world around them. I like 'em, dang it. - 6:12:07 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT: as you and me and others have witnessed, technology in the hands of the thoughtless and young, is a pure form of what is dangerous to the continued existence of basicness of "meaning". What the spammers have inclucated here, however, isn't anything like even the deeds of the youthful grafitti types. I now see, of grafitti types, that they just resist authority and the controllers. I'm always in support of such efforts. But the spammers, they are just quasi-religious in their efforts to subdue or quell rational inquisitive thought and discussion. Such efforts are not for or to control anything, IMHO, these efforts just want and seek expression and a response. So, if you gain "control" of this site, if you gotta zap the spammers, I will have an understanding for never seeing them again. - 18:18:03 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:DOUG: I will investigate that site when I get a chance. Thanks. GRANT: I think science is invaluable. I also happen to think that theism invaluable when it comes to explaining certain phenomena that science cannot venture into. I am not of the opinion that the scientific method will eventually lead us into full knowledge concerning every aspect of life. Science definitely has a purpose and I think that the technology of today attests to this. However, unfortunately for those who naively think that science is the route to exhaustive knowledge, there are elements of our existence that are outside of the scientific realm and therefore belong to philosophy. Moreover, I think that science cannot exist without philosophy for in order to get a hypothesis in motion, the scientist must first ask, "why?", and asking "why?" is what philosophy is all about. So, yes, I agreee...science cannot justify itself, and yes, I do think it's important to accept the ramifications of a theory regardless of an individuals religious presuppositions. Assuming of course that the theory is well founded. But whether and WHY a theory is unfounded is disputed amongst those who postulate the theories. With regard to the theories which abound in quantum theory, I don't regard them as metaphysical a priori. However many of the views within quantum physics are immensely metaphysical such as the view that all reality is observation dependent. If the theories within quantum physics are not metaphysical, then why is it that there are so many quantum physicists who are idealists or oftimes shamans? - 18:34:54 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..so your still around:RICKY: Your xtian-scriptures were not composed "scientifically". They were, however, probably composed by herdsmen following their herds. The common featuANSELM-ANSELM- On the contrary, I think science will eventually find the answer to our existence and science isn't philosophy either. Science is and always will be answers with evidence not someone's subjective belief of what the answer is. This is why science and religion can never combine, one is subjective while the other objective. - 21:17:39 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:Somehow someone else's post and mine are mixed up but I do agree with the post to Ricky, mine was to Anselm. - 21:19:51 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I sthat you? I don't know what transpires but the unusual first line was my post and it was part of a larger post. Perhaps RON is a little upset? - 21:26:22 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Ron, come out, come out, wherever you are.... - 22:12:14 on 24 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM�Your statement that science definitely has a purpose and that today�s technology attests to this seems to me a reluctant concession. It makes me wonder if you dislike the intrusion of science but find it too beneficial to discard. If one considers science generally to be concerned with that which can conceivably be known at least to a high probability, as opposed to metaphysics, which by definition is a category for things not empirically verifiable, then wouldn�t one be justified in attributing much more value to science, even if, for example, the metaphysical question of 'why' seems more important? Wouldn�t one be justified in being quite enthusiastic about science, which holds the h hope of all possible verifiable knowledge, and being quite unenthusiastic about metaphysics, including theology, which forever remains speculation? I�m not trying to sidestep metaphysical justification of science. Some things can�t be helped. We are forced to make certain decisions whether verifiable or not. I do however agree that science is unlikely to lead us into full knowledge concerning every aspect of life, but believe it can get us much closer than anything else. Like Marlene, I think science will eventually find the answer to our existence. Science is the only realistic hope. Hard to speculate on what we don�t yet know though. I fully agree with you in regard to quantum physics, FWIW. - 6:06:36 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Steven :ANY <<>> wow, it appears that the spammer has taken a break! Now, where is adam! I wanna hear how he is gonna kick gods ass, haha. - 13:27:17 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:CARL�I don�t see a dilemma here. I think I�m as pro- free speech as anyone here, but the Pam/rOB/LITH/etc. poster has no more right to express his/her peculiar talent here than at a movie theater during a movie or at the local school during a play. The freedom to say or do whatever one wishes whenever and wherever one wishes is not implied in the concept of free speech. - 15:12:47 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANY; read an article on the Worldnetdailey, this a.m., about the USA being a xian nation. We the nonreligious have seen assorted religious adherents here and visited and interrelated with them at "xian" sites. I have yet to appreciably comprehend what 'they' are up to. I've read assorted writings and all I can see of any is that a human organism once made the necessary and proper efforts to record interpretations of the all and, others then choose to repeat realign reassociate those interpretations to their own unique experience of existence. So I cannot in fairness to myself and others pretend to know of or that I vaguely understand that religious point of view. These wimpy religeous types seem to be bent on getting their fair share of pity and mercy as if either is the basis of or for the "hope" of more life. That is an understandable point, but what was the cause of that article, it has to characterised as a wire bent and twisted about and someone saying, look a bird. - 16:01:49 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:GRANT; it looks as tho'you agree that pity does no good. Also, it probably very simply increases the amount of their suffering. So, when you 'ZAP!' them it will be for "their" own good. - 16:23:42 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene..and there you go!:Anyone hear of "James Van Praagh"? He's a "famous" supposed "medium". I have been watching the _Roseanne_ show this morning and he happens to be a guest as well as Nichole Smith's sister. He has "contacted" the dead Nichole for her sister and has revealed...absolutely nothing that wasn't already known. Obviously this idiot researches his clients so he knows many minor details which he can bring up during these sessions. These details are so minor that the client is shocked that he would know them therefore they may assume he really is talking to the dead. I can not understand why people don't see the flim-flam of these "psychics", really! I work in an information center in a mall. We also sell lotto tickets. Some guy came to me last night wanting me to check out his ticket but before handing over the ticket he said a "prayer" over it so it would be a winner. Needless to say, I felt like saying "oh, for your god's sake!". I held back from that one but couldn't resist, after checking the ticket and handing him back the slip of paper that said the ticket wasn't a winner, saying "well there you go! Nothing fails like prayer". How can you tell I'm in a bitchy mood lately? And don't say you picked that up psychically either, lol! - 16:48:09 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:I don't know if any of you have been privvy to "good luck" chain letters via e-mail...I seem to get one a day, and am currently dealing with a bad of "bad luck", and everyday I think "Well, maybe if I do hound 10 friends of mine with these things my luck will change"...I hate that people feed on us poor vulnerable types...I do know that my luck would change in that I would prbably lose most of my e-mail friends! LOL! - 17:17:43 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:(all apologies...lots of typos in that last post...more bad luck!) - 17:18:53 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:SO...JOETTE...I'm waiting for that letter, lol! If you don't send it the motor in your car will go next, it will snow in July and your next mythmas turkey will be stuffed with sticks and stones. - 17:23:48 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

batik fashion:waz - 19:26:04 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:MARLENE: I simply cannot have such faith in the scientific method. Science, by its very nature can never yield certainties, only probabilities. The scientist assumes that the future will be like the past and there is no logical reason that anyone must assume such a thing. It is logically possible that the future will not be like the present and there is no contradiction in asserting this. As far as science being non-subjective, I would say the contrary holds true. There are copious views amongst scientists themselves concerning what science is and how reliable its methods are. Many, in fact who are instrumentalists would maintain that a theory is never true or false but useful only in how well it explains things. Who is to decide how powerful the explanation is? It depends in which scientist you ask and it depends on whether he is a realist or an instumentalist. Sound fairly subjective to me. - 19:37:59 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: I do not consider science an intrusion in any way. I consider bogus theories and unjustified presuppositions amongs certain dogmatic scientists to be intrusive, however. As far as science dealing only with verifiable entities, I would say two things: 1) Is induction verifiable? 2) Verifiable in what way? After all, different things are investigated and verified in different ways. Finally, I would say that much of science is merely speculation, as I indicated to Marlene. - 19:43:34 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE...you bitch! LOL! - 19:59:53 on 25 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:ANSELM. You state that science by its very nature can never yield certainties. how about these simple statements. 1. The science of mathematics says that two plus two will always equal four. 2. The science of astronomy says that in our solar system the planets revolve around the sun. 3. The science of chemistry says that ordinary water consists of hydrogen and oxygen. Do you deny those as being certainties? "The scientist assumes that the future will be like the past." The future of what? Here you generalize the term "the scientist" from which one can only assume you mean all scientists, then you go on to point out that the scientific community is divided on certain matters. Science is subjective? People are subjective. A fact remains a fact regardless of acceptance or non-acceptance. Scientific theories come and go, they are eventually proven or disproven. That is the way our scientific knowledge grows. Our modern technology is based on science. The clothes you wear, the roof over your head, the car you drive, and the very computer which you are using to criticize science are all built on its foundation. If you prefer the primitive life, there are places you can still live it. But don't bother to take any thing with you, not even an aspirin or antibiotic. I'm sure you'll be able to use the bark of a tree or some mold to make your own. - 1:55:53 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:ANSELM and PAPASAM- I agree with Papasam, people are subjective. The method used in science is completely objective. - 2:52:45 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Yikes! Did the motor go too??? - 2:53:46 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:"As scientific knowledge increases, man will continually revise and update many of his scientific principles, but this does not preclude the possibility that many scientific laws can be known with certainy. Certainty does not mean "static" It simply means that, within the contex of one's knowledge, the evidence for a given proposition is overwhelming. If one's method is correct, future knowledge will expand and refine our present knowledge but not contradict it. Thus, where we have substantial evidence for the truth of a proposition, it is extremely unlikely that this proposition will be catradicted by future evidence, although it may require revision in some cases. Depending on the nature and degree of available evidence, a scientific law may be possible, probable or certain. Theseare different stages of an evidential continuum. As the amount of evidence increases, so will the degree of certainy. Certainy does not require infallibility or omniscience, and to claim certainy is not to claim the theoretical impossibility of error (although this is the case in some instances, such as with mathematical truths). We must remember that scientific inquiry does not differ redically from other fields of inquiry. To exclude certainy from science is to exclude it from other fields as well. We no more accept science on faith than we accept other branches of knowledge on faith, so the argument that science cannot attain certainy eventually leads to the conclusion that certainy is impossible. And for reasons already presented, this variety of U. S. is untenable." - 3:10:44 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- The fact remains, though, that the method used in science is an objective one, it has to be or it wouldn't be true science but junk science. The kind of junk science Anselm is referring to. Idea to research may be subjective but the actual findings are objective. As Anselm has wrote though some scientists are selective of which findings or lack of they publish. - 4:20:20 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:to Marlene: this a quote from George Smith ;Atheism :The Case Against God. Religion has faith, science has certainty. It's great, I got all the non-fundy types squirming at another site. In philosophy reason and logic allow the definition of words. To address your statement, that's why there is per- reviewed science.This you should hammer again and again into the heads of the ignorant.No body takes statements from "Star Magizine" seriously. There is also a lot of grey literature out, these have to be peer reviewed too. - 4:53:30 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- That is a book I have yet to read. It sounds like good reading. Peter, a former poster here read the book and really liked it. I say former poster, he may post again, I hope. - 5:12:39 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM�You�re doing some sloppy thinking, and I�ll tell you why. To Marlene you say "I simply cannot have such faith in the scientific method. Science, by its very nature can never yield certainties, only probabilities." I can�t even believe you said this. Washington state, where I currently reside, has a lottery. I have concluded that I will not win the jackpot tomorrow. The odds of winning are, I don�t know, lets say 1 in 7.5 million, and I didn�t buy a ticket. Is it a certainty that I will not win? No, nothing is a certainty as long as there is *any* possibility of another outcome. It is possible that a friend or relative bought a ticket for me and despite incredibly poor odds, it will be the winning ticket. So can I assume that you would say that my conclusion that I will not win is without merit because it is not a certainty but *only* a probability? If so, I�d wager that I�m a better predictor of future events than you. Describe for me please a more accurate tool than probability for dealing with the unobservable, which includes all future events. There is no certainty. You can�t cast uncertainty over science without also casting it over metaphysics. -- You then say "The scientist assumes that the future will be like the past and there is no logical reason that anyone must assume such a thing. It is logically possible that the future will not be like the present and there is no contradiction in asserting this." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The scientist tries to establish the probabilities of future events. Often due to some regularity in nature, the highest probability is that things will occur in the same way they did in the past. This is not the simple assumption you portray it to be. It is perfectly logical to predict future events based on high probability. A logical possibility that the future will not be like the present is not enough cause to disregard probability. -- To me you say "As far as science dealing only with verifiable entities�" I did not say or imply that. I said "Wouldn�t one be justified in being quite enthusiastic about science, which holds the hope of all possible verifiable knowledge�" You ask if induction is verifiable. Induction is sometimes an early step in the process of investigation. It is not considered verifiable. Things first induced are sometimes later verified. Nobody seeks to verify induction itself. Are we playing games here? -- I didn�t ask you if science is more valuable than metaphysics. I didn�t even ask you if in your opinion it is. I only asked you if one considers science generally to be concerned with that which can conceivably be known, at least to a high probability, as opposed to metaphysics, which by definition is a category for things not empirically verifiable, then wouldn�t one be justified in attributing much more value to science than metaphysics. Are you unwilling to look at science as a whole and metaphysics as a whole and answer this question? Are you just another religionist attempting to discredit whatever happens to clash with your religious presuppositions? Do you measure the physical world with a metaphysical ruler? - 6:15:03 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:PapaSam; why do you say only probabilities, isn't this a sub-definition of certaintys? George Smiths arguments work real well by pushing back the word faith to it's proper domain.****On a good note the guy I was debating withdrew, he couldn't continue the debate because of word definitions. - 6:25:58 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:I mean Grant not PapaSam sorry. - 6:27:11 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:Hi DOUG. I think Anselm is alluding to what the human mind can know with certainty in the context of how accurately we can interpret actual reality. This reminds me of your "step 3- logicide." - 6:34:21 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:DOUG-- Maybe it should be step 4- sciencide. - 6:40:56 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable. Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel. And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel. There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed. John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day! Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, And Hobbes was fond of his Dram. And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am." Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. ***Monty Python - 7:11:16 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

jaywilson--Semantics R Us--:GRANT: Well put, fella. May I suggest the following home-made dichotomy: Religion assumes a plane of perfection which cannot be understood in this life; Science predicts one which can. - 14:21:33 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: I just had to copy this page this morning, it has been a long time since I could show how intelligent and not so intelligent communication looks. - 16:07:17 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't know where he went but I hope he stays there, lol! While on the subject of science, how about the suggestion that government uses science to pull in the bucks. For instance, enviromental levies. I also wonder how much research has gone into some of these government funded programs and how many findings are actually reported completely. - 16:15:27 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Yeh' alot of those government types abuse poor scientists and science.Most of the studies are completed, you only have to look it up in a library under gov. documents.How about the poetry and spirituality of the dark ages. Such wonderful thoughts among the filth and degenerate conditions. As long as society has people like that running it's institutions not much change will take place. - 16:46:39 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Would you not think though, if people were more educated on scientific method, they would question the government on some of the scientific/government propaganda that's out there? - 16:51:39 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: good to see ya'here agin', and it looks like you're still tryin'to sell your snake oil. Instead o'bringin'your strawman[even tho'you can whip the snot outta'it] for the contest of things here, you might want to try some honest thought. It does things for what you are, try it, you'll like it. - 17:11:56 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:Yes, sometimes they do. A few years ago the USA tried to say that acid rain didn't exist (wasn't a problem). It went as far as to have Canadian documents labled as propaganda. Most people saw throught it. - 23:45:51 on 26 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: before I go for the weekend, baseball games are in the plans, I just saw an interesting thot. It was that the USA does not "completely" outlaw slavery. Probably because it can't. There is that line the words in XIII regarding involuntary servitude, ok, so on the flipside there is a voluntary servitude. Ever had a superviser who seemed to take things upon themselves and hold that your efforts and thoughts were "recognised", does this not mean you weren't expected to think or do something? Is that F.Neitzsche's slave? - 0:00:45 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

James--->Any...:Did we finally loose the spammer? - 4:14:07 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- It looks that way, for now anyway... - 4:55:05 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

Grant:JAYWILSON-- How does that old thing go.. "hiding your light under a basket"? A dog's atheism, eh? :) - 5:05:41 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

jaywilson--woof--and huh?:GRANT: Actually, the word is 'bushel' and not 'basket', but whatever do you mean? - 18:07:06 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON and GRANT- An expansion..."You must not hide your light under a bushel-whether that's the light of compassion or justice. It must shine in the world so people know that there are alternatives." - 19:39:33 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

Grant: Cryptic-er than I wanna be:JAYWILSON-- Only that unlike me, who barely knows what shows, I get the impression that you know more than you choose to display. Just an offhand positive remark. - 21:34:41 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

jaywilson--Tales from the Crypt-ic--:GRANT: My smarts are just as much on my sleeve as you feel yours to be. I'm simply not given much to sustained debate; rather, I prefer to 'cut to the chase' whenever possible--especially when jousting with fundies and their ignorant ilk, who take inordinate pleasure in semantic nit-picking while they miss the point of longer posts. In other words, I'll choose the dagger of brevity over the sword of verbosity any day, and I'll interpret your "offhand positive remark" as a recognition of my choice. Thanks for the kind words, Grant. - 23:48:29 on 27 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:fundy router that's the name and away go creationists who are a pain - 1:06:26 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Ricky:"Well, what have you there?" Mr. Dark squinted. "A Bible? How Very Charming, how childish and refreshingly old-fashioned." "Have you ever read it, Mr. Dark?" "Read it! I've had every page, paragraph, and word read at me, sir!" Mr. Dark took time to light a cigarette and blow smoke toward the NO SMOKING sign, then at Will's father. "Do you really imagine that books can harm me? Is Naivet� really your armor? Here!" And before Charles Halloway could move, Mr. Dark ran lightly forward and took the Bible. He held it in his two hands. "Aren't you surprised? See, I touch, hold, even read from it." Mr. Dark blew smoke on the pages as he riffled them. "Do you expect me to fall away into so many Dead Sea scrolls of flesh before you? Myths, unfortunately, are just that. Life, and by life I could mean so many fascinating things, goes on, makes shift for itself, survives wildly, and I not the least wild among many. Your King James and his literary version of some rather stuffy poetic materials is worth about this much of my time and sweat." Mr. Dark hurled the Bible into a wastepaper basket and did not look at it again. - 18:17:02 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

it was too good to last....Mr. Spammer (aka Mr. Hat) is back - 18:28:19 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

DougUnknown Hostlink - 19:17:29 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:Grant�You�re doing some sloppy thinking, and I�ll tell you why. To Marlene you say "I simply cannot have such faith in the scientific method. Science, by its very nature can never yield certainties, only probabilities." I can�t even believe you said this. Washington state, where I currently reside, has a lottery. I have concluded that I will not win the jackpot tomorrow. The odds of winning are, I don�t know, lets say 1 in 7.5 million, and I didn�t buy a ticket. Is it a certainty that I will not win? No, nothing is a certainty as long as there is *any* possibility of another outcome. It is possible that a friend or relative bought a ticket for me and despite incredibly poor odds, it will be the winning ticket. So can I assume that you would say that my conclusion that I will not win is without merit because it is not a certainty but *only* a probability? If so, I�d wager that I�m a better predictor of future events than you. Describe for me please a more accurate tool than probability for dealing with the unobservable, which includes all future events. There is no certainty. You can�t cast uncertainty over science without also casting it over metaphysics. -- You then say "The scientist assumes that the future will be like the past and there is no logical reason that anyone must assume such a thing. It is logically possible that the future will not be like the present and there is no contradiction in asserting this." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The scientist tries to establish the probabilities of future events. Often due to some regularity in nature, the highest probability is that things will occur in the same way they did in the past. This is not the simple assumption you portray it to be. It is perfectly logical to predict future events based on high probability. A logical possibility that the future will not be like the present is not enough cause to disregard probability. -- To me you say "As far as science dealing only with verifiable entities�" I did not say or imply that. I said "Wouldn�t one be justified in being quite enthusiastic about science, which holds the hope of all possible verifiable knowledge�" You ask if induction is verifiable. Induction is sometimes an early step in the process of investigation. It is not considered verifiable. Things first induced are sometimes later verified. Nobody seeks to verify induction itself. Are we playing games here? -- I didn�t ask you if science is more valuable than metaphysics. I didn�t even ask you if in your opinion it is. I only asked you if one considers science generally to be concerned with that which can conceivably be known, at least to a high probability, as opposed to metaphysics, which by definition is a category for things not empirically verifiable, then wouldn�t one be justified in attributing much more value to science than metaphysics. Are you unwilling to look at science as a whole and metaphysics as a whole and answer this question? Are you just another religionist attempting to discredit whatever happens to clash with your religious presuppositions? Do you measure the physical world with a metaphysical ruler? - 19:20:09 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Keith:it was too good to last....Mr. Spammer (aka Mr. Hat) is back I am an atheist really but Joette see my web page link death stance.learn to forget - 19:23:04 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Keith:it was too good to last....Mr. Spammer (aka Mr. Hat) is back I am an atheist really but Joette see my web page link death stance.learn to forget - 19:23:11 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Marlene sensible (s)pamming:Soi, Q Falle, isxyroc, eyxaristoc. - 19:48:49 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Carl:Boginki...yes the other Carl??? - 20:01:47 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Anselm:Papa83...clean white linen of the fine clothing most argot - 20:32:50 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

E.K.Hornbeck:Sounds a second Mencken chrestomathy - 21:01:41 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:I mean Grant not PapaSam sorry.Boginki...yes the other Carl??? - 21:02:34 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Doug:DON'T LET ME YOU CATCH, COPY CAT. - 21:04:14 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Geoffrey Jame:FEB.23. I got Rob of the Roses modem. Smoke~~~penis. skullfuck - 21:08:58 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

dana:OdmienceDON'T LET ME YOU CATCH, COPY --(-)CAT. - 21:20:34 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

Well I see this place has gone to shit again - 21:37:23 on 28 Feb 99 GMT

PapaSam:All. The weekend is here and all the parochial school children are back to their usual spamming activity on the atheist site. When they go back to school and report their activity to their nuns who serve as teachers, do they get a religious medal as a reward? Sorry kids, you can spam all you like - your "God" is just a figment of your imagination. - 22:19:31 on 28 Feb 99 GMT