Grant :DOUG-- Good point. It seems likely to me that violent behavior has causes other than violence in the media and such. Nobody thinks exposure to food in the media is the cause of eating. It's easy to confuse the symptoms with the malady, evidently. The media is a mirror to society, in my view. It would be nice, in a way, if we could blame the mirror for our ugliness. - 14:37:00 on 1 May 99 GMT

Grant (all alone on the board) :MARLENE-- You once asked me what I thought of the concept of "memes", and I muttered something about oversimplification or something, but I'm beginning to see value in illustrating some things in that way. One of the latest trends in xtian apologetics seems to be the "It takes more faith to be an atheist" thing, as if it takes faith to dismiss their particular creation myth, which is just like a thousand others, on the grounds that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Was it Dawkins who came up with the "meme" meme? :-) - 17:48:47 on 1 May 99 GMT

Marlene :GRANT- Yes, it was Dawkins. Some of the idea seems to hold water but there are the minor leaks. Blackmore has expanded on it. - 19:57:39 on 1 May 99 GMT

Marlene :GRANT _ on the media thing. I would say that any mature adult would be "adult" enough to see fantasy from fiction in many of these movies and shows but we have to remember a 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and even some 17 and 18 year olds are not mature adults and still very impressionable. - 20:00:13 on 1 May 99 GMT

Marlene :I just finished watching _Titanic_ SOB! HONK! SOB! - 23:41:23 on 1 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: Update the 10th grader turned a triple play. - 14:26:13 on 3 May 99 GMT

PETER :GRANT--I'd like to know what point the xers are trying to make when they say 'It takes more faith to be an atheist?. because again when they spout it, it's another example of them finding another side of their mouth to speak from. They refer to the practice of having faith as being virtuous, and a 'blessing' or 'gift'-so that being the case, it would be more virtuous ( if faith is virtuous) to be an atheist!!-but NO!! When they refer to one using it to be an atheist--suddenly it is implied that having faith a questionable method of cognition. - 15:03:21 on 3 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - I hope you got that triple play on video! They are rare, and a joy to watch. Any news or scouting reports yet? - 15:49:14 on 3 May 99 GMT

Joette :Recently my best friends in the world have found religion, and since my little family is going through a tough time right now, they seem to think it's okay to force their new found beliefs on us. Now, how does one fight this sort of affontry (I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but who gives a shit (just wanted to say that))...why do we atheists keep our mouths shut, instead of sending out stupid e-mails "to make a person think"??????? I was so shocked and appalled by something a really good friend sent me the other night that I told her never to darken my mailbox again. Where do they get off? Don't they realize that what they are doing is more hurtful than helpful???? It's mind boggling. - 15:53:50 on 3 May 99 GMT

Carl :PETER: As one aligned agin'theism, that for me is nothing more than for one to be agin'some political expression, I see a religious adherent childishly saying, they won't let atheists play with them. Not at all, so there. And, like a poltician they- religious adherents, can now devise any argument 'against' those who oppose or are not with them. I am getting to see, moreso nowadays, that the religious types just believe in, have faith in, the objective and subjective values of the energy and time of the human creature, as it once was. Once to live the human critters had to resist lions and tigers and bears. Back then a grunt or some other airy exhalation of exasperation denotive of, the back then common expression of a savanah or cave dweller's not knowing, in time became shortened to what is now known as the word "god". Also in time as those who knew and those who didn't gained respective numbers, a political interest formed. The not knowers didn't like the knowers- they were the know it alls, so it was and so it is still. The accounts of what the not knowers did- back then, to gain a protection from their imagined evil deeds of the knowers evolved into religion. In short, the now supposed "religious faith" is nothing more than the reenlivening of those ancient times and days when the human creature feared and worshipped the unknown, that exasperation that grunt of the ancients of the unknown, they began to just say god. - 16:12:54 on 3 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- That's just it! They really do think they are helping. They have found "peace" in a fairytale. The more people they find that can also do this, gives them more "faith" in their fairytale. I don't know about totally giving up the relationship but you could let them know that you'd rather find a solution to any problems in the real world. - 16:13:05 on 3 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- I wish Grant would just ban that whole web address. The spammer much have gotten bored with wacking off. - 19:36:01 on 3 May 99 GMT

DavidJK :Joette: So this is the "David" that you folks were talking about. Well, I stopped by to say that you guys have a pretty good reputation. You may already know about this, or not (I don't know), but go to www.tencommandments.org and click on "exposing the atheist". On page 2, man is man-made and all of you are mentioned by name. I am only sorry that I started late, or I would be "immortalized" as well. ;) - 19:45:51 on 3 May 99 GMT

Marlene :DAVID JK- We know all about that idiot copying our posts then adding them to his web page. I suppose he has nothing better to post there. Sheesh, one can only talk about their imagings just so much. We wouldn't stoop to that level, I'm sure. I wonder who made him do it in his opinion? the lord or satan? - 20:15:08 on 3 May 99 GMT

Marlene..just for a laugh :DAVID JK- I just visited that site again after months of paying it no attention (as if I did in the first place, lol) and guess what. There nothing new, class dismissed, shee-it! - 20:24:01 on 3 May 99 GMT

Joette :DAVID - I haven't looked at old Robert T. Lee's site for ages, and upon visiting it again, I remember why! LOL! Actually, if you ever want to drive someone crazy, use his chat page to talk privately to a friend! Nobody else goes there! You can't say Jew there, but you can say friendly things like "mick", "kyke" and other favourite derogatory terms. BTW, I just got an invite from archeopat about the atheist gathering at the end of the month. Are y'all going? - 22:43:57 on 3 May 99 GMT

DavidJK :Joette:I am definitely going! *S* I hope that you're going, too. I would love to meet you. - 0:56:06 on 4 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- I just tried out RTL's chat room but I get a message that I'm not authorized to use it, lol! Maybe this could have something to do with the email I sent him asking him what kind of loser would copy and paste from another web page to try to make his more enticing. Strange how he can come here a spout off but when confronted he bans his site. Sheesh! What if I decided to suddenly believe in his lord and I "needed" him and his 10 Cs to help me find the way. - 2:54:04 on 4 May 99 GMT

Joette :MARLENE - if nothing else, his site is well done structurally. I am a bit embarrassed for him though. He has posted all his "Teacher" posts there. I guess he thought they were intelligent. Oh well. Better he stay there than here. - 11:05:31 on 4 May 99 GMT

Grant :PETER-- Agreed. The statement that it takes more faith to be an atheist seems like saying I'm irrational but you're more irrational, or I'm in error but you're more in error, or my beliefs are based on feelings but so are yours. Seems like a poor way to defend one's beliefs. Somebody or other said faith is belief in that which we know is not true. - 13:07:51 on 4 May 99 GMT

Joette the nuisance poster :GRANT - you are doing lots of wonderful stuff, but PAM/rOB/Bill/or whatever is still having a field day. - 20:51:28 on 4 May 99 GMT

It's Me Again :I went to the page tencommand. and have to agree that this guy was a little rough. I respect the fact that everyone has the right to choose in what they believe or not believe, however, it is the duty of a Christian to simply tell the "good news" and there will be those who except Jesus as their savior, and some will not. We still have to love the unbelievers and hope they except Christ before it is to late. However, everyone who says"I'm a Christian" don't mean that they are. You have to live and show that you are a Christian. Just thought you need to know! - 21:34:39 on 4 May 99 GMT

Joette :who is "It's Me Again", and who is this person that presumes that we need to be told what the duty of an xtian is? How lucky for us that the believers still "have to love the unbelievers". If I wanted that love, I would solicit that love. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. - 0:14:33 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :I'T's ME AGAIN- Is this Ricky? If so, I'm glad your back, dry keyboard and the works! It's true, your RTL type xtian is very loving is he? - 3:57:40 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :I'T's ME AGAIN- Is this Ricky? If so, I'm glad your back, dry keyboard and the works! It's true, your RTL type xtian is very loving is he? - 3:59:21 on 5 May 99 GMT

Grant :JOETTE-- I've a feeling the magpie, which fancies itself a mockingbird, is about to have its wings clipped. :-) - 4:05:21 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :GRANT- What does that number mean at the top of the page? - 4:07:57 on 5 May 99 GMT

Grant :MARLENE-- Sorry 'bout the glitch. The page is being worked on. Won't be long. - 4:09:48 on 5 May 99 GMT

Grant :MARLENE-- That's gonna replace the cumbersome system for viewing older posts. I think it's pretty snazzy! - 4:16:38 on 5 May 99 GMT

Grant :MARLENE-- Oh, I see what you mean. That's your IP number. You're getting accidently sidetracked to the site's innards. - 4:19:41 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :GRANT- I like the new idea to see the old posts! Snazzy for sure! - 14:21:12 on 5 May 99 GMT

Carl :GRANT: looks like it could be love, like the ways that you improve this site. - 14:29:27 on 5 May 99 GMT

Carl :whoever is the "its me again" is right about one thing of the atheist, they we I have "excepted" the jc myths and the hypocrisy and overgeneralisations of those who cling to some book[s] supposedly a supernatural guide. - 14:43:58 on 5 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: any seen this stuff before? what will they think o'next? - 16:27:44 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- Yes I read an article on this "theory" in Skeptic a few months ago. Instead of seeing a pattern these people seem to make a pattern to fit the purpose. - 16:49:49 on 5 May 99 GMT

the real Joette who knows that Marlene is a good witch... :CARL - I was quite astounded by that website, but then again, most things like that astound me. I think the author of that site should have a round with Robert T. Lee to find out who in fact is the real Christian. - 17:16:59 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlenas good witch of the nort :JOETTE- I wonder if we used the incantations of the person who posted under my name, would he disappear? - 18:01:28 on 5 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: did some of you discuss at some time past a notion called "anthropic"? This is not anthropocentrism. I think that initial word is it, actually unsure if it is. - 18:11:20 on 5 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- We were discussing the Anthropic Principle. A good explantion is found on Stenger's site. - 19:26:50 on 5 May 99 GMT

Rob (With a warming shot) :Grant: Good to see you restructuring this place, in spite of the real borg-ish postings that abound. I have been busy revising still... and taking in the Jim Beam ;) - 19:46:32 on 5 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: many thanks, I'm reading a book by G.Greenstein he titled,"The Symbiotic Universe" in it he lays out a very informative point of view in favor of that anthropic notion. Back then, when ya'll was kickin'that idea around, I was probably lookin'at something else, but it has its appeal. again, thanx, I'll see what Stenger thinks. - 19:51:19 on 5 May 99 GMT

Joette :Leo - seen any good movies lately? - 0:39:57 on 6 May 99 GMT

Marlene, you guessed right. It was me. Hope you're doing OK. I do like to here what you have to say now and then. I guess even if we disagree on certain things, don't mean we can't still be "chat friends". Take care, Ricky - 2:53:47 on 6 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- I've looked up The Symbiotic Universe" on the net but only have found a few sites with a very limited explanation. Have you found anything about his theories on the net? It does sound interesting. - 3:51:54 on 6 May 99 GMT

Marlene :SO RICKY- What's your take on the Anthropic Principle? Just because we don't agree doesn't mean "end of discussion". All the more reason TO discuss. - 3:54:32 on 6 May 99 GMT

Steven :ALL <<>> If any are familiar with Celebrity Death Match (usually shown on MTV). i would love to see RTL and QUAKE go at it, hehe. - 14:20:41 on 6 May 99 GMT

Joette :Did anyone see 20/20 last night, specifically the segment on those nuns that pray for people at a price? I was blown away at how business-like the top nun was. She was about as sincere religiously as I am. - 14:32:16 on 6 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: In the book its gist is that the universe is life friendly. What is life but an order of 'things'. So far, I am not finished reading it, that is what I can make out. I will o'course pass on whatever else I can makeout of the anthropic notion. The part I found thoughtfully stimulating was the explanation for how life depends on the stuff of an exploded star and that stuff's 'symbiotic' relation to the chemical- hydrogen, I seem to recall. I'll probably have to read the book again; it was purchased for $.99! {Now n'then I run into a sale o'even B.Russell stuff for single digit dollar amounts.} But, so far I'm finding the authors points to be very supportive for that idea called 'anthropic'. - 15:18:32 on 6 May 99 GMT

Grant (Spam Free (to the tune of 'Born Free')) :ALL-- We've finally done it. We have banned the bum. It took a couple of days because he would come in on different IPs, but we can ban 'em faster than he can aquire 'em. - 18:25:44 on 6 May 99 GMT

Carl :GRANT: no tears and no regrets, the misfortune is ours for the spammer's shortage[s], be it as it may. Hey JOETTE!, I knew that program was comin'up and I missed it, I was looking forward to seein'it and got sidetracked. And, speaking o'nuns, I read some reader reviews of the book, "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice". If any want to see some examples of what a reality check might mean, read some of those comments. Just go to the Amazon.com site. The comments seem based on things that a few people have been saying agin'that person and there are a few accounts of just that "nun" thing. Does the "nun" thing {or is a nun's thing,} really and truely serve a purpose after all? - 19:11:46 on 6 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- Thanks! I'm looking forward to more on this book report! JOETTE- Not much different from ole Mother T, I would imagine. She just rolled in the dough for the RC's. GRANT- I thought something was up when I seen the IP address on the top of the discussion the other day and then I could have kicked myself for mentioning it. BUT BRAVO! the druid will have to find some other discussion to bug! - 20:09:27 on 6 May 99 GMT

Joette :Good work Grant! He's probably signing up with some hotmail account just as I write this. I wonder what his problem is....is he a madman, or is he a man mad at the world? - 20:30:35 on 6 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - here you go...buy a nun and have fun and frolics ;) - 20:35:36 on 6 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: a gal here and me wuz'talkin'bout how time goes by so fast, nowadaze. One thing I seem to recall of that, in one's existence experience add's up and the neural activity also speeds up naturally just because it can and also the processing of the assorted incoming stimuli will involve so much existent data already in the brain. Seems ok to me. In that book, I also read that the day grow shorter because the moon drifts away- has been since it first got caught by the earth's gravity, and the ocean's tides the moon's drag factor are not as great as before. Hmm? What are we to do? - 20:36:30 on 6 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Marlene I disagree with the thought of man being the central fact or final aim of the universe. That's what "God" should be. I can't except the theory that man just "happen" to come into being by some explosion or "big bang" I have to put my faith in creation. You know, everybody has to believe in something. I do hope I'm on the right track here concerning your question. - 2:14:17 on 7 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- Your on the right track although as you know we disagree. I suppose my question to you would be, which came first then, god or the universe. If god did, who created god? Let's start there. - 3:08:41 on 7 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- This sounds interesting so far...it does make sense that the force, gravity, looses it's effect as the speed of the spin slows down. Where is he going with this, entropy? - 3:14:05 on 7 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY and CARL- I shall return tomorrow night about the same time. Right now, I'm working two jobs and about 16 hours per day so not much time. - 3:16:11 on 7 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Marlene: God has always been. There are so many unanswered questions we will never know until the end of time. The Bible says God created the universe and every thing in it. If the earth was created by God, This is the evidence of a supernatural power. Realy hard to explain. But if God could make man and all living things, just imagine the wisdom and power we are talking about. Hard to take in, but for me, its even harder for me to believe "all this" just happened by chance. For example, the Genesis flood. The story of a great flood has been talked about all over the world. The suprising thing is all the legends have three things in common. A boat that saved, Water destroyed, and one family was saved. - 4:01:53 on 7 May 99 GMT

Joette :RICKY - if God "has always been", why will there be an "end of time"? - 11:11:22 on 7 May 99 GMT

Doug :Love that circular logic.The worlds wisdom has advanced far beyond the bronze age of flat earths and when giants roamed the earth.We have developed testing methods that offer proof of the earths great age (4.5 billion years old).If every thing has a cause then god has to have a cause( who made god), daddy god and mommy god of course.William of Ockham, 1285-1349(?) English philosopher and one of the founders of logic, proposed a maxim for judging theories which says that hypotheses should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This is known as Ockham's razor and is interpreted, today, as meaning that to account for any set of facts the simplest theories are to be preferred over more complex ones. Many-worlds is viewed as unnecessarily complex, by some, by requiring the existence of a multiplicity of worlds to explain what we see, at any time, in just one world. - 12:46:30 on 7 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: it looks like entropy is where the author heads, and only whatever RICKY is will continue in some unknowable unimginable existence that some ancient barely not a cave dweller herdsman called heaven. That word- heaven, still has its appeal, especially when one contemplates the view of nonexistence, of either oneself or of entropy which is the utter exhaustion of All forms of energy. O'course by then, matters we "know" will have been long gone, except for RICKY who will be in heaven with his three headed godthing, the virgin mary, paul, the apostles, joseph, all the saints I guess even the popes, any mass murderer who accepts the jc thing and whoever else. Hmm? is this godthing really a simpler hypothesis? - 15:27:28 on 7 May 99 GMT

Carl :RICKY: At pondering your opening line of your post o'04:01:53 07 May, "God has always been", do you know that- see quote, factually? Of course you don't. Have you thoughtfully determined and concluded that? Of course you can't you are not, and me too, even a mote within even the galaxy wherein the sun we know could be viewed. Have you consulted anything or anyone of reliable objectivity about this godthing? So far, it looks like the issue resides with only you and your own subjectivity. Of this point- your subjectivity, since you are just a human organism- like me and the other posters at this site, your subjectivity is only the electochemical product of a very limited interval of stimuli of where you are, right now. So it appears to me that you don't have the slightest idea of a always been god, what kind o'snake oil are you tryin'to pass along here? - 19:44:56 on 7 May 99 GMT

Steven :WAAAAHHHHHOOOOOOOOO! Its Friday! I can taste the first Shiner Bock right now! - 19:51:00 on 7 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- The bible as you know was written by man and has only been in writing for a few thousand years and is based on myths and folklore of previous generations. So history of the world according to the bible is not always so. You mention the "flood". In reality there is no evidence whatsoever of a world wide flood although there is speculation and actually a fairly testable theory that during the melting of the glaciers in Europe that the Mediterranean Sea would have filled to the point of spilling into the Black Sea causing a huge flood. This is where the flood myth could hold some water (pun intended). During such an event, one family could think that they were the only one's left on the earth. Civilization would have been destroyed and the people that survived would have been scattered. The melting of the glaciers would have likely caused the sea level to rise in many places causing the same predicament for any people who lived in societies of some type. This was a natural occurance not a supernatural one, wouldn't you agree? - 15:00:35 on 8 May 99 GMT

Marlene :Ricky- We could discuss the other claims you've made too if you want. - 15:02:28 on 8 May 99 GMT

Rob (A multiple personality) :Doug: Regarding the many-worlds of Everett, in his defence the theory does only require a single wave-function. It's kind of like the Young's slits experiment- only one wave-function, although to understand it we think in terms of the superposed components. I'm not arguing here, just thinking about the validity of Ockham's razor to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. On a slight variant, we don't have a problem citing the multiplicity of realities in terms of pasts and futures, in order to explain the present. I guess it depends on whether there is a simpler way of interpreting quantum mechanics, which to my knowledge there isn't yet. The Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory is probably the next strongest contender, but that has complications such as superluminal influence and paradoxical action-at-a-distance, which are circumvented by Everett's theory. - 15:17:29 on 8 May 99 GMT

Joette :MARLENE - funny you should mention the natural occurrences of seas and such, as lately I have become quite interested in the drastic change in weather patterns we have been experiencing in this part of the country. Maybe it's happening where are you too, but we never know from one to the next what the weather is going to be. This winter we had one snowfall of consequence, and other than that it has been warm and dry. So dry that even at this early stage of spring there is a drought. It has been pretty much the same for the last few years, and it is not uncommon anymore to have a small local town be wrecked by a tornado. Last year we even had an earthquake. We just don't have the weather we used to have, and some meteorologists say this is cyclical which I believe. However, I am particularly interested in what is happening to the Great Lakes. They are on average, 18 feet less deep than they were only 2 years ago. I am beginning to wonder if this is going to continue, and if eventually they are going to dry out and create new canyons and craters. These things have always happened, and I am quite excited about actually watching it happen. I find myself watching the sky a lot more than I used to, not taking anything for granted. I feel sorry for the farmers of which there are many in my area, as their crops have failed over the last few years, but by the same token it has given me pause to wonder about the magnificence of nature. - 16:34:32 on 8 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- Yes, the weather has changed over the the last few years. I've found it much warmer here in the winters. Also, like in your area, not enough rain or snow. This spring it was also dry here and up until a few days ago we had some major forest fires going. In the last few days rain and cooler temps have brought the fires under control. I'm sure this same thing has happened over and over again but since human life is so short we just think there are some huge changes. If only I could ask some of these trees around here what changes they have seen in their lifetime. But then again, I better not start talking to trees or I could end up like you know who. - 4:27:40 on 9 May 99 GMT

Marlene :I'm reading Carl Sagan's _The Dragons of Eden_ right now. Anyone read it??? - 4:29:46 on 9 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: Ya'll missed a fun edge o'the seat youth baseball game fri.nite. The ECYB Mets cruised into the final inning with a 3 run lead and a lefty fireballer was on the mound. After a run of errors the lead was cut to two runs with two out. In the batter's box was hitter and second and third were a coupla'bolts o'lightenin', first was empty. The next batter was not a hitter and had been makin'weak bat ball contact, so the hitter was walked, bases were now loaded. On the weak hitter the count went to two quick strikes and then a ball, the lefty then fired a low inside pitch, too low too inside and hit the weak one on the back foot. It was now a one run difference and the other bolt o'lightening moved to third. The lefty was irked at the fielding errors then called for time, turned his back to the batter looking out at the nearby hills outlined by the glow of the distant city lights. Rubbing the ball free of debris and smear he turned to begin, sending a knuckle ball that dipped into the plate, the batter swung and missed. The second pitch was a knuckle ball the batter bat checked the swing as the pitch dipped in and down for a called strike two. The next was a fast curve that foated wide and away for ball two. Shaking off the first sign he nodded ok and looked down, checkin'his line o'fire. The lefty then went into a wind-up, came over quick and hard and let go a slow curve, low and away! The batter froze on his front foot rump out, it was a "K" for out three. All thirty parents and fans then proceeded to cheer and applaud all concerned. In appreciation the parents and teams met at a nearby pizza parlor, it was a good game. - 15:05:35 on 10 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY01: "The fact that it will happen again is even worse." What is even worse? Capital punishment, as one opponent see any and all such acts. A murderer once known as Manny Babbitt was executed for killing a old white female. MB was in'Nam, sufferred a severe head wound also sufferred from that post war whatever and was turned in by his brother. Do any recall the unibomber? So how come TK wasn't executed? I could be forced into opposing the death penalty if I continue to see such "imbalances" of, is it justice? - 21:40:54 on 10 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - you have a point re TK. Maybe it was decided that since he is an illustrious scholar he shouldn't be put to death? There is a terrible imbalance in the death penalty. - 22:26:59 on 10 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: Ah! so its a matter of utilitarianism for or of both dudes, got it. - 22:52:49 on 10 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - here in Canada we don't have the death penalty, although it is often a subject of debate in parliament. What we find happening here more and more is that people have spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit. This will weigh heavily in future debates. - 23:25:03 on 10 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Joette There will be an end of time only as we know it now. When Christ returns, eternity begins. Sorry I can't stay longer, but have to run, - 3:38:45 on 11 May 99 GMT

Rick :Capital punishment should be world wide I think. If a person knew he would be put to death if he murdered someone, he would think twice about it. If a raipest knew he would be castrated and hung, there would not be little kids and old women being raiped and mangeled for fun. But the justicial system so far as I'm concerned has gone to hell in a hand basket! - 4:38:02 on 11 May 99 GMT

Joette :RICKY - isn't "eternity" a measure of time? Therefore there would be no end of time, in fact, eternity would an infinite amount of it. Now, with regard to your other post, do you actually believe that people rape for fun? And the death penalty has not proven to be a deterrant, so that which you state is also false. What about the people who kill in the name of Christ? Like those that kill abortion doctors. Should they be put to death also? Bet you don't think so. - 11:08:44 on 11 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- Yes, in fact there is a guy right now here by the name of Milgard (sp) who was convicted of murder and spent 23 in prison for a murder he was later found not guilty of. Now it's going to cost the taxpayer big time because he's looking at a near 10 million dollar settlement. Because the jury system and the court system (as one can choose to be tried by a judge too) is not foolproof, no one IMO should get the death penalty. Not to mention humanitarian reasons. - 12:32:30 on 11 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- You haven't answered my question! Now on the death penalty. Wasn't it your jesus that said "turn the other cheek"? If your jesus did actually live, would you not think he would have been against the death penalty? - 12:35:49 on 11 May 99 GMT

Rob (No second coming?) :MARLENE: Obviously the death penalty didn't deter him from being a Messiah... maybe if they had have thrown castration in too for good measure? - 17:46:19 on 11 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: any o'you read "Gulag Archepalago"[sic] by A.Solzhinetzin[sic]? Its a dismal book to read, the only thing I've read of similar dismalness, a book on the manifest destiny. I mention these because both subject matters concern matter and stuff o'capital punishment and nonsense like the RICKY posts. Of the RICKY factor, the 95% who 'believe-in' a godthing, of such is also the mindless wellspring of either a secular or religious prison and execution system. Nobody, I dare say, critically rigorously looks at concepts such as property, citizenship and state as a concept. Like many just "accept" religion and a godthing so do they just accept those notions I post here. At another chatsite a party from the state o'Oregon described how a 5 member school board banned some books and so on and that one member was 'self-ordained minister'. I point to this because that self-appointed thing exemplifys- to me, just how and the way the human creature is, its all a self appointed thing. Be it WJC, that Kosovo participant Milosovic, to anywhere around the world to finally you and me. We choose whatever, no godthing directs no prez or leader is not just some dude that has to use some tp or else stink up the air. I don't think I'm rantin'here, but i do think that when enuff o'the others also have reason to think, not just accept stuff, a better human will happen. Until then, folks like RICKY and the CA guvner G.Davis will lean on some mythical and imaginary piece o'the pie in the sky to decide on things. Prisons like the Gulag thing or executions of the likes of which you and me Know about will go on. This is not good for the human creature. - 17:59:20 on 11 May 99 GMT

Marlene ..maybe he can't come even if he wants to :ROB- Maybe they did. I haven't heard of jesus having any sons or doing any parental planning of any sort for his upcoming secondcoming. - 18:12:41 on 11 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- I've just about finished reading Sagan's _The Dragons of Eden_. People who seem to let fantasy take over may have a problem with learning to use both hemispheres of their brain in harmony. I happen to be someone who thinks I can control the way I think to a great degree. - 18:46:46 on 11 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY01: some time ago, i viewed Robert Reed with a warysome concern. Now, RR has been replaced. The new interest is a guy named Gary Bauer. He is the prime person of the Family Research Council, FRC. I read a few pieces of his agenda and I was quite impressed at the writing. I found it softly clever, a velvet covered fist of steel! So on one hand, to read the assorted presentations you will first see ideas that are disagreeable and divisive of matter. But as you proceed with reading the piece, its phonetic values can disarm you. In reflection, if you are emotional, not thoughtful, in your disagreement then you'll be disarmed. Can you even begin to imagine the ease by which a soft minded religious adherent can be vacuumed up, and go along? Check it out, Gary Bauer. - 20:22:23 on 11 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: "The Dragons of Eden" o'comments o'other readers I may pick up the book. It looks like it was composed well before his end. Some o'the reader comments seem a bit off line, they didn't fully grasp or understand that Sagan sort o'liked appealing to the unfettered mind, ones imagination. I 'guess' those negative like comments figgered they'd see a final and compelling account for the all. Its always interesting to get to some point of understanding a writer and what they mean to convey, how they attempt to convey the whatever to another functioning mind. Do you like sci-fi stuff? I do, - 21:43:21 on 11 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Yes He did, Marlene, but again, I'm not perfect. I just think if harsh punishment was inforced more, there would be less crime. It's so easy now days to blow someone's braines out if you don't like them and be back on the streets in less than two or three years. Some gets away with even less. See my point? - 0:23:27 on 12 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Carl, just because I'm a Christian, don't make me want to kill up all the people who don't believe as I do. Some religions might be that way, but not mine! - 0:25:34 on 12 May 99 GMT

RON...--->Rick... : Are you sure you want to speak of the world in such unified terms? Sounds like "New World Order" to me. Kinda forward. - 2:15:58 on 12 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- As Joette has said, the death penalty isn't really effective when it comes to preventing people from killing.I agree with you though, that people should not be allowed back in society if they have killed in a fit of rage or have killed because they blatantly disrespected someone else's right to live. They should be kept away from the rest of society for life. Also I feel they should not have "a life" as the rest of society who practices respect does. I really don't think murders should have tv, computers, three squares of good food, a soft bed, swimming pools etc. etc. Also what accomodations they do have they should have to earn, like cleaning streets and highways or manufacturing or working in soup kitchens for the poor. etc. Just because I don't believe I have a right to kill someone doesn't mean I have to give the best to a murder. I do think he/she should be punished and deprived of a good life. This way they could spend the rest of their lives thinking about what they've done. I think this kind of treatment would be more of a deterent than the death penalty. - 3:25:10 on 12 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- I love sci-fi! I guess that's why I feel somewhat close to Sagan because I really think he loved sci-fi too. Also I think he really hoped that in his lifetime there would be "contact" with some other life form in the universe as I also do. Reading his books is like reading some of my thoughts too although he was much smarter of course,lol! - 3:30:05 on 12 May 99 GMT

PapaSam :All. The fact that a law is poorly administered does not mean that the law in question should be repealed. Any man who rapes and kills his victim deserves and should get the death penalty. Let's face the facts. Penalty serves as a punishment; the idea that it serves as a deterrent is untrue. If it did, there would be no recidivism. Marlene, Ricky and all others who claim to be knowledgable about jesus had better read the bible. Here's a quote by your peace loving jesus. Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring thither and slay them before me." Want more? How about Matthew 10:33:36 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against a father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law..." Read the bible, Ricky...if you have one. By the wqy, Ricky, have you heard of the Dark Ages? That's when the christian church ruled Europe. They had this thing called the Inquisition where they put Jesus' desires to work. I won't go into details, because it might want to make you puke. look it up in your local library. - 4:17:30 on 12 May 99 GMT

Steven :MARLENE <<>> How about taking all murderers, rapeists etc. and dropping them on an island and say, "Ok, your life has been spared, but you must make your life on this island". They would be given no food, no water, no sanitation, just an island inhabitted by hundreds of other sociopathic criminals. - 13:01:45 on 12 May 99 GMT

Marlene :PAPASAM- You got me! Lol! He did so say all that! - 13:49:28 on 12 May 99 GMT

Marlene :STEVEN- As long as the island wasn't as hospitable as Australia has been. The Artic or Antartic sounds good to me. - 13:51:07 on 12 May 99 GMT

Carl :RICKY: some religions might be that way, "but not mine."! When I see a self-proclaimed xtian say that, as you did, after aligning themself w/"just because I'm a Christian", I must think that you have your head firmly lodged up someones dirty asshole. Its been so long since you've inhaled a good clean breath o'fresh air, that you call fresh air a bad thing. Or perhaps, you mean to toy w/us, goad us into piling atop you the utter sheer shit xtians have done and will do again, and again and again. It- xtianity, is the lowest most indecent and immoral contrivance any group of people have ever done in the existence of any such organism on this planet. Do you really "think" being connected to such a notion as xtianity a good thing? Or, do you instead enjoy the horror and repulsive repugnent things that that xtian notion represents to the good thing that is life on this planet? - 15:04:00 on 12 May 99 GMT

Ricky :PapaSam, Like I said, not all people who profess to be Christians means that they are Christians. I don't need to give you any quotes from the Bible about this issue. But one example is when John writes in Revelation about the seven churches. Only two were saved. Only two were carring out what they were commanded to do. Five were told to repent and turn away from their wicked ways or they would be lost. There are Christians and there are people who call themselves Christians. I do go along with you on the capital punishment though. - 23:53:33 on 12 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Joette, I don't believe in abortion, however murdering abortionest Doctors is not the answer either. People not murder in the name of Christ, nor or they led by Christ to do such acts. They only use that name to give an excuse or reason. I would never kill or murder someone "in the name of Christ". No one has that right. I know people I feel like killing sometimes, but instead, I pray for them. - 2:55:10 on 13 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- I agree with you that people only use religion as an excuse to kill. But many use religion as a means to control. I really don't think your one of those types of people. You seem to be the "nicer christian" type. Tell me though, (and truthfully too!), if you found out for a fact that there was no god, would you really go ahead and kill the person you feel like killing? I bet you wouldn't nor would you pray for them because with no god, it would to futile. How would you direct your anger? - 3:45:02 on 13 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: If there is a common understanding about a religious adherent and "their" assumed connection to a godthing, its that they must defer to the point of thought that the other person must finally first accept the godthing and its dictates. Once one takes that step, then o'course that person is then free, ergo, hallelujah! This is one o'the misfortunes that rest upon, becomes that rock rolled up the hill, a yoke to the human organism. At another site I saw this bit inscribed,"A morality based on the needs for humans to interact peacefully is a morality that applies to humans. Morality based on religious precepts applies to those who accept the precept." I think here, that we could insert the word "only those, etc" as that that some of us have said either something similar or held the same point o'view. One of the exasperations we regularly refer to is that the golden rule was not just a xian thing and that it had been espoused by other thinkers elsewhere and previous to the xian thing. Of late, and posters as RICKY add to this state o'mind, I am beginning to see religious stuff as only some people "believeing" other people. One of the innate objections, reservations that religious types do the tongue in cheek thing of science, science is a thing of and for matters which are outside of the human organism. A morality based on as the quote says, that which meets the needs of the human organism, would best serve "humans". If humans were gods then it would best serve their godness, and so on. I think somewhere in this is the logic of religion that it is just a human "believeing" other humans. So what is science? Science has made the human existence in nature- that thing outside our sacks of cells, much easier. The religious quote that man does not live by bread alone, what exactly does that refer to? Is it merely that all work and no play makes for a boring day? - 15:31:49 on 13 May 99 GMT

dk :www.upskirts.com this site is the reason there is a God. Girls this cute don't just "happen". www.upskirts.com - 20:02:01 on 13 May 99 GMT

DavidJK :Hey, dk, take your two-bit porn site and go away. Go bother the fundies. - 21:03:11 on 13 May 99 GMT

Carl :DJK, some pleasures some delights some rewards only some of us truely know and understand. Childish minds can be filled with heavens, hells and imaginary products of all manner. - 21:16:26 on 13 May 99 GMT

Grant (singing off key) :This site really doesn't relate to religion and stuff, but it's big, it's extremely good, and I couldn't resist. - 3:08:13 on 14 May 99 GMT

Ricky :I visited a prison in Caracas, South America about two months ago on a mission trip and Marlene I may agree with you again, if prisons were like the ones over there, people wouldn't want to do something just to get locked up as I know some do. I heard a man tell me that he'd rather be in prison than out on the streets because when he was out, he had to work or steal for what he got. In there, he had it made. Color TV, pool tables, computers to play on, like being in a glamorus motel. That, I am against. Make it hard, make it rough enough that it's the last place a person wants to go. - 3:57:34 on 14 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- I know that some people find it hard to believe that people would rather be in jail but I agree, there are people who purposely commit a crime to be there (most especially for the winter in this part of the country). - 14:14:30 on 14 May 99 GMT

Grant :CARL—Nice post about believing. There is a mode of thinking where beliefs are treated like products which can be compared for features and benefits, and selected on that basis. We see it often in arguments for xtianity, such as Pascal's wager, where it's argued that we should choose religious beliefs for their safety features. There seems to be no interest in analyzing available information with the intent of determining possibilities and probabilities and such. It's difficult to communicate with such people. The "product" of atheism is not as feature laden as xtianity. The belief comparison shopper will always go for the choices of color, style, pride of ownership, and extended warranty. - 14:16:50 on 14 May 99 GMT

Carl :GRANT: That is a nice spot, it seems to me to fit in with a thing I read by William James. He inscribes of truth a good number of things, from a psychological point o'view, but of all he wrote I found this account to be something to smile at; You're in possession; you know; you have fulfilled your thinking destiny. If I recall correctly he refers to static mental states. So if the passage posted above deals with the thinking human your site does concern, subsumes the religious types for as it seems to me at least, the religious don't think about true things, they "prefer" false ideas. - 14:39:09 on 14 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Marlene, In answering your other question, I really don't know. Thanks for the compliment though. I don't believe I would kill, giving the nature of person I am. Before I became a Christian, I had plenty of opportunities to take my anger out on someone, and did at times, but never killed anyone. To fine out for a fact there was no God, or afterlife, it might be a little disappointing, but I could deal with that. However, from studying the Bible, science, and life itself, I'm convinced there is a God. Many mysteries surround us, things we don't understand, maybe never will, how God came into existance, why He created man, and gave him the ability to make dissions on his own, rather than like the animal kingdom, to be ruled by nature, the list goes on. I have concluded that by spending time here on this site, athe. can be good moral people too. I gather you would not kill someone because they ticked you off, even though you don't believe in God. Guess when we get to old to learn, we die! - 2:04:37 on 15 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- Another good post and an honest reponse to my question! From taking a look at the bible, science and life itself, I've come to an opposite conclusion. Take for instance "man" as a species itself. Firstly, we are so like other mammals on this planet. If a god were to create us as "special" and in his "image", would you not agree that he could have done a much better job? I can think of numerous improvements he could have made to us and I'm a mere mortal. - 16:01:44 on 15 May 99 GMT

Marlene..once in a future time... :Speaking of humans not being perfect, I read a sci-fi story last night about computers becoming man's god. Computers were fed information about the human psyche and then programed to control man's every move in order for the species to live in harmony. Each person no longer needed another human for a friend because they each had a pocket computer called "little sister" or "little brother" who told them when to get up, to get dressed, to go to work etc. They had no need to actually talk to other humans because they had their little brother or little sister as their best friend. These little computers were controlled by one huge main computer. Kind of sound like 1984? Well there was a huge twist to this story. It wasn't the guy who rebeled against the system but the little brother he had. Little brother talked the guy in trying to escape and have his own mind. They attempted an escape but little brother had to tell him every step. Then when they were about to be caught by the computer police, little brother sacrificed himself by telling the guy to take off without him. The guy did but found it just too lonely in a world where everyone else but him had a little brother or a little sister. When the guy was eventually captured he was given another little brother that functioned properly and the lived happily ever after. - 11:55:21 on 16 May 99 GMT

Grant (funny but true) :In an interview Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he sees any value at all in the various religions. He replied, "Of those around at the moment, Islam is the only one that has any appeal to me. But, of course, Islam has been tainted by other influences. The Muslims are behaving like Christians, I'm afraid." - 4:05:44 on 17 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: if you get a chance pickup the video titled." GATTTICA" and then contemplate the matter of cloning. How far from that frankensteinish prospect is that thing? Chips and barcodes set in the skin for the master board, could be a fun time. - 14:20:13 on 17 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: Still I see that the only reason religion exists, for those as RICKY's post o'15 May 99, to MARLENE appears in his 6th sentence when he refers to the "mysteries" and lack of "understanding". I do not see of his post anything that pointedly concerns a godthing, which he says he "believes-in". The more often I see that grammatical term the less becomes my opinion that it means or has significance to anything outside it being a mere grammatical item. RICKY is just like other religious adherents that place their words here, they just want the atheist to accept and "believe-in" whatever they have to say about their supposed godthing. On their behalf, I can see how the religius adherents are like another kind of sci-fi fan. I find the academics and discipline of science relevant to one's successful existence and for the as yet "unknown" matters I find the unencumberances o'sci-fi unfettered and frontier-like to my mental processes. The religeous writings are old-minded, geocentric, and anthropocentric versions and as such aren't they really just a type of sci-fi? Was this C.SAGAN's view in,"The Dragons of Eden"? - 14:50:19 on 17 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- hooooold on there, Baba Louis! I'm a sci-fi fan! I love it and I think your right on when you suggest religion is just a form of sci-fi or fantasy (also love that type of thing) but..but I don't take it as reality. - 16:56:16 on 17 May 99 GMT

Carl :MARLENE: just contemplating and researching some stuff in regards to your mere mortal improvements point. In so doing I reviewed a popes encyclical on evolution that was composed back in 1950. Back then, the composer a pope wrote that "because" evolution wasn't a proven matter of fact, their godthing's "immutable" acts of creation still best served the human creature. That was composed in 1950, not in the dark ages when religion laid upon the western world like a blinding suffocating gas. And! the religious still today want others to accept that they "believe-in" and have "faith-in" and "love" a godthing. Fantasy it is, but they would have others allow them the license of that reality. - 20:48:04 on 17 May 99 GMT

Joette :MARLENE - very timely post about the story you read. Do you realize how close we came today to having the CRTC start censoring the internet? They've decided to back down for now, but I'm sure it's going to be a point of contention in parliament for a long time. - 22:21:35 on 17 May 99 GMT

Doug :Carl; You seem to have forgotten that it reads science F-I-C-T-I-O-N.I know you don't like big government but maybe all unprovable religion should have a warning label on it declaring it as fictional material only suitable for entertainment.With xianty one has to like horror and other gothic themes.Not my cup of tea. - 2:44:38 on 18 May 99 GMT

Marlene :DOUG- I've read the bible (actually three versions at the same time), I agree it's right depressing fantasy if you ask me. The old testament is rather good though if one can see the judean god as the bad guy. With the new testament, that's rather sicko. The guy is bent on getting himself crucified. How entertaining is that one? - 3:32:21 on 18 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- As far the CRTC goes, if they want more regulation then they can eat a box of ex-lax. Pisses me off! I absolutely hate most Canadian movies and shows. - 3:34:42 on 18 May 99 GMT

Marlene :CARL- I think the message I got from that little sci-fi piece was that humans are too dependant on others to take personal responsibility be it unwavering programs/governments or god/gods/goddesses Creepy! - 3:40:17 on 18 May 99 GMT

QUESTION TODAY......... :Q1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; would you recommend that she have an abortion?............. Q2: It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:......... Candidate A....... Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day........... Candidate B................ He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening............ Candidate C........... He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs. Which of these candidates would be your choice?...........ANSWER TOMORROW - 12:59:10 on 18 May 99 GMT

Grant :QT-- We've already been presented with a well written version of this. - 13:16:24 on 18 May 99 GMT

Joette :QT - if you are asking a question, why are you planning to give us the answer tomorrow? How about you answering this question: "If a dolt comes on MIMM and asks a doltage question, should we ignore him/her/it?" - 13:30:18 on 18 May 99 GMT

Was the well written version submitted by a dolt who was ignored? - 13:50:24 on 18 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RTL- No action on your page? Hummm...I wonder why? - 15:58:19 on 18 May 99 GMT

Steven :RTL/QT <<>> the answer is usually C Adolf Hitler, and it was I who presented it. I think I got it in a NEV DULL posting. Interesting, but you can can make any human being look completly nasty by listing all of their faults, and completly just by listing their good qualities. Unfortuatly people are a mixture of both. Adolf Hitler also murdered his girlfriend, murdered his enemies during his struggle for power of Germany, and then murdered millions of Europeans and millions of Jews with his sociopathic megalomania. Cant remember who the other two were, isnt it Frued and and ummm Churchill, or Roosevelt, damn cant remember. - 17:50:46 on 18 May 99 GMT

DavidJK :The syph woman with the eight kids is the mother of Beethoven. - 21:22:14 on 18 May 99 GMT

ANSWER TOMORROW......... :Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt......... Candidate B is Winston Churchill........ Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.......... ................and by the way:....... Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven. - 12:27:50 on 19 May 99 GMT

ANSWER TOMORROW......... :Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt......... Candidate B is Winston Churchill........ Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.......... ................and by the way:....... Answer to the abortion question - if you said yes, you just killed Beethoven. - 12:31:53 on 19 May 99 GMT

Grant :Gee whiz - 12:52:14 on 19 May 99 GMT

Marlene :GRANT- Notice that he feels free to post here but I've tried to join his chat site and I'm not allowed in. I've never posted on his chat site but I have emailed him asking him if he had nothing more to add to his boring page than posts from ours. I suppose RTL doesn't like to hear others comments. At least it's not the teacher/student routine. - 13:25:54 on 19 May 99 GMT

Grant :MARLENE-- I guess one could use RTL as a counter to that Beethoven thing, but it's probably overkill. - 13:34:03 on 19 May 99 GMT

Joette :Whoever did the question/answer thing has had the wind taken out of his/her sails but still posts as though to shock us. No contrition there. Just goes to show that if it is an xtian, they will keep saying their piece by rote, never allowing that someone else may already have anticipated the answer. And of course, the question is skewed so as to keep certain pieces of information away from the person expected to answer the question, making the question unfair and silly. It says much about religion, this exercise does....make sure that the person being asked to believe doesn't get the whole story, just bits and pieces that fit the agenda. It's like "mushroom management"..keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshit. - 13:34:18 on 19 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY; Well, several things this a.m., yesterday I and a bunch o'the friends o'my youngest offspring got a 06:30am showing o'the star wars flick, "Phantom Menace". I'll not say much yet, but bein'kidlike:), I liked it. The other day I picked up a book titled, "Gospel Fictions". It begins in a manner I clearly saw and understood. Perhaps to my misfortune, it lays out clearly what I've so struggled to convey here. The bible is a "literary work of fiction". Its composers did not research for facts when rewriting and rewriting the biblical accounts. While the research factor is a contemporary feature of knowledge as we o'today know, o'things back then "the word" as they then heard it was supposed to be as phenomenal as was the dynamics o'their environment. Of the star wars and matrix movies I see reviews of them that seek to relate either to some supposed religious aspect. Why do these people, the reviewers do that? Well both movies are works of futuristic fiction, and how best to "sell" the movies was a marketing question. Here, lets not forget that 95% o'the usa say they're religious like in some way. In the usa its the xtian thing that prevails in matters of the religion. So use their religious accounts, after all the xtian thing is a work o'fiction too. - 14:49:51 on 19 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - in this province there will be an election two weeks from tomorrow. Last night on our local news they did a "street talk" question, asking regular citizens if they would be watching a debate which was shown on TV last night for the leaders of the three main parties. Not one person said they would watch it, and the majority said that they don't even know who is running. Now, this morning on the news they were doing live broadcasts from theatres where people have been lined up to see "Phantom Menace" and there was a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. Quite a contrast to what I saw last night. What does it say about the human condition that people pay no attention to the things which will affect there lives egregiously for four years, but wait weeks and months to spend 2 hours watching a (stupid) movie? I think it's pathetic. - 17:50:29 on 19 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: o'those Canadian politicians are they somehow involved with the issue of your post to MARLENE? Do the politicians- in your neck othe world, really want to somehow control the I-net? That has been and remains one of my primal fears for society- somebody hindering its growth, for as long as I've participated in this social forum. The pretext- theirs, would be a contrivance of some 'phantom menace'. Once accepted then they'd have to form, create some means for "inquiring" of folks what they meant by such and such post. Its a scary prospect. - 18:57:38 on 19 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - no, the CRTC is federally regulated so it isn't an issue for this election (provincial, similar to your elections for governor). CRTC stands for Canadian Radio and Tele-communications which is a watch dog agency and they are the agency that hands out broadcasting licences. They stated the other day that for now the internet is not part of their jurisdication, but I know it's a matter of time. Just last week I read an article where someone has been charged with uttering death threats for castigating some judges on a message board on the net (this was an American angry at American judges) and it really brought home to me how we are not free to speak what's on our mind in this venue either. Somebody is always watching and it makes me uncomfortable (thus I am disconnecting my home line in a couple of weeks and only using my work access from then on). - 19:29:14 on 19 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: i just read some good reviews of the new book,"Sudden Origins". Its authored by Jeffery H.Schwartz published by J.Wiley and Sons. If you get a chance check out the amazon.com site, the book looks like a good buy. I am gonna check it out inna'book store and if it seems ok, I'll buy it. From what I could tell, it seems to explain and use some problems that folks as RICKY liked to use as a wrench in the evolution accounts. later - 21:53:27 on 19 May 99 GMT

Marlene..they shouldn't complain if they don't bother to vote :JOETTE- Our election isn't being called until fall now. I think it's typically Canuckian that people here have no idea who's running or who is even in at the time. Voter turnout is typically 33%. I agree, it disgusting! Thing is when taxes keep going up and the working poor keep getting poorer, who in hell have they to blame for it all! They have four years of whomever gets in and if they had a little patience, the damn movie will be on TV next year. - 2:42:55 on 20 May 99 GMT

Steven :JOETTE <<>> It is probably because canadians realize that who they vote for will make absolutly no difference in their lives, but a movie will let them escape for a couple of hours of pleasure. Some people go way overboard with it (camping for two months for tickets, dressing in Chew Baca costume etc.) but it makes many people feel like kids again. Stars wars is not produced to be Saving Private Ryan in space, it is not serious or even intellectual. To me Star Wars, for two hours, made me feel like I was 6 yrs old again standing in line with my dad waiting for Star Wars, the first movie. I took my son, and although he wont be able to remember it, I can tell him he was there. Hopefully in 4 yrs or so, Star Wars will still be a huge thing with kids. It has spanned over 20 yrs and kids still love it. - 12:46:19 on 20 May 99 GMT

Marlene :STEVEN- I know a young man who works for his dad. He asked his dad for the day off to go and see the movie but his dad said no, that he could wait for his day off to see it. You wouldn't believe what the kid did! He took his holidays! I love sci-fi but the Star Wars series, as you mentioned, wasn't good sci-fi so I didn't enjoy it but it's entertainment for some nevertheless. - 13:33:06 on 20 May 99 GMT

Joette :STEVEN - votes do matter, whether you want to believe that or not. If a government has a mandate to raise taxes, people will not vote for them. If a government has a mandate to lower taxes, people will vote for them. The more votes a party gets, the better chance they have of fulfilling their mandate. Our parties publish their mandates when the election is called, so we get what we vote for. It is unfortunate if it is not the same in your country. BTW, the URL is a newsflash. - 15:10:01 on 20 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: Just read an article on media/film violence as if such were a cause for the deeds now besmirching the notion of a 'civilised' western society. I affix this last part becuz I didn't see any reference to deeds not of the westernman. If the deeds- the kid killers, were natural reactions of the human creature to the environment, oughtn'it be anywhere and everywhere the world over? So, to fix it in addition to banning the bible, some o'shakespears stuff, almost all the greek tragedys, most comic books{except Richie Rich}, a lot o'the cartoons, and o'course all those nature programs showing animals killing other animals these gotta go too! Or instead, these books the compositions of human thought processes, perhaps they are the unnatural, and some means for controlling thought or at least the "exchange of thought" hasinit, the potential of possibility. But, these movies are like an elixir, the placebo for real actual experience, which would or might "cause" people to think, this would be dangerous for those in control. Afterall, there are the potentials of the processing matters of cloning(for the rich) and healthy organ donors(for the rich). - 15:18:28 on 20 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: but what about a lie and a liar? - 15:33:11 on 20 May 99 GMT

Joette :GRANT! where did my post go? - 15:46:32 on 20 May 99 GMT

Joette :it's like deja vu all over again! One minute the post is there, the next it's gone....wierd - 15:47:26 on 20 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: slept on your parenthetic passage o'19 May'99 and I now wonder if we know what that kind o'action means? Several monthes back, maybe it was here, but I put forward the idea that only involuntary slavery had been legally abolished, in the USA. The flip side of that wordage is that voluntary slavery is still, however, ok. What the heck am I talking about? Its working "for" others be it a public institution or a private affair, is it- that "for", not a form of voluntary servitude? Now what the heck am I seein'here, you ask? I think its the freedom of who we can be and when we so choose is the matter that I see. Many folks today seem to so desire that anyone else be responsible, for example, they will go along with anybody including a liar, or anything like cults, or etherial things such as institutions or even a corporate being. Is there anywhere that a person can be really alive and well, or must something else always represent who one might be? - 18:30:36 on 20 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - yes, there is a place where one can be really alive and well, and it's that person's choice what they want to do with their lives, how they want to spend it, what their priorities are. If everyone had the nerve to just be who they want to be (without joining the navy as that is their slogan ;) there wouldn't be this "servitude". Rather it would be the person fulfilling their own aspirations. Maybe this sounds a bit off the wall or idealistic, but I have to tell you this is the point I am at in my life, and it is wonderful. Now excuse me while I stop and smell the roses...LOL! - 20:03:16 on 20 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: "subjective resolve" the inner peace, nice place. I stop at this watering hole - 21:23:49 on 20 May 99 GMT

Joette :here in Ontario our supreme court has decided that the current definition of a couple is unconstitutional because it discriminates against same sex couples. This means that all of our family laws have to be changed, and now same sex couples have the same entitlements as heterosexual couples. I am very pleased about this, although there are several groups screaming bloody murder now. Stupid gits now think that heterosexual couples will be discriminated against. When will people get it through their thick skulls that their rights aren't being infringed upon just because another segment of society is treated with equality? - 3:04:35 on 21 May 99 GMT

Marlene :JOETTE- I understand though that Ontario law doesn't allow common-law couples the same rights when it comes to homes being shared/sold/turned over when they separate or divorce as married couples. How come? Here in Winnipeg a certain school division was going to bring in some education on homosexuality. Even though we have a gay mayor here, you wouldn't believe the screaming that went on about it. The parents screamed loud enough so that it wasn't or isn't going to be introduced. I wonder who will teach these kids about homosexuality. I doubt the parents will. One of the comments BTW was that homosexuality isn't "natural". I wish I would have saved a piece that one columnist wrote in the local paper as a response. He wrote a lenghty piece about the very common incidence of same sex relationships in all mammals. Not natural, eh? - 3:32:11 on 21 May 99 GMT

PASSING THROUGH.... :Wow. Just stopped to say Hi as this page has reverted to its old self - without heaps of dreadful rubbish........ - 10:22:18 on 21 May 99 GMT

Joette :MARLENE - not true about common-law couples. Under the law common-law couples have the same rights as married couples, provided they co-habitate, officially for one year and one day. Some people won't admit they live with someone for whatever reason, so if they aren't going to go through the motions of declaring they are a common-law couple they might see problems later on, but that's highly unlikely. The only people I know that won't admit they live common-law are those getting social assistance, as Ontario has a stringent "spouse in the house" clause now. - 11:21:25 on 21 May 99 GMT

Grant (Clueless in Seattle) :I don't know what happened to your post, Joette. It left no trace. But I was not to blame this time. Sorry. - 13:21:22 on 21 May 99 GMT

Rob (Putting the willies up 'em) :Marlene: Yes, that argument always befuddles me. It is often argued as un-natural as it would kill of the species if we were all gay, but then couldn't the same be said for celebacy? And if it is not natural, why does it occur in nature (man being part of nature) -are we saying it is supernatural? - 15:12:53 on 21 May 99 GMT

Carl :OPEN: the sun shines bright, the lil'guys BB-team won, the older guys season is about to begin so I wonder, an honest question, what about same sex couples, gays together, is "natural"? For the organism the human is, I know that when I am with a female we could reproduce. Thats how the human thing remains a living thing on this planet. What is more important than that? - 15:55:05 on 21 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - does this mean that couples who decide to spend the rest of their lives together but decide against having children are unnatural? - 18:22:16 on 21 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - and what about men and women who are sterile? Or men or women who have had medical procedures so as to avoid reproduction? Are they unnatural? - 18:23:37 on 21 May 99 GMT

Carl :M'SELLE J: "that" joining is electrochemical, o'guys and gals, anything that precludes thir joining looks unnatural, to me, IF and IN the terms that the human organism is to continue. But, what is "natural" about the gay thing? Can the question be answered by not deferring to those who choose to bypass or lack the electrochemical completness. - 18:42:08 on 21 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Marlene Not only is it un-natural, it's un-Godly. In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve - 23:39:41 on 21 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Homosexuality is a simple desire one desires or developes. I do not believe one is born that way. When one is introduced to that kind of activity, then it becomes a choise as to practice such behavior. It is a lust of the flesh that the great apostle Paul writes about in his different books of the NT. I might add, he declaired it as "Sinfull", and advised against it. I know there are exceptions as to nature. There are people born with both male and female organs. For those, I have no real answer, just that they too, have a choise to make. Some guys like to fight. Some like to drink or smoke. Some like to have their dingilings stuck in places they were not made for. I guess it takes all kind to make the world go round! - 2:13:33 on 22 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- As you know, I don't think a god created anything let alone Adam, Eve or Steve, lol! I do think though that sexes, meaning male and female evolved and weren't "in the beginning". Unlike yourself, I tend to go with the idea that homosexuality is an inborn thing and I don't mean just the sexual acts themselves. Homosexuals tend to have just as loving and long lasting relationships as male/female relationships. Also as the desire for sex seems to burn out (as in around my age, just kidding!), homosexual relationships are still strong just as male/female realtionships stay strong. Most relationships are about finding a life long partner as humans tend to seek. I do also think that humans like all other mammals would engage in more same sex, sexual realtionships if there wasn't such a religious taboo on such activites. You don't see other mammals hanging their heads in shame if they engage in same sex activities. Control by creating guilt and shame is the most powerful tool used by religions. As for the "natural" aspect of the subject. If we do it, it's natural. Does that not make sense? - 3:15:01 on 22 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- Another thing, lust of the flesh is perfectly natural. And if Paul/Saul/a Roman who wanted power and seen what he could make xtianity into says it's "from the devil"...well did you know that there was no devil up until the first or second century and that Paul's self invented and self revised version of christianity invented the devil as another control tool? - 3:36:16 on 22 May 99 GMT

Rob (with a foot ion either camp) :Carl... you ask what is natural about the gay thing. Surely it is commonplace for people to be attracted to those they have things in common with. So it doesn't seem that surprising that some find they can be closer to those of the same sex, who would share not only experiences but also a degree of pstchological makeup, does it? - 12:55:12 on 22 May 99 GMT

Rob (guilty as charged) :Sorry, that should be "in", not "ion". - 12:56:00 on 22 May 99 GMT

Rob (with a Pavlovian response) :Ricky: Do you ever desire to stick your "dingiling" in places it wasn't made for? - 12:58:18 on 22 May 99 GMT

Grant (resisting Pavlov) :How can we define as unnatural something which occurs, and as far as we can tell has always occurred in X% of the population? Choosing to act on some instinctual unease or distaste for some human behavioral differences, like choosing to act on some instinctual unease or distaste regarding racial differences, in my view, is failure to look at the world as it is in a rational manner in favor of acting according to whatever emotions happen to pop up. It is the antitheses of living the "examined life." - 16:25:46 on 22 May 99 GMT

Joette :I don't understand how some people maintain that homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone consciously choose to become a portion of society that is discriminated against? Would this mean that homosexuals are also masochists? If these same individuals were also introduced to heterosexual activity would it not mean that that type of relationship would win out over the "unnatural one"? How could anyone with any intelligence honestly believe that one chooses their sexual preferences except when one has a lot to lose for reasons of bigotry? It boggles the mind. - 19:06:00 on 22 May 99 GMT

Doug :I can think of far worse things to worry about than sexual preferance.This is a judeo/xian bigotry as many other cultures don't lay eggs over it.We have been fruitful and(over) multiplied the earth, so they can't use that one.Most children who are raised in single sex partner homes turn out to be heterosexual just like everybody else.We had a gay couple who had the home down the street from us and they were quiet and having no kids.There was no beef with them as there kids(none) didn't destroy the neighborhood with vandalism and drinking.If they want to get married let them; the lawyers will have a new market when a divorce comes along.PS..I think lawyers are a greater problem in our society. - 20:16:43 on 22 May 99 GMT

Ricky :No Rob, try to stay away from them places! When I was it my teens, having sex could give you the claps but wasn't no big deal. A shot of penicilon and keep getting it. Then come herpies and gonoreia. That wasn't too bad. But this AID sh*** kills ha. That is enough to keep your dingiling where it belongs! "I killed the spelling of those words" - 22:13:44 on 22 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Marlene, if we evolved, why hasn't anything else evolved sense such a time as to where it could be recorded? Not trying to start anything, just courious as to your consept for the "beginning" - 23:05:49 on 22 May 99 GMT

Joette :Ricky...what hasn't evolved? Do you believe that all the birds and bees and flowers and trees are still the same as they were "in the beginning"????? - 0:48:37 on 23 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- "in the beginning" (on earth anyway)...there evolved our ancestors, little one cell organisms. How do you say that we evolved from them??? Our DNA is inherited from them. And Ricky, I think your the only person that can spell worse than me, ha ha! - 7:54:12 on 23 May 99 GMT

Marlene :RICKY- On answering your other question, evolution takes time, more time than we've been recording things. We're talking millions of years here. One may find the fossilized remains of a primate here and there but there just aren't that many. Do you not believe that dinosaurs lived? You've got to if you've ever seen one reconstructed in a museum. - 14:15:47 on 23 May 99 GMT

Joette :I watched "Mysteries of the Bible" again last night, and as usual I am astounded at how many truly educated people take the bible literally. Last night's program was about Abraham, and it was interesting to me in that it brings together the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now, I grew up in a family where we had to attend church and Sunday school, and so I have always known about Abraham, about the original circumsism, about the binding of Isaac, but I looked at these stories with a bit of a jaundiced eye, and marvelled at how a god would demand that a man mutilate his penis to prove his loyalty. Why couldn't god just asked him to cut off his little finger or something? Now, the scholars say it had to be his penis because it represented the nations that would rise from Abraham's loins and so it was symbolic. However, when Abraham finally did have a son with his wife (as opposed to his maid Hagar), god demanded he kill him to again prove his loyalty. I kept shaking my head when professors and rabbis referred to these stories as beautiful stories of love of a man for a god. Was god a bit of a pervert perhaps? Each time I watch this show I am amazed at how sadistic he was (is), that's for sure. - 22:32:00 on 23 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Joette: There is plenty of evidence of the changes taken place over the years in allmost every living thing on earth. But these are changes. It is not "beginnings" There was a mention of DNA. These are millions of strands of information stored in all living animals including man. It takes just one to throw it all "out of wack" The mystry to me is how all these millions of strands of info just happened to wind up in exactly the right place. It is scientifical fact that it takes information to make anything work. Its almost as hard to believe the existence of man just "happened" as it is to believe that we were created. Look at the technology man has come up with in just the past thirty years. I remember when TV was only in black and white. There "could be" intelligence out there "somewhere" we can not even begin to understand. Marlene, I do believe in dinos. There is evidence to prove it. There is also evidence to to support the theory of a globle flood. - 22:55:48 on 23 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Let me share some info on DNA. Check it out, and I think you will find this info to be correct. The DNA molecule consist of two "ropes" running parallel in a spiral shape. Fixed between two "ropes" are four "letters" of the genetic code (simple chemical substances) which bind the two ropes together. When a cell divides, it simply splites in two like a zipper, sending half of the molecule to each new cell. The molecule "reads itself" by the process of rhibosomes (complicated proteins) mounting the "ropes" and "feeling" the message. By "reading this message written in chemical language, the cell knows how to duplicate itself. These are all facts most all scientist agree on so far. So the bog question is "could this fascinating process be the result of chance"? Let me go on. Biochemists have discovered that there are "ten to the 87th power, (Ten with 87 zeros after it) ways to put together the information in just one human DNA strand. Some clame that the world is about 4.5 billion years old. That number is about the same as the number in one DNA strand. If one trial and error combination were tried every second, you still would not have enough time to even attempt all the combinations in a single DNA molecule in 4.5 billion years. This is all scientific facts about DNA. Check it out. This is why I conclude there must be an author behind the chimical reactions. First, he conceived the information necessary to make a cell. Then, he devised the ingenious mechanism by which the information is read by the cell so that it can duplicate itself. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings are controlled by the information which does not reside in the molecules and atoms of that cell. Now, up to now, all I have said was facts concerning science. The Bible says God is the Author. He created matter out of nothing. He took the matter and fashioned it into the abundant variety of life forms on this planet. Therefore, If I have to decide to believe in the facts of science concerning DNA, I also have to believe in the Bible concening "the beginning" I know I took up a lot of space and hope I didn't bore ya. Do check on the facts concerning DNA and get back. "Good Day" - 0:32:52 on 24 May 99 GMT

ricky :One more thing I failed to mention about DNA, it is said to be about 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? - 1:25:19 on 24 May 99 GMT

Joette :Ricky...yes, there is scientific evidence of a great flood, after one of the several ice ages. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the legend of a man floating around in a boat with all types of critters (except the unicorn of course). In fact, there is scientific knowledge which states that it would have been impossible to build a boat such as is told in the great book, and that it would have been an impossibility for as much rain to fall in 40 days to destroy all life on earth. If you believe the bible, you don't believe science. You can't have both. - 3:02:44 on 24 May 99 GMT

Grant :RICKY-- Nobody thinks DNA occurred one day as a result of a roll of the dice any more than they think a chicken occurred one day that way. It is the result of a chain of events, each dependant on previous events. I'll not try to explain evolutionary thought to you. If you were interested you would read a book, but let me ask you this: What are the odds of the random occurance of a caucasion bearded figure wearing robes who happens to be omnipotent? Or did he evolve? - 12:27:00 on 24 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: didn't see anything here, weighty like that addressed the "naturalness" of the gay thing. Altho'JOETTE did expand the question to another point of view, that of choice. The point 'J' made of why would somebody bring upon or into their existence the problems of being a rump-ranger is not much different from the probable why of RICKY clinging to the flood tale myths. Both seem aimed at some "spiritual" thing that is of, somewhere, the human organism. I ain't much on spirits and other invisible things, but I do find fun and meaningful the conceptual values of the human organism's mind. Ever see some of the "love toys and gadgets" some people use on each other for the experience of, I guess personal joy and pleasure? Well, this point could fall in with GRANT and ROB's view and RICKY's of a personal god, that it is one's choice. As for the gay thing having read the book,"Nazi Doctors", the 'gay' folk would be safest at holding that they choose to be gay. Otherwise, lets not forget the insanity of power hungry leaders who grab at anything in their franticness of being leaders to stay a leader. We've heard tales o'WJC who has been said to want to amend to favor his place in history. Of those in history remember what G.Bush said of atheists? Of the book refrred to above, those ol'doctors figgered on "curing" a thing or two. What if another schitzso or nut hoodwinks or bamboozeles the people gets in and wants to be known as the leader to have "cured" the gay problem? Let that word/name/idea refer to a conscious act of the mind, that these people have made a choice. - 15:12:29 on 24 May 99 GMT

PETER, who once again takes another ( usual fateful )dip into the waters of creationist illogic :,,ricky, ricky, ricky. ricky...why dost though spouteth one creation rhetorical cliche after another. Just to address one, as this seems to be the one I adddress mostly ( to no avail )to those who more specifically challenge the building blocks of evolution, as opposed to supporting creationism ) First of all this thing about 'chance' which is a bromide bandied about by creationists, sounds great to a layperson as a legitimate attack on evolution..but scientists, philosophers etc. understand that that this argument is inapplicable. The 'evolution-attacker' ( which I will henceforth call you ) assumes the alternative to design is 'chance' when in fact it is 'causality'. The idea of chance only applies to when an event is predicted and the alternatives are unknown to the parties in contemplation. This is why the scientific community does not totally abandon any further study of evolution, regardless of how often a cantankerous creationist spouts his'tornado whipping through the junkyard and creating all the space-shuttles' argument....Also, let me clarify another point with you, the 'evolution-attacker.' The creationist community exists because (a) they want to preserve in any way possible, the thought that the bible is infallible, and (b) they reason and argue extremely poorly. The creationist presumes he is in scientific forum of argument when zealously defending his position, when in fact he is not at all, he is in a philosophical forum, and it is here he stumbles so badly, it is embarassing to witness. I see you entering this arena of inept reasoning very quickly in that you assume that by descrediting evolution, this will advance the creationist position. This is one of the most fatal mistakes made by crwationists, and regardless of how often they are told that only positive, INCONCLUSIVE evidence will support creationism, along with presuming an alternative which hasn't been established as of yet to be the only one. And you know what happns to those who are seen to reason very poorly? No one will pay any attention to them..and they become 'preachers' as they have divorced themselves, voluntary to any futher rational discussion--and in light of your frequent posts here as of late, I don't think you want this to occur..but if I catch you implementing lothful logic, I will jump all over you like a hyperactive ten-year-old on a pogo stick - 16:18:51 on 24 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Peter Peter Peter, Science and the findings scientist come up with is the very reason I believe in the Bible. "I can better understand the Bible" by having better understanding of science. Get back to the DNA. I don't care about how long it took the DNA molecule to form. Science "plainly" shows me there has not been enough time for such a mechisiom to "pop in place" if the world is 4 million years old. I only memtioned the Bible at the end of my list of scientific facts concerning DNA. SCIENCE itself leads me in that direction. Go back and read what I wrote again about the DNA molecules. That is scientific facts. If they just so happened to arrainge themselves in them 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ways perfectly, then my brother, we came into exestence by a "great chance". That suppose to be 87 zeros. That is how many ways (1) DNA molecule "can be coded. Just one inproper placed, "nothing works" Peter, Peter, are we talking CHANCE? I am talking science, not bible...... Before I believed we just happened by chance, I would believe the "marshons" invented us! - 17:14:01 on 24 May 99 GMT

Ricky :O, and about the boat. The deminsions given in the Bible about the Ark, would be plenty big to carry all the animals of the animal kingdom. It would have been more than sea worthy because of its vast size and shape. It was recorded to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 high. The draft would have been "scientifically" 16- 20 feet. This boat didn't have to sail or go anywhere. It just had to ride out the storm. So, it was built flat. Kinda like a big bardge. Think about it. This bardge was longer than a football field,, and by the way, before this time, there hadn't been any ice age, because the earth was covered by a water canapy. " Lets just save this one for later." So when the waters came and the flood began, who knows, maby all the animals hibernated or something, I don't know, I can only speculate. However, For something to happen like this, I guess we can "all" agree on one thing. It had to be a supernatural source to cause such a thing. Now, about the canapy. Before the flood, people saw no rain. Fossil evidence "confirms that once" tropical plants and animals lived in abundance in the world's polor regions. This is also scientific facts. I'm still talking science. - 17:30:06 on 24 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Look guys, and gals: Final line. I didn't come here to screw up your site. I've learned alot here. Marlene, you're a favorite. I just wanted to share what I've come up with over the years concerning science, evel.-crea. You have to do as I did and weigh the evidence. There could have been a boat built to "do the job", and surely the DNA findings of scientist will make you wonder just how all that information came from nothing. I have enjoyed this site over the year and will be glad to back out if asked. - 17:36:38 on 24 May 99 GMT

Carl :RICKY: With the DNA thing you've just found a new hiding place where in you cover up any full disclosure of a godthing. It looks to me like all that you mean to say is your ignorance of the things which you can't know of in your existence is rendered sensible with the word "god". This does not say of a godthing, it does tho'lend itself as a statement of and for the thing that you are! While you mean to connect yourself to matters the human thing knows today, for the things still unknown you opt, you choose the way of deferring this state of mind- not knowing, as those of old once did\said of it, a godthing did it. Have you considered just saying or thinking that you simply don't know, instead of using the grammatical term and item of "god"? - 17:52:39 on 24 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - I am shocked and appalled at your reference to homosexuals being "rump rangers". I have to admit too that I am surprised at your opinion on gays choosing to be that way. I figured someone as educated and well read as you would hold a different position on this matter. I would be very interested in your reaction if your grade 10 superstar son "chose" that sexual preference. I think you would change your mind very quickly. Anybody see Michael Moore's "The Awful Truth" last night? He addressed this very subject. - 19:43:29 on 24 May 99 GMT

Steven :RICKY <<>> There is not a 'barge' that would be large enough to carry two of every animal, period. So did Noah travel to Africa, India, the Americans and the Asian continent and collect every unique animal to that region. How many dinosaurs did Noah include. Are we talking hyenas, lions, tigers, bears, pumas, etc. All of these predators on the same ship. Hmm, wonder what they fed them for 40 days and 40 nights, maybe a few hundred species went extinct in those forty days, LOL! Where exactly did the people stay in this madhouse, did each pair of animals have seperate rooms, lol? How much feed would it take just for a pair of cattle. Do you have any idea how difficult it is today, with modern technology, to transfer a herd of horses. It takes thousands of pounds of grain, for just horses. What about waste disposal and sanitation, or did they just live with squalor for 40 days and nights. What did Noah and family do for food, store a bunch of vegetables with no refrigeration, or just kill off the animals for food. Wouldnt that upset god, killing off animals to eat. Did this giganitic wooden barge have modern bilge pumps for the water that surly would have sunk a barge from 40 days and nighst of steady downpour. Or maybe they used buckets, down there with the animals, lions and tigers and bears OH MY! Maybe every specie of snake was fun to handle, and everyone one on the ship were vet's so they could handle any snake bites. What about insects, did Noah save those also. Ricky it takes a huge imagination, and an enormous amount of ignorance to believe in the flood story, especially the biblical one. Think about it Ricky, or is this another keyboard in the rain miracle. If you sit down and actually think about it, you will realize that the whole mythology in which you put your faith, is ridiculous. - 19:55:48 on 24 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Steven, I did say all this included "supernatural" help. Surely, if someone had the "power to supply the ark with two of every kind of animal, he had the power to put them in a form of hibernation or something. So far as the dinos, probably the juvinals or very young ones were taken. - 20:25:54 on 24 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: that friendly reference wasn't an original, saw it in some local gay thing or other a few years ago. Of their choice, its sad that so many are intelligent and the guys usually seem more attractive than the common guy. The sad part, for either sex, they deprive whatever they are o'the gene pool. But, with something as the cloning thing perhaps in some future day neither gender will be required for any mutually agreed upon act for reproduction. So, who wins, will it be the human thing we know today? Or, we could be the future's next neanderthal. Did the lack o'Iodine in the neanderthal that gave it its beetle brow lead to coupling like animals by the succeeding humans, could this be a future question? - 21:03:11 on 24 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY01: ever heard of Reverse Speech? If yes what have you heard or read, is it a dales-gimmick? - 21:36:34 on 24 May 99 GMT

Joette :CARL - why do homophobes such as yourself have to sink so low as to refer to homosexuals in terms of anatomy? Would you be pleased if, during regular conversation, someone referred to you as a cunt filler or something as equally disgusting? Did you make a choice to have sex with women, or did it just come naturally? Did you have to ponder about this, or did you just do what felt right? Why would it be any different with homosexuals? I know that you don't have to agree with me about this or any other topic, but sheesh man, I think you are way off the wall on this one. - 21:48:08 on 24 May 99 GMT

Carl :JOETTE: You make me laugh to say I'm some homophobe, that is funny. For me such a thing is as far out as religious thinking. I can't begin to put myself in their place to understand what they do whenever or wherever they pray and bless each other. In either the religious or the gay folk, I think it best to see them as choosing to carry on as they do. I guess you've seen the report that said there is a place in the brain where religion as an experience could be oriented? Is that true, does that possibility do anything for the religious? I can't say I am not a religious kinda a guy. The best light I can put either kinda person, the religious and gay types, is to see them as making a choice to be as they are. Why? I am not either kinda person, never have been and probably won't become one or the other. Homophobe, eh? - 22:24:12 on 24 May 99 GMT

PapaSam :Carl and Joette. I am not knowledgable in the area of homosexuality. Oddly enough, at my age, I have never met anyone who has admitted to being gay. From what I have read, however, I can only say that I have never heard of any gay person state he or she chose to be gay. Can either of you name one? - 23:47:44 on 24 May 99 GMT

Joette :Papasam - no, I have never met a homosexual or lesbian who said they chose to be homosexual or lesbian. Rather, they did their utmost to deny that part of themselves for fear of hatred and ridicule. I know several homosexual men and lesbian women, so I am not just going on written reports. Most today still try to hide the fact that their sexual orientation is not heterosexual so that they are not privy to such comments as Carl has made today. Most also don't go around advertising their sexual preference either, just as you or I don't run around discussing it openly. I have never before heard it compared to religion. - 0:01:22 on 25 May 99 GMT

PapaSam :Ricky. The history of life goes back over a billion years. You have obviously read a good deal about DNA but by some quirk of your mind you attempt to equate science with the bible, a book written by herdsmen about two thousand years ago. Where in the bible do you find any scientific data? God making Eve out of Adam's rib? The sun standing still? You always find religion looking to science for backup, but you will never see a scientist looking in the bible to back up his science. The idiocy of the Noah's Ark story should be obvious to you, but you choose to ignore it. If you live in the city and watch some one using a "pooper scooper" to clean up after a ddog, it just might dawn on you of the immensity of cleaning up the shit on the ark, letting alone feding them. - 0:04:03 on 25 May 99 GMT

Doug :<CENTER><U><B>WATER IN BIOSPHERE</B> <B> VOLUME</B> <B>THOUSANDS <B>PER CENT</B> <B>OF KM<SUP>3 <B>OF TOTAL</B> <B>RENEWAL TIME</B> <B>Oceans 1,370,000 97.61 3100 years<SUP>a <B>Polar ice, glaciers</B> 29,000 2.08 16,000 years <B>Groundwater (actively exchanged)<SUP>b 4,000 0.29 300 years <B>Freshwater lakes</B> 125 0.009 1-100 years<SUP>c <B>Saline lakes</B> 104 0.008 10-1000 years<SUP>c <B>Soil and subsoil moisture</B> 67 0.005 280 days <B>Rivers 1.2 0.00009 12-20 days<SUP>d <B>Atmospheric water vapor</B> 14 0.0009 9 days a=Based on net evaporation from oceans b=Kalinin and Bykov (1969)estamated that the total grownwater to a depth of 5 km in the earth's crust amounts to 60&#215;10<SUP>6. This is a much greater than the estimate by the USGS of 8.3&#215;10<SUP>6. Only the volume of the upper, actively exchanged groundwater is included here. c= Renewal times for lakes vary directly with the volume and mean depth, and inversely with the rate of discharge. The absolute range for saline lakes is from days to thousands of years. d=Twelve days for rivers with relatively small catchment areas than 100,000 km<SUP>2 20 days for major rivers that drain directly to the sea. The biblical narrative (Genesis 7:19) relates that flood water coverd "all the high mountains under the whole heaven." But how much additional water was needed? Computation, using the sphere-volume formular, 4/3pi r<SUP>3, where the earth's radius is 3,959 miles (6,371 km) and Mt. Everest's height is 29,029 feet or 5.5 miles (8,848 m), shows that an additioal 1,085 million cubic miles would have been required to raise the sea level above Mt. Everest. The ratio 1,085:316 gives a water volume that is 3.4 times greater than earth's available ocean water inventory. Obviously, creationists must find additional water--or else drastically manipulate earth's topography. A similar computation of water needed to raise sea level above Mt. Ararat, where Noah's ark is said to have landed, gives 2.2 additional ocean volumes. - 1:09:34 on 25 May 99 GMT

Doug :Ricky; the absurtiy of your views are evident, all; I mean all the evidence points to an old earth and no noah flood. If you choose to try to make history and science fact fit into your myth then you are pathetic. A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale (1) 4000 B.C. Creation Week: (laws of science suspended) Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials. Day 2 - Waters above and waters below. Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants. Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place. Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters. Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve. Day 7 - Day of rest. 1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid. (2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc. (3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground water. No rain, no ocean basins. (4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed. (5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before the "fall." (6) Human life spans up to 900 years. (7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon. Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science" Rain - 40 days (8) Big animals run to mountain tops. Not a single dumb human caught in all the early flood sediments. All dinosaurs washed off only in middle flood-time. (9) Coral reefs (Guadalupe Mountains of Texas) grow to thicknesses of half a mile during single year. (10) Vast coal beds accumulate one on top of another, each as original swamp deposits on order of 100 feet thick, all in one year. (11) Mile-thick salt formations in Utah form by evaporation (!) of seawater during (!) the flood. Flood - about 250 days. (12) Most of the world's sedimentary rocks dumped on continents to average thickness of one mile, almost entirely during the flood year. (13) Most continental drif occurs. Flood waters drain into the newly formed ocean basins. Atlantic opens at average rate of 1/2 mile per hour. (14) Most deep sea sediments (average about 1,500 feet thick) collect on the newly opened ocean floors. (15) Hawaiian volcano built 30,000 feet high on new sea floor. (Cools enough for birds and plants from Ark to colonize soon after end of flood year. Final Retreat - ? 100 days ? (16)Volcano of Mount Ararat built 7,000 feet high underwater and cools in time for grounding of the Ark. (17) Successive Yellowstone ash beds bury 10 to 27 forests one on top of another, all grown during single year. (18) Grand Canyon cut by receding flood waters. Flood sediments de-water and harden in one year to rock strong enough to stand as steep, mile-hile cliffs. Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to Present (19)From Ark, Noah (?) directs streams of distinctive animal and plant communities to migrate to Africa, Australia, South America, etc. (Ferry service ?) (Some creationists use post-flood continental drift at rates up to one mile per hour !) (20)Sun stands still for Israelite battle. Earth stops rotating and then starts again due to near-miss by Venus out of its orbit ? (Velikovsky) (21)Only one ice age as post-flood atmosphere cools. Geologists' abundant evidence of many great ice advances separated by sub-tropical vegetation and development of thick soil zones between some advances are wrong. (22)Late-flood granite masses, formed at 1,000 degrees (F.), cool to present low temperatures at rates in violation of all laws of thermal physics. Fit to radiometric daes is mere coincidence. (23)Extreme rates of continental drift typical of flood (1/2 mile per hour) suddenly slow to present-day laser-measured rates of inches per year. Accord of present rates with radiometric dates is mere chance. (24)Coral reefs (Bikini, Eniwetok) grow 1/2 to 1 mile thick in first 1,000 years (rate of one foot per month) then slow to present measured rates of inches per century. - 1:23:27 on 25 May 99 GMT

Ricky :I believe that every thing we as humans do in life is made of choises. We either decide to do whats right or do what is wrong. Not every thing is spelled out as to right or wrong, leaving it up to us to decide. Whats right for me might be wrong for you and so on. - 1:47:08 on 25 May 99 GMT

Joette :Ricky - that's fine. I agree with you that we have a choice to do with nature what has been granted us. If you were born with mental retardation, your choices would be different than someone who has a 150 IQ, wouldn't it? So, your statement isn't completely correct. Now, did Noah have a choice to build that ark? If he had told god to go pound salt, would we be alive today? He didn't really have a fair alternative, did he? - 2:02:19 on 25 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Well, he had a choise. He, like we, might not have been happy with the choise made. - 2:52:53 on 25 May 99 GMT

Ticky :The above statement didn't come out like I ment for it to. I ment to say, He had a choise. He might not have been happy with the other choise he could have made, like us sometimes when we make the wrong choises. - 3:07:05 on 25 May 99 GMT

Marlene.. :RICKY- I don't want you to back out! Finally this board is discussing again! You may even say your one of it's saviors, lol! I just got home and have read today's banter. Good stuff! - 4:28:39 on 25 May 99 GMT

Peter ( getting his pogo stick ready for action ) :ricky--you are missing my point, and I am disappointed. The idea of 'chance' and you are still using it, is inapplicable here..even if the chance of the DNA molecule forming was one in 100 to the power of a bazillion. You are arguing this from the same perspective of lets say there was a lottery where the same huge number of tickets were sold, and the person who one refused to believe he won because the odds of doing so were so small. You see, when existents interchange with each other accoring to their nature, something will happen, and this is what happened, as all existents. Again, the idea of 'chance' is only applicable when events are predicted, and the influences on the outcome are unknown to those who are engaged in that prediction. Science knows the DNA molecule was formed, and they alsoo know that it is perfectly within the confines of natural law for this to have occured. Now to give another analogy of your argument spouting the long 'odds against' such a thing occuring. Now lets say a soothsayer who lived a thousand years ago predicted that some person called Peter would talk to some guy named Ricky on an internationally accessible media on May 25, 1999 at around 11:00AM EST about how the concept of 'chance' is inapplicable when it comes to the origins of life. The odds against that happening would be about as huge as a number as the one you ( and other anti-evolutionists ) love to spout..while the scientists roll their eyes. There are some other considerations here I would like to mention. The creationist aseerts that his explanation is entirely true..therefore ALL the evidence would have to conform to that assertion--inconclusively. The 'evolutionist' doesn't even confine himself to those boundaries, as heisn't really defending evoltion perse..he is defending rational and impartial extrapolation of evidence. In your defence of Noahs Ark in yesterday's post, your use of ad hoc assumptions in fact demolishes your own case. The creationists original position is a 'is for sure' and these 'could be's' ( water canppy's, ark big enough ) are NOT 'is for sures. I know it may be amusing to discover ways how the creationist model can be reconciliable with the evidence, but once one delves into this area of argument..ANY model of how the earth was originated could be argued. I could say the earth in fact was cut in half for a period of time, and came together, and make a case for it etc. It all comes down again to the burden of proof. The creationist asserts he is correct, therefore he assumes the burden of proof to make his case..not to point out 'possibilities' wherin his model can be reconciled - 15:36:30 on 25 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Some of what you say is true, Peter, there is no real proof of just how the world originated. However, no one can actually prove that George Washington was a President. We have to believe what someone else wrote and handed down for us to go by. Creationest believe by faith that there is a God. They go by what has been writen and passed down. Studies of the Bible has caused many to believe in a God. Bottom line, one must weigh the evidence and decide for himself. - 17:35:12 on 25 May 99 GMT

Carl :ANY: Is there a problem? - 14:17:38 on 26 May 99 GMT

Carl :RICKY: as this site was crashing yesterday it did drag down with it my initial response to your 25 May 99 post. While I may have lost the gut response the reflective response will include, be armed with the other matters I've taken in and now also know of, that I can bring to bear upon your post. I find your appeals to doubt of what one knows and then what one thinks they know almost interesting. Then you slip off into la la land when it seems that you offset the good quality of human doubt with some godthing. Of this you say that It has been 'written' of through time by prior human beings and that that was good enough for you, at this time. These godthings myths and tales are in, for you, the bible. Lets allow that you, a xian, take that collection of such as devinely inspired and see it as a "revelation". What is this? In this book, held by those called 'creationist', it reads that on "day one" light and a few other tidbits were made. Day One what is this supposed to be without a sun or the planet earth? Is this not something that one as introspectively bound as it seems you are, isn't that string of words worthy enough of doubt? Or do you assume that we are actually so godlike that we can somehow "understand" what the main godthing's deeds and communication of that occurence really meant? Or, instead, is it not just you and your desires to have that book to merely represent your wish[es]? - 15:53:54 on 26 May 99 GMT

PETER :ricky--again, you have shot yourself in the foot. You see, when you are aguing for creationism, you have committed yourself to this series of events occuring--inconclusively. But to assert that no one can prove for sure George Washington lived, etc. only damages your argument--and NOT the evolutionists. Another huge misconception committed by creationists is their assumption that the are huddled in one corner while the evolutionists are huddled in theirs. This is not so. The evolutionist ( or scientists ) actually INVITES, critcism of his position, and new evidence which may lead to a more accurate conclusion--exactly what the crreationist rejects. How could nny person have any respect for science had they ignored or rejected any of the arguments presented by creationists that look upon evolution unfavourably? Do you actually think that the scientific community hasn't considered any of the allegations you have made that would certainly seem to discredit some claims made by evolution? If they did..by what means could mankind depend upon as an impartial body to distinguish truth from reality? And now your statement that creationists believe because their faith in God, is just where I was trying to lead you to demonstrate that any further arguments made by you in this area are no longer worth any serious consideration. By having 'faith' in anything..means nothing whatsoever,,other than denying the very reference points upon which your original arguments depended upon. If the claim that 'faith' is what legitimizes your position were an accepted argument..then any person anywhere, could claim anything, and then validate those claims by saying they are takwn on faith..leaving the door open for any claim to be shown to be valid--regarless of how preposterous it may seem to be. Now getting back to my original statement of why creationists exist. (a) they will go to any lengths to keep their beliefs in God intact, and (b)they argue and reason extremely poorly--and you have demonstrated these to points in flying colors. But I'm not The creationists method of cognition is ultimately results using faith --as you have demonstrated. Having 'faith' in something ( in religious terms ) meany to actually alter, or ignore premises n order to keep particular desired conclusions intact..so to have faith actually means to ignore or alter reality--which coincidentally is the source of very evil act perpotrated by mankind. In other words, you are manouevering in extremely dangerous waters, and you don't even know it. - 18:08:47 on 26 May 99 GMT

PETER :,,ricky--Also..'Some' of what I say is true? I would be very interested then in hearing which parts are NOT true, and why you would consider it as such? - 18:24:12 on 26 May 99 GMT

Carl :P'SAM: of your inquirey, yes I can. The guy admits to havin a gal or two back when. Even has some photos. But, I paid no mind to the details back then, but it seems he said something to the effect of why not, and now he's a gay guy. Ever read Otto Weininger's,"Sex and Character"? In it are some very interesting references about the sex thing. The book reports, a quickie here, that we all have some of the opposite sex in whatever we are. Some have more, or less and this thing can be found in critters in general. The single cell organisms can reproduce only because these things have the required stuff to successfully reproduce alone. Evolution of such organisms is difficult whereas in the male and female human evolution is a good thing because of the vast differences that are in each sack o'cells, that is all whatever we are, is. It how my view forms of reading such writings, that includes assorted other books on genetics, that I for now see of such sexual matters, as being a choice. - 19:55:19 on 26 May 99 GMT

Doug : Carl; you really think it's a choice being gay? From what I've read and seen it's prewired(most likely genetic). I know it's politically incorrect to view it this way but if a guy gets turned on by male Pheromones then the recepters in the brain aren't like mine.I certainly haven't found any valid studies the other way (Freud just didn't know what he was talking about and could/didn't back it up with any scientific data).Now I believe that if we can tell what makes a bisexual we will have nailed down the topic.The prelimiary evidence points to a female carrier geneticly; gays seem to run in families.There is a great possibility of a recessive gene(Freud's latent, hahaha)in reproducing people. - 4:02:22 on 27 May 99 GMT

PapaSam :Carl. I do not consider myself an expert in the field of sexual orientation. I do know that there are bi-sexuals of either sex. However, I do not consider them true homosexuals. Are prison inmates who are raped over an extended period of time and then assume the role of "wife" to another inmate to be considered homosexuals? I don't know. - 4:30:09 on 27 May 99 GMT

Dr. Dennis :QUESTION: What was God doing for the infinite amount of time before he decided to create the universe. QUESTION: How can one arrive at the conclusion that their is a loving God by looking at the world the way it is with so much random and senseless killings via "Acts of Nature", "Sickness and Diseases", "Murderers", "Serial Killers", "Random Shootings"etc.etc. (Did you hear about the 11 year old girl taken to the woods, on the pretense of seeing baby raccoons, then getting raped and beat to death)....I am sorry to dissappoint so many christians's, but i have carefully studied life under the microscope---and i see no evidence or indication of a "good" Creator....INFACT, if i had to label my beliefs, it would have to be a cross between "Zen Buddists"(life is an error, bring the curtain down, end program, blow out the candle) and "Indian Philosophy" (the universe and the god that created it is EVIL)....FOR ALL YOU CHRISTIANS: even if all the evil was wiped out and every man alive was a sinless good person, it would not change anything very much....acts of nature and sickness and disease would not care and continually wipe out millions and our mechanical inventions (car and airplane especially) would still claim millions of innocent lives...Example, look at TITANTIC, the richest most prominent people were on that ship, along with innocent children and women...and just because a lifeless chunk of ice got in the way of a ship...MANY OF THOSE DIED!!!!And what was God doing while children drowned in those icy waters and froze to death---beating-off and getting a perverted kick out of it (you deserve that insult you Christians)what does the so-called good loving God do during all the other mass disasters and killings of innocent children.......Christians need to grow-up and face life realistically---do they still believe in Santa Claus,Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Unicorns and Lepprechauns????Of course i believe in a master-designer, but to state that the master-designer is GOOD and cares about the best interests of the human race is BULL CRAP!!!The bible is so full of crap...you ought to read some of the stories that are in it!!!Their are many "Noahs Ark" type bull crap in it that should insult any reasonably intelligent thinking human being!!!! - 10:21:45 on 27 May 99 GMT

Joette :Dr. Dennis...I thought you were just some good ole boy spouting off at the legend. Then I read your line "of course I believe in a master designer" so you must just be mad or something. So what if a god is good or bad, I'd just rather know if he/she/it exists somewhere other than in the minds of many people. - 11:35:58 on 27 May 99 GMT

PETER--( about to once again obnoxiously nail another one with the old'primacy of existence principle ) :Dr.Dennis--..and was this master designer conscious before he created all that exists..or did he merely rearrange what existed already? - 13:34:56 on 27 May 99 GMT

Carl :P'SAM; not an expert, eh? That would've been a misplaced sense o'value anyway. What is an expert among the all except them who'd serve those who'd seek to shirt about being thoughtfully responsible? - 19:51:35 on 27 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Peter, there are many, many scientist that are creationest. Not all are eve. Your "faith" is in evulotion. Mine is in creation. Being there is no "undenyable proof for either, you have to look at evidences offered for both and decide. While my gun's still smoking, can you prove GW was a president? - 22:39:49 on 27 May 99 GMT

WalStro :I don't understand why some atheists and agnostics argue ad naseum wih Xians. What for? You aren't going to change their minds and even if you did what would be the purpose of it, to inflate your own ego because you swayed somebody to your opinion? We have nothing to gain by arguing with Xians, all you do is give them recognition they do not deserve. They need to be given a real heavy dose of benign neglect. - 10:13:48 on 28 May 99 GMT

PassingThrough.. :I'll second that. - 12:58:45 on 28 May 99 GMT

Carl :WALSTRO: I think offering resistance to refractive dead-end o'theism is important to the subjectivness of the 'play' of subjectivity and self. In some the pretense and false imagery of theism is recognised in the same way a few see the nonsense of the world wrestling federation or the other wrestling thing, whatever it may be called. Is religion a kind of entertainment, sure it is. - 16:39:32 on 28 May 99 GMT

Peter :ricky-No, I don't have 'faith in evolution' . I may 'trust' scientific methods , but at no juncture do I alter or ignore premises that lead to a conclusion that i am terrified of abandoning. Science as such would never do such a thing--or else it it no longer would be science. YOU are the one who presumes that the concept of 'faith' is an acceptible method of cognition. Another ploy used by creationists is assuming that 'evolutionists' implement the same slothful methods that creationists do--but if they did, they too would no longer be scientists. And it looks like i am going to have to address every one of the creationist cliche arguments with you as well. Don't fall for the 'many scientists are creationists' there may be some people with science degrees, but at last count 99% of all scientists who's area of study involves the same ones which evolution does, not only acept evolution--they also reject any form of divine intervention in the process. Incidentally, it really doesn't matter how many scientists are for or against evolution anyway, as all this is is an d populum, as well as an ad veredunciam--but irrelevant arguments. So to argue there are many scientists who are creationists, again is inapplicable - 19:27:05 on 28 May 99 GMT

PETER :walstro--Oh believe me, they may not admit it here, but they DO change their minds. - 19:29:17 on 28 May 99 GMT

PETER ( getting tired of jumping up and down in the same spot on his pogo stick ) :???????ricky--can I prove GW was the president? Now didn't I address this line of argument a few posts ago, and didn't I also mention that by going into this area of argument only demolishes your own argument. Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it, or else why would you again set yourself up for more punishment? - 19:37:18 on 28 May 99 GMT

PapaSam :WalStro. Some people enjoy fishing, some enjoy more sedentary pursuits. I enjoy reading the pathetic attempts by creationists to justify their beliefs. Where else but in fairy tales do people talk with animals, or animals talk with each other? Take your pick. Aesop's Fables, .the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, our own Peter Rabbit and our cartoon characters. They are right in there with the bible, from the serpent in the Garden of Eden to Ballaam's ass. I can visualise Ricky arguing with Donald Duck over the parting of the Red Sea. - 23:12:21 on 28 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Who's arguing? I ask questions, give my views, share my beliefs, and now I'm arguing? I don't think Marlene argues with me, we simply have a disscusions about certain matters. Am I right Marlene? - 23:49:36 on 28 May 99 GMT

PETER ( very close to stating 'If you wanna play on this rink, bring your skates, buddy ) :???ricky????---an argument is when you make a proposition, state a belief, and then attempt to support those propositions by means of premises. This IS what you have been doing isn't it? So to answer your question, 'Who's arguing' --YOU are arguing--and it seems you are such a poor one at that-you don't even know when you ARE arguing...or are we now going to argue about what an argument actually is? - 16:13:26 on 29 May 99 GMT

Ricky :Well Peter, I guess I won't argue about it! - 16:46:18 on 29 May 99 GMT

Grant :OPEN-- Since the web hosting service moved us to a new server, some people are not able to access this site. The why is a mystery to me, and to the hosting service. If anyone had problems and solved them please post the solution here or by e-mail to admin@man-made.net - 5:21:06 on 30 May 99 GMT

Grant :RICKY-- ANY-- Marlene can't access this site but is monitoring the old site. - 5:33:01 on 30 May 99 GMT

Ricky :I don't understand why Marlene can't get the page if others can. Looks like when it's down, it's down! She hasn't answered me on the other page either. - 4:09:51 on 31 May 99 GMT

Marlene :Hi It's me Marlene! I'm posting from another server right now. I think my problem may be that my server can't access this one. Anyhow stopped by to say HI! I have to contact someone at my server to see if it's a problem to access it for them too. I notice no posts from Carl, maybe he has a problem too! See some of you at the old site tonight. Later! - 17:28:32 on 31 May 99 GMT